< 9 May	11 May >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nowhere in our guidelines is it written that being a "major artery road of a major city" according to Google Maps guarantees notability. And WP:STREET is just a rule of thumb that doesn't specify which streets are notable. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

East Boulevard[edit]

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

Non-notable local street (appears to fail GNG). Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 17:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 19:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. -- Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 19:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't see anything that would be useful in a locality article either. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking at G-maps, this appears to be a major artery road of a major city that includes sections of multiple numbered highways including U.S. Route 80, U.S. Route 231 and Alabama State Route 53. --Oakshade (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Question I can accept that US highways have their own article, sure. That makes sense. But this is just a local road name for the same highway isn't it? Start going down that route and all of a sudden you have the potential for massive duplication - shouldn't we deal with this in either the locality article or on the major route article? In either (or both) cases it's not going to amount to more than a sentence or two of notable information in most cases is it? I just don't see how this road justifies an article all to itself. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those are in fact multiple highways that branch out into multiple different directions but converge for this stretch. In this case you are correct as long stretches of the continuous road have different name designations, East Road and Eastern Road for example. I'm okay with merging Eastern Boulevard (Alabama) into this one and containing content of the former.--Oakshade (talk) 21:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any coverage of this road that isn't an address. The one passing mention of it I saw said it's also known as "the bypass" locally, but I couldn't find any coverage of that either. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems like this street is in Cleveland, from google searching... clearly not this street. 64.229.100.153 (talk) 05:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

huh? --Oakshade (talk) 05:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Baseball Watcher 23:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While numbered routes have consensus notability by themselves, named streets on which they travel through a particular geographic area do not appear to automatically inherit said notability. I see no evidence of standalone notability of this particular stretch of pavement to satisfy WP:GNG. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, probably. Per WP:STREET, Montgomery is entitled to 4 or 5 street article (for the city) or nine (for the metro area). Is East Boulevard one of the four or five most notable streets in Montgomery (or nine for the area)? Maybe. If not, it's probably close. The article says that it's a "major arterial road". The notable entity Winton M. Blount Cultural Park is located on the street. It's a major commercial street. It's heavily traveled. The Eastdale Mall is on it. It seems to be an important part of the fabric of Montgomery, which is a large (second largest in Alabama) and historically significant regional center. I don't see the gain in removing an article about it. Full disclosure, though: I like street articles and have written a couple myself. Herostratus (talk) 22:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability in cultural, infrastructure or other terms. If other articles had referenced this entry, it might have been worth keeping. However, as a stand-alone article with no context, it fails WP:NOTE and I do not see another compelling reason to keep it around. Ebikeguy (talk) 00:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Holmes County District Public Library[edit]

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

Library appears to be non-notable. Google search failed to provide enough coverage in multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources to prove notability. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 17:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 19:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 19:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after taking whatever's useful and putting it in a short paragraph in the locality article. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to locality page. Delete/merge is not a viable option given our licensing schemas, AFAIK. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Baseball Watcher 23:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete gnews only confirms it hosts run of the mill community events. LibStar (talk) 03:52, 11 May 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 Hanover High School (Mechanicsville, Virginia). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The hawk eye (newspaper)[edit]

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

Non-notable high school newspaper. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Seaphoto^Talk 04:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge content into Hanover High School (Mechanicsville, Virginia) if it isn't there already. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 07:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hanover High School (Mechanicsville, Virginia). I have merged content into the target so outright deletion would breach our GFDL obligations. There are, though, alternative courses of action, if converting to redirect is considered objectionable such as moving the article to a sub-page of the talk page of the target and deleting the resulting redirect. TerriersFan (talk) 14:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A merge/redirect does seem like a sensible option, the loaded gun threat of GFDL breaking aside. In point of fact merging an article while a discussion is underway is generally considered an attempted fait accompli. If you were really that worried about it a history merge is the way to go as opposed to trying to force your preffered result with a pre-emptive merger. And of course if a consensus to delete emerges the merger can simply be undone, so it's an empty threat anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it was not a threat; it was just a statement. I don't have a preferred result; frankly I really couldn't care less what happens to such an inconsequential page. All that I'm doing is making the point that GFDL needs to be looked after, whether by a redirect or the alternative means I suggested, or by a history merge (as you properly suggested) doesn't matter. I would make the point in passing that WP:BEFORE encourages merging to be actively considered before proposing deletion and there is no evidence that nominator has addressed this. Whatever happens as a result of this AfD then content can be subsequently merged/re-added as a simple editorial action. In truth, I find it hard to get very excited either way. TerriersFan (talk) 22:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Baseball Watcher 23:49, 10 May 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adlatina[edit]

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

I am unable to find any reliable sources to establish notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 23:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 07:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Baseball Watcher 23:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that the subject does not meet the relevant notability guideline. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Conservative[edit]

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

Delete. No reliable independent references, notability not demonstrated, fails all criteria at WP:WEB. WWGB (talk) 00:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 00:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 00:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 00:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep'. Highly notable website. Has articles written by very notable Senators (Cory Bernardi and Barnaby Joyce). Meets criteria 4 at WP:WEB.Timbracks13 (talk) 01:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain what you mean? There isn't a criteria 4. -- Lear's Fool 01:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Keep !voter (and author of the article) has been banned as a sockpuppet. WWGB (talk) 05:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nominator. -- Lear's Fool 01:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, zero independent sources. Assertions of WP:ITSNOTABLE aside, there has been no credible demonstration of notability. Having notable people post on your blog once in a while does not make your blog notable.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 03:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - What a clear CSD... why is our time wasted with this? Shadowjams (talk) 09:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. I see nothing to indicate that it meets WP:WEB, and in particular, it fails to meet the non-existent point 4 whatever that may be. -- Whpq (talk) 14:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications of notability. It's worth nothing that the article was created by a sock puppet of a blocked editor. Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above - insufficient coverage to show notability. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011–12 Preston North End F.C. season[edit]

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

Contains no actual information, only speculation Jameboy (talk) 23:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As part of the bigger scheme of 2011-12 seasons by club, which will have more info as the season starts. I've added a ref about their relegation as a starting point. Lugnuts (talk) 06:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 14:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article will improve over course of season. Has valid content needs improvement not deletion 16:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)Warburton1368 (talk)
Keep. It will improve in due course. I'm not keen on the amount of tables some of these articles have, especially ones which contain no sourced information, but it's a notable article nonetheless. Argyle 4 Life^talk 18:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Will improve when Season starts and more information becomes available. Kante4 (talk) 14:07, 16 May 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} 03:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flirting With Disaster (American Dad!)[edit]

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

Not enough information to merit own page. JDDJS (talk) 23:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate or redirect to American Dad! (season 6), at least until the after the episode actually airs. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 23:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Each article has been created in advance before the episode aired. Plot, production, and critical reception information will be released as after the episode airs, in about five days from now. 89119 (talk) 02:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Upcoming/recent episode that should have enough coverage to warrant an article, and part of a wider scheme of the episodes for this TV show. Maybe the nominator would like to fix it? Lugnuts (talk) 06:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Waste of time nominating, it airs in like two days, why go through the whole process just to recreate it? By the time this deletion will be processed it will already be released and the article added to.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate, or Userfy if requested, as per Erpert. Unscintillating (talk) 00:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No reason to "incubate" or "userfy" when the episode is about to air in about 40 minutes in the US Eastern Time Zone. 89119 (talk) 22:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Episode has now aired. Gage (talk) 01:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The matter should now be closed User:Jackdyson 21:26 - 16/05/2011 GMT
Comment Article is still a draft in namespace. Unscintillating (talk) 23:38, 16 May 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} 03:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gorillas in the Mist (American Dad!)[edit]

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

Not enough information to merit own page. JDDJS (talk) 23:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate or redirect to American Dad! (season 6), at least until the after the episode actually airs. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 23:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Each article has been created in advance before the episode aired. Plot, production, and critical reception information will be released as after the episode airs, on May 22. 89119 (talk) 02:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Upcoming/recent episode that should have enough coverage to warrant an article, and part of a wider scheme of the episodes for this TV show. Maybe the nominator would like to fix it? Lugnuts (talk) 06:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, imminent release, information will become available soon. This isn't a stub for a film coming out in a year, it's an article for an episode released in less than 7 days and these things are often created in advance. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate, userfy, or delete This article is using namespace as a place for a draft. Unscintillating (talk) 00:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Lugnuts. Gage (talk) 01:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, despite this article being a stub for the time being, as said above it is going to be released very shortly and will become useful after it has aired and expansion/cleanup is done.Yapool Seijin (talk) 01:32, 18 May 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 Syracuse University. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Syracuse University ambulance[edit]

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

Reads like the Myspace or Facebook page for this student club. Does not meet notability guidelines for organizations. Supplied references are largely primary ones or to the school newspaper and I'm not finding significant coverage where the organization is the focus beyond that. Definitely worth a mention in a larger article on the university but not a dedicated article. There is some mention of awards but in the end this is a volunteer EMS and a student club at a university. RadioFan (talk) 12:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just a comment that this discussion on deletion of this article is not intended to question the value of the organization or the work the students put into it, only about whether or not a dedicated Wikipedia article is appropriate. RadioFan (talk) 12:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree the article does need a lot of work. Does read a little like a PR piece rather than an encyclopedia article. Will give them a couple weeks to address this before I decide. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probable delete - with anything useful getting it's own subsection in the Syracruse University article - probably right after the Fraternities bit. I'd like to say keep, but it doesn't seem to have attracted any media coverage outside of the the campus newspaper as far as I can tell. A paragraph would do as a summary anyway I think. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG Jnorton7558 (talk) 08:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Merge as it makes sense to include some information on the Syracuse University page and Bearian. Jnorton7558 (talk) 08:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Syracuse University, per WP:ORG and WP:OUTCOMES. Past precedent is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beacon Volunteer Ambulance Corps. Bearian (talk) 23:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Baseball Watcher 21:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Bearian. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:26, 13 May 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 Graham Colton. Redirecting as an editorial decision. Consider this a no consensus close. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here Right Now[edit]

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

Charted at $153 on the billboard top 200 for a very short time, which may or may not be notable enough for a keep. One single was used on television as well, but failed to chart anywhere. over all notability is borderline. perhaps a redirect as the little bit of content here can help fill up the lacking main article Graham Colton which needs major work. Alan - talk 23:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if only because the song is notable to me. CycloneGU (talk) 01:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment this isn't about a song, it's about an album, I'm a big fan of Graham Colton myself, but because you and I like the album and songs on it doesn't make it notible. Alan - talk 04:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit ambiguous here, I'd be best to clarify. I mean that a certain song from the album is notable, thus I think the album itself could have an argument for being worth keeping even if not as notable. CycloneGU (talk) 04:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was plenty of coverage for the album when it was released, unfortunately it's all since gone from the internet, only small articles are left on mostly unreliable sources. I'd like to save the article somehow, but can't find anything to do that with as per sources/refs/cites. Even Graham's own official site has changed and all content back to these days are gone from it. I tried the internet wayback machine, but it's lacking too much. on a personal note, thanks at least for not being like most here pushing opinions, i'm here nominating an article about someone I know and like.. somethign most would never do. Alan - talk 04:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - If both the artist and a song from the album were notable, I'd favor keeping the article even if the album if itself is not notable. However, Graham Colton himself is just borderline notable; only one song of his is well-known, and he doesn't seem to have made a successful career out of that one song. Hence, the only reason to have an article on the album is because it includes a notable song. That is not enough to justify keeping an article dedicated solely to the album.--Martin IIIa (talk) 23:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, as it probably only needs a section in the main article. Peter E. James (talk) 23:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Baseball Watcher 21:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Colton is certainly notable, and if, as the nominator has stated "There was plenty of coverage for the album when it was released" then the album is notable. What we have is verifiable and the article can be expanded using sources such as Allmusic's review, Charts & Awards, and credits, and Dallas Morning News. It wouldn't be the best album article we have, but it would be better than deleting it.--Michig (talk) 06:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Affirmations[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Having survived one AfD, the article has seen zero improvement. The creator and the only two substantial editors of the article are long-gone, and the prospect of the article ever meeting WP standards seems pretty low. » Swpb^{τ • ¢} 20:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Actually, what I really think should happen here is a merge to CrossWalk America, but there's no there there at the moment. There are third-party sources for this, although, in general, they look to support an article on the organization/event more than the affirmations themselves. This 2006 article in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer actually isn't half bad. Other possible (paywalled) references include brief coverage in the Wichita Eagle and a series of articles[1][2][3][4] in the Arizona Republic and a Journal & Courier article that appears (from Google search fragments) to discuss the history of CrossWalk America in some depth. All of which is well and good, but still doesn't fix the problems here. Serpent's Choice (talk) 21:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Baseball Watcher 21:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and Serpent - while it sounds great, it has had very little coverage as of yet. Bearian (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The delete !voters make a slightly stronger argument here. However, it has been suggested that there may be sources in Chinese so if somebody does find additional sources they are welcome to create a new article. This might be the best route as it has been mentioned that the one we're discussing here is promotional in tone. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tan Haur[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Procedural reboot of an AFD in which an editor removed the AfD notice from the article. Artist of arguable notability under WP:ARTIST.

In my opinion, the closest things to significance are the residency reference and maybe the show exhibition press releases. Note that the Saatchi stuff is essentially self-published (Artists can simply create their own, as I have created one for myself, there is no editorial verification of the uploaded information.)

Other than that point, I'd ask that my nomination not be considered a delete or a keep !vote, simply procedural.

I'd ask everyone looking at this to insure that the AfD notice is not removed this time around. -- joe decker ^{talk to me} 21:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep There seem to be a number of awards, Would the nom care to comment on them? DGG ( talk ) 23:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't have any prior knowledge on any of them, so far I've looked at the SI Foundation, and was able (a few minutes back) to find verification of that award to Tan Haur on their site. In looking for secondary coverage of the award, (e.g., is getting the award a Big Deal?) in English I found only [5] from gnews archives, well, that and a story that's offline now. The article I linked suggests just under 200 recipients in the last decade from Signapore, and an average grant amount of circa $4K US. Not speaking Chinese, it's quite possible i"m missing Chinese-language sources. I am gratified to see the award is verifiable through a reliable source. More digging when I get a chance. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 00:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree the Saachi stuff is self-published, but the residency and references to Bejing exhibition establish some notability. --Whiteguru (talk) 00:40, 24 April 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, Baseball Watcher 12:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment - its just a promotional article about a not really notable person - Similar to if someone wrote their own biography. I clicked on a couple of links that were just front pages like http://burgmann.anu.edu.au/ with no mention of the subject. Off2riorob (talk) 12:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neither the awards nor the exhibition rise to notability. I also agree with the arguments of joe decker from the first AfD. Wickedjacob (talk) 15:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Baseball Watcher 21:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It could always be that there are Chinese sources out there but none has come up and I wasn't able to find anything else. The article is definitely promotional - frankieMR (talk) 00:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've seen C-beams glitter in the dark near there --MoonLichen (talk) 05:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Delete Young artist, doesn't seem notable yet. Johnbod (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that there are not independent reliable sources available that would be sufficient to meet the notability guideline. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PWA Australia[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:CORP. Nikki♥311 21:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 21:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 21:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete blatant advert. nothing in gnews. LibStar (talk) 07:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Without prejudice (or userfy) There are no references in the article, nor is there the evidence in this AfD to show that the topic is not notable. Given no proof one way or the other, deletion without prejudice allows the article to be re-written from scratch. But if requested, userfy, as the current article is well-organized and could have unreferenceable material cut, inline citations added, and spammy clauses re-written. Unscintillating (talk) 02:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't seem to find any suitable sources, it's mentioned on a lot of wrestling webpages but none of them are screaming "reliable source" to me. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:04, 16 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Veolia Energy-Dalkia[edit]

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

This company's only claim to fame appears to be its unsourced claim of being the "leader in energy services in Europe". There are no 3rd-party sources. The PROD was removed claiming that "due diligence shows PROD to be invalid", but nothing was added except a ((primary sources)) tag. Thus it appears to fail WP:CORP. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to be a promotional article. CycloneGU (talk) 00:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable. A major component in a very large multinational corporation. Of course it needs expansion and sources, but that is not grounds for deletion. Rather than being spammy, it rather fails for saying too little. --AJHingston (talk) 08:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the proof? I went through pages of searches after my PROD was removed, and the only place that claims it "is a leading energy services company" is the company's own website. There are also really no third-party sources that I could find which discuss the company in detail. Thus it fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The proof is in the Google Books and News searches linked below. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. More useful searches than the ones linked above: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's not needed. It's already covered in Veolia Environnement. The relevant section of that article gives more info about the subject than the article proposed for deletion. Asnac (talk) 12:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As things stand a redirect would probably do. But it is a major weakness of Wikipedia that a commercial enterprise on this scale is reduced to a couple of lines. Wiki guidelines are largely at fault, I fear. Almost any information will come from the organisation itself, especially encyclopaedic information about finances, employees, and activities. So called third party sources are almost entirely dependent on material published by the company (if they differ they are likely to be wrong) and analysis is commercially valuable and not freely available. Much the same tends to apply to the public sector. But it really should not be necessary to question the notability of an organisation with a turnover in the billions of Euros. --AJHingston (talk) 13:19, 25 April 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 21:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as it seems that my contributions to the debate don't get taken into account unless I preface them with that word in bold. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources exist to establish notability and expand the article. Being a "leading" company is press release bullpiffle, and pretty much most companies make such claims. -- Whpq (talk) 14:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, but not many divisions of multinationals have a turnover of around 12 billion US dollars, roughly equal to the GDP of Albania and only just short of that of Iceland! Since the accounts are audited and the company reports regulated by law they would seem to provide a sufficiently reliable source for a more factual account. --AJHingston (talk) 23:19, 11 May 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marlon Arias[edit]

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

Non-notable Minor League player who hasn't played since 2009. Adam Penale (talk) 21:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not a big fan of deleting AAA players, but with only 5 AAA games and no other evidence of notability, I don't think there is much to support keeping. Rlendog (talk) 20:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:14, 13 May 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 per consensus and as an unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adam C. Boyd[edit]

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

Delete. Notability is not established in accordance with the general notability guidelines or the topical notability guidelines for athletes. While the article states that the subject had a short career with the Philadelphia Eagles, I have not been able to verify this statement. In order to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true. It is not enough to make vague claims in the article or assert a subject's importance on a talk page or AfD page – the article itself must document notability through independent and reliable sources. At this point, the article is lacking in this area. Cind.amuse 20:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:V per nomination; I am also unable to find any independent sources that verify the claims made in the article. VQuakr (talk) 20:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While sufficient to invalidate CSD-A7, the statement is not backed up, nor does searching reveal any leads. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 21:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no coverage about him in reliable sources. I can confirm he played for Temple. But I am unable to confirm that he has played for the Philidelphia Eagles. A search in the NFL player historical database shows lots of Boyds but no Adam Boyd. -- Whpq (talk) 14:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete high school coaches are rarely notable, and this one does not appear to be an exception.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:59, 11 May 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 all. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of non-Japanese language Fullmetal Alchemist voice actors[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following similar pages:

Needlessly excessive amount of indiscriminate information about the non-English translations of various anime series. The Manual of Style for anime and manga articles recommend that non-English release information should be transwikied to a respective language's Wiki, and there is a precedent for deleting articles detailing non-notable translation differences. G.A.S ^talk 15:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --G.A.S ^talk 16:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, this really is not needed on wikipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Anthem of joy (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!What part of I know that don't you understand arond here.The truth is that I have trouble trying to be sure the articles I create meets good expectationsRespect the articles that you're trying to delete authority.And just so you know,I know Wikipedia is not collection of details.— IanRootBeerDubber (talk · contribs) 03:00, May 12 2011 (UTC)

Delete all Wikipedia is not a complete exposition of all possible detail. It's bad enough that we include English-language voice actors along with the original Japanese voice actors. However lists like this crosses the line of indiscriminate information. —Farix (t | c) 14:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 22:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - We include voice actor information in the character lists. This is just redundant. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Ezz[edit]

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

WP:V -- Possibly notable, but a long-term biography with negative unsourced statements which I haven't een able to verify. I've tried a few variations on this fellow's name and the usual sorurces, but I don't have the information necessary to search in Arabic which might help. There is an ambassador with a moderately similar name who doesn't appear to be the same person. Additional sources welcomed as always. joe decker ^{talk to me} 20:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 19:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N and WP:V unless someone can find a source. There are a few mentions of a political activist called Mohammed Ezzeldin but I'm fairly sure that's not the subject of this article. Appears to have been written by the subject (Mahmoud ez (talk · contribs)). Hut 8.5 10:50, 16 May 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. After some sourcing and the most recent relisting, a rough consensus exists that the subject meets the relevant notability guideline. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

B1A4[edit]

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

Twice speedily deleted A7, this up coming band has too little history and achievement to have been documented by recognised reliable sources which assert notability according to the Wikipedia criteria for music groups. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only once speedily deleted and that was before the album was added. This time it is only up for discussion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:Ganki (talk • contribs|Ganki (talk • contribs]] ([[User talk:Ganki (talk • contribs|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ganki (talk • contribs|contribs]])

Deleted twice. Please stick to the facts and sign your posts. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's right. It was deleted twice. I was still adding things to the page and checking sources, with the editor open, when he deleted it the first time. I continued making my changes because he had deleted it before I was even finished. It was after I had finished adding things that he deleted it the second time. Snowclrops (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: As mentioned, this is a new band. As such many people who are just finding out about them would benefit from having the page up so they can learn who they are. They are important simply because they are new which is what most of their coverage and interest has been about so far. In the next week or two, when people have lost interest because they are no longer new, if they have not managed to garner enough attention or activity to keep the page, then the page should be deleted for they aren't important enough to have a page indefinitely. However, I don't believe deleting the page in the meantime will help anyone or Wikipedia and would most likely will just cause someone else to recreate the page as we've already seen in this case. Snowclrops (talk) 02:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it's not a question of not helping anyone. An encyclopedia is a resource of subjects that are already notable, and proven to be so. This band is far too new to have acquired the minimum of recognition, and at this time they do not meet Wikipedia criteria at WP:BAND, there are no WP:RS reliable sources to prove it, and the band are not likely to meet these criteria in the immediate future. Liking a band, or 'believing' they are good, are not in the rules. Userfying the page probably won't help, because there is a limit to the time a draft article can remain in user space - especially one that clearly promotes a subject. An article can always be created easily enough when the band is ready for it, and can be supported by referenced sources. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You don't follow kpop, do you? I think I finally figured out where you're coming from. If this was an American band, I'd probably agree with you. Five guys make a boy band (which hasn't been popular in the US for like a decade). They've just come out, just released a mini-album, and you've never heard of them. Are they with Disney? No. Nickelodeon? No. Then obviously, they're probably going to fail in half a year and are entirely un-notable.

That's what I would say if this were American music too, but it isn't. I have every confidence that within two months they'll probably chart (though probably not high), probably be on the radio (definitely a music program), probably be featured in at least one TV show, and it'll meet the requirements for a band. Heck, within probably two days (not sure of the schedule), there will be a link of them joining the rotation of a music program which will fit criteria 11 of WP:BAND. You say that's not likely in the immediate future and that I'm optimistic and just "like" the band and "believe" they'll be good. No, that's not true. I just know how kpop works.

I was skeptical at first, because there are some groups who just pop up with little notice and pop out just as fast, but I think they've shown already that they're not going to be that type of group. See, most groups are formed...no trained over several years. They're a major financial commitment. If a good company creates a group, they're not going to disappear right away. They'll stick with it. Beyond that, Korea has a ton of shows dedicated towards idols that they constantly want filled with new talent.

For example, check out Infinite. They came out a year ago in a similar situation and they have a similar image to B1A4. Their management company was small with only one hit group Epik High (which isn't even an idol group, I believe). Yet, they managed to chart with their first album, had a full hour long variety show just about them shortly after debuting, was on regular rotation in all the music shows, and even had a short TV series that featured a behind-the-scenes look at the band before the debuted. Were they a breakaway hit? No, they were just a regular band in Korea, but that's what often happens in Korea.

So while none of this proves that they right now meet the requirements of bands (which I just have to admit are kind of biased in the way they're written to accommodate how the American music industry works), I hope this makes you realize that we're not crazy fanatics. This is just how kpop works. While none of this is referenced, please note that the Korean page on Wikipedia for B1A4 was created several days before even the first English article was posted with pretty much the same information and it has yet to be flagged as not notable and I highly doubt it will. Why do you figure that is? Snowclrops (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unique contribution to the Korean music industry: B1A4 has had a unique contribution to the music industry already just by the way they chose to market themselves pre-debut. By using a webtoon they have gained much attention from web, by appealing to fans in this unique way they have already gained many fans. Many would even attribute this marketing tactic as the reason why they became a world wide twitter trend. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

This has got absolutely nothing to do with whether Wikipedia editor follow certain topics or not. Editors do not express their opinions here based on whether they like it or not. Experienced editors comment here on the subject's capacity to met the criteria. This band does not, because it cannot proof of notability according to WP:RS and and WP:V. Verifiability, not truth, is Wikipedia's fundamental core policy. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:BAND. Therefor it should be deleted. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 14:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does meet [[WP:BAND] being that they have published web based web comics (subject of numerous published work). Second they have released a music video. Third they have released an album. Fourth, even if two days early, they are scheduled to appear on a national television program to promote their album. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganki (talk • contribs) 14:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They meet criteria 2 for WP:BAND. They currently are number 86 on the real-time Melon chart, a national music chart. The page says they're down 16 spots which would suggest that they've reached at least number 70. I would post a picture but I'm not sure that would meet Wikipedia's strict copyright standards, but I have it if it is requested. I'm not updating the main page, because it would be better to use another chart that keeps records like the Gaon Chart rather than a real-time chart there, and it'll take more than a day for those charts to be compiled. Snowclrops (talk) 04:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it matters, they're still up and at 56. Snowclrops (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still up, and at 28. Snowclrops (talk) 16:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments are allowed, but please do not !vote twice. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: They meet Criteria 11 of WP:BAND. The main page has been updated. They are currently on rotation for the national music program Music Bank. This is verified by All Kpop, which I would consider a reliable news source especially considering there are videos. Snowclrops (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to their schedule, they are already scheduled to debut (and consequently be on rotation) on Mnet's M Countdown, KBS's Music Bank, and SBS's Inkigayo this weekend. These are notable under Criteria 11 and almost certain to take place. All of these are national music programs where they'll be performing on the same stage as some of the biggest kpop musicians. I'm not updating the main page because we've already noted that they've made their live debut. It may also be important to note that KBS World is broadcast on over 50 stations worldwide so this would actually mean they'll be performing on an international music program. Snowclrops (talk) 22:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snowclrops, please stop !voting here. Comment as much as you like if you think it will help, but only one vote. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, was trying to distinguish the point of the message, provide structure to a messy page, and make it clear where a new argument began, not actually vote more than once. Snowclrops (talk) 02:37, 25 April 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, Sandstein 06:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um...I'm not sure what the relisting thing means, but to clearly reiterate my points in one spot. The article was put up for deletion based on not meeting notability AKA WP:BAND. However, I believe they meet that criteria right now in at least two different ways. Namely, they meet Criteria 11 since they're on rotation on at least three music programs currently and plan to be on a fourth this Sunday. Namely, they've made their debut on Music Core, Music Bank, and M Countdown.

Furthermore, they meet Criteria 2 because they've consistently been on the real-time Melon chart as well as making the weekly Gaon Chart. Snowclrops (talk) 03:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Relisting' means that there has not been sufficient participation by the community for a closing administrator to measure a consensus as to whether the article should be kept or deleted. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vanity article of a band with no claim of notability. Keb25 (talk) 21:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note someone left a comment under the Discussion tab. Snowclrops (talk) 22:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the page with some of information about how they did on the charts. Please note that they rather impressively ranked #6 on the Gaon Chart for albums. Snowclrops (talk) 22:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 20:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They really do seem to pass criteria 2 what with the Melon and Gaon chart listings, and possibly 11 as well. Gaon is a national Korean music chart, and they're listed as peaking at 6 (so far). This band is also completely brand new, with an initial release on 4/21, so to be honest my initial instinct was to vote delete but...the guidelines do seem to support inclusion, and there's additional sourcing in the article.
I'd be very interested if anybody who speaks Korean or is familiar with Korean media could give some insight into the nature and quality of the additional sourcing. My vote could conceivably change if I'm misunderstanding something here, but Gaon is a national chart, at the very least. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted to WikiProject Korea's talk page to see if anybody more capable than I am of reviewing Korean sourcing can take a look at the article and advise. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're relisting the page again, then I can mention that they now also meet Criteria 12 of WP:BAND. Over the course of last week, they had several interviews on Starry Night radio which altogether totalled to roughly a half-hour broadcast. This was mentioned on All Kpop, but you can also find their interview on youtube, unfortunately I've yet to find a translation but that doesn't matter here. Parts 1, 2, and 3. Snowclrops (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By harrasing, badgering, canvassing, disruptive editing, and making personal attacks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's quite a laundry list of accusations. Care to supply any diffs supporting any of that? I agree this brand new editor has gone a bit overboard in his defense of the article in this AfD, but I see no harassment, badgering, canvassing, disruptive editing, and certainly no "personal attacks." I suggested that he take it down a notch with the over-posting in this AfD on his talk page the other day and his response to me was quite reasonable. That said, perhaps I'm missing something -- I certainly don't see evidence of any of your accusations in this AfD. I'm not suggesting you're being disingenuous, I just don't see any of this anywhere, and them's some serious accusation-bombs. Curious to know what you're referring to, is all. Not that this is remotely relevant to the matter at hand. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are probably a couple that I didn't add to the laundry list, but he knows what I'm talking about. Anyway, as you say, it's irrelevant now since this was relisted, and I've already !voted once. If he comes up with refs that hold water this time round, that's fine by me. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Huh, it looks like boy bands are still alive in Korea. Anyways, as expressed above, B1A4 meets multiple criteria of WP:BAND and, as can be told from a news search, there is a significant amount of recent news about them and their album. For once, this is a Korean band that isn't that difficult to find sources for, since they seem to have quite a bit of traction in mainstream Korean media. Silver seren^C 23:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When an article is plastered with 5 tags, someone clearly has an agenda --MoonLichen (talk) 05:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pauline mysticism[edit]

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

This whole article is original synthesis, and possibly a POV fork from Pauline Christianity. St Anselm (talk) 05:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge - Delete as per nom. If it has to be kept it should be merged.--Diameter (talk) 06:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – based on Google scholar and Google books searches, this is a notable concept, which occurs regularly as a term in article and chapter titles. As such it is no more a fork of Pauline Christianity than Christian mysticism is of Christianity. --Lambiam 09:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – although there is a notable concept covered by the title of the article, it is not at all what is being described in the article. The article describes "Pauline mysticism" as a form of mysticism practised by believers, and can be seen as pushing the non-notable book Experience Heaven Now by Barry Hall, "teacher of practical Pauline mysticism". The notable concept covered by the reliable sources is something else: it belongs to Pauline theology and pertains to mystical aspects of the teachings of Paul. (Without prejudice to possible later recreation as an article covering the latter notable concept.) --Lambiam 10:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. --• Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve The topic is valid and valuable. Issues mentioned above are now addressed by reverting to an older version. (Yessy543 (talk) 01:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Keep – article is now about the mystical aspects of the teachings of Paul, which is a notable topic dealt with in multiple reliable sources. --Lambiam 06:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Pauline Christianity per WP:V. The article is still unsourced, making it impossible to determine its notability or the merits of its content. Sandstein 05:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Sandstein. OpinionsAreLikeAHoles (talk) 16:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per StAnselm. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 23:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Lambiam's third !vote. I think the notability of the topic is clear: several books and articles have been published on the topic and there are tons of hits on Google Books/Scholar. Qrsdogg (talk) 02:23, 11 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Saab[edit]

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

Campaign-style bio, relying entirely on WP:PRIMARYSOURCES and trivial coverage, of an unsuccessful electoral candidate with no properly sourced indication that he actually meets WP:POLITICIAN in any significant way. Also presents WP:COI issues, as the bulk of the article's edit history was performed by editors named User:Adamsaab and User:Besh Saab (and I have my suspicions about creator User:Rubbercamel, too.)

Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He fails WP:POLITICIAN and no other claim of notability is made. 174.253.245.54 (talk) 02:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: failing to meet WP:Politician in itself is not a reason to delete. Here is a source that gives coverage of some (non-trivial) depth for Adam Saab[6]. However, failing more sources than just the local University paper, he probably fails WP:GNG too. DigitalC (talk) 00:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't seem to mind much in the way of non-trivial reliable sources. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:10, 16 May 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 Oak Bay, British Columbia. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Causton[edit]

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

Barely sourced BLP of a mayor whose town is not large enough to meet the demands of WP:POLITICIAN; his only other claim of notability besides that is having been an unsuccessful candidate in the Canadian federal election, 2011. I'm willing to consider withdrawing the nomination if somebody can source it up enough to convince me that the mayor of a suburban town of 18,000 people should be considered notable just for being a mayor, but in its current form it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Oak Bay, British Columbia. Plausible search term. Location (talk) 11:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Location. Fails WP:POLITICIAN, but the standard for redirects is much lower. Ray^Talk 19:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Causton is a well known politician, in a town of some regional prominence (the tweed curtain is well known throughout the island, if not throughout the province). There SHOULD be many sources out there for him. I can't seem to find many though - bizarre considering he has been in local politics for so long. DigitalC (talk) 00:26, 14 May 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. Fails WP:V. There's no evidence that this airport exists. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guerou vil[edit]

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

unverifiable at the very least, possibly a hoax. I can't find any google hits for "Guero vil" or "Guero airport". The infobox and references were copied from other articles. This airport is not listed at [7], [8] or [9]. Beloved Freak 18:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — Beloved Freak 18:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — Beloved Freak 18:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment IATA codes are a maximum of three letters and the ICAO code GQNF given is certainly the code for Kiffa Airport; however it took a bit of work to find but there is mention of an airport called El Gouera link here (or by entering the ZLG as the IATA code on the IATA search page here. This might be the airport intended and there is at least one redlink for it. I can't find an ICAO code for it though. To complicate the issue, the status of the airport would seem to be open to question as it seems to be near the deserted town of Lagouira which is in contested Western Sahara, in an area claimed by Mauritania FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Despite all that Googling, I'm inclined to think I'm probably very wrong. There is a town called Guerou about 50 km from Kiffa and that would seem more likely. Can't find an airport for it rather than Kiffa though. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete Nothing found to show existence of this airport. Any searches for an airport serving Guerou bring back Kiffa Airport, so unless there are sources offered to prove the existence of the airport, deletion is the only course. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for your research. The whole thing is a little confusing!--BelovedFreak 21:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think I got a bit caught up in searching all the airport sites there, without going for the more obvious search routes. The El Gouera suggestion was worth mentioning, but it doesn't really pan out given the obvious Kiffa-related edits. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Situation Room (photograph). There is consensus that this should not (currently) be a standalone article per WP:BLP1E, but no clear consensus to delete outright instead of merge. Under these circumstances, a redirect without deletion allows editors to sort this out via further discussion and to merge what may be needed from the history. Sandstein 05:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey Tomason[edit]

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

Textboox WP:BLP1E. Random policy wonk happens to be in the room when a photograph is snapped, said photograph happens to cause a minor kerfuffle when a foreign conservative religious newspaper censors out her and Hillary' image. Ms. Tomason herself isn't really the subject of the google news hits, it is the photoshopping itself that has become notable. For those that are about to mount a spirited defense of the "but the Director for Counterterrorism for the National Security Council it notable!", I'd note that nether she nor her position is listed at United States National Security Council, and that much of the coverage that does touch on her is of the "wow, she has a Wikipedia article? i.e. here. In fact, that article notes that she was one of a half-dozen low-level people in the vicinity. If she wasn't standing at the right spot at the right time (and happened to be female; a male would not have been 'shopped), there would have been no proverbial 15 minutes. 1E to a T. Tarc (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We don't get to decide whom history shines a spotlight on. She is notable now, and forevermore. jengod (talk) 17:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's nice, but feel free to address the actual deletion rationale; WP:BLP1E. What has this person done that is deemed notable, besides be erased from a photograph? Fee free to consider a dash of WP:NOTNEWS as well. Tarc (talk) 17:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Being present in this photograph is obviously extremely notable... unless you believe that the White House successfully assassinating a global terrorist leader after a ten year manhunt is a routine event, and that Tomason was just delivering a pizza. I've been trying to learn more about her since the first time I saw that picture (because she appears to be one of the two youngest people in the room, and one of only two women) and came to Wikipedia to see what I could learn here. I was happy to find an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.153.180.229 (talk) 17:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't a textbook case of BLP1E. A textbook case would be a typical case. But this one isn't typical but untypically obvious. Absolutely nothing to see here. Hans Adler 17:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no objection to a redirect to the The Situation Room (photograph) article - no objection to recreation at a time when or if there are more than a WP:BLP1E to report. Off2riorob (talk) 18:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being present in this photograph is not enough to warrant a wikipedia entry according to the notability policy. In fact the policy uses a hypothetical case very much like this one as an example of who is not noteworthy. Subject would need to be mentioned in several stories on several topics according to the published policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djkernen (talk • contribs) 18:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly notable for only one event. Obviously, re-create if that changes. Furthermore, I'd have no problem with a redirect -- to the anon IP's point above, if someone comes to Wikipedia looking for information on this person, they might be satisfied with finding that information housed in the The Situation Room (photograph) article. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear BLP1E situation. Tomason, while obviously an accomplished young woman, does not have a public-facing role, has never been interviewed in her capacity as Director, and does not even have any biographical or contact information on the White House website. (She is part of the executive staff, not the NSC, as far as I can tell.) Her job falls into a liaison or clearinghouse area. I would not be surprised if she later rises to a notable position, but that time is not now. --Dhartung | Talk 19:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - about as WP:BLP1E as you can get. Subject not otherwise notable per WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 20:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing the Daily Mail article, for now I elect into merging into the The Situation Room (photograph) article, because there are now reliable secondary sources about the speculation and her notability stemming from the recent coverage and the photograph. This does not have to do with the Ultra Orthodox coverage. Check my edits, and you will see exactly what is being discussed about her. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A user swiftly removed the paragraph I posted. I'm going to post it in my userspace, and let people look at it and decide for themselves whether it is appropriate. I am strictly basing the paragraph off of the secondary sources I am finding. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, take a look at User:WhisperToMe/Tomason
- I understand that it's not Wikipedia's role to be a tabloid or to pry too deeply into things, and I do not think there is enough substance for a standalone article yet, but it sounds like there is speculation about the woman based on the photo, and we need to convey that somewhere, somehow on Wikipedia
- WhisperToMe (talk) 21:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to see that in the article on the photograph -- interesting stuff! I have no problem with a merge/redirect. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 21:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just put the info at The Situation Room (photograph), on the suggestion of the user :) - I also support a merge/redirect. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I reverted you. We don't need this ridiculous gossip and conspiracy stuff at any article. Hans Adler 21:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gossip is "idle"/"light" speculation (see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gossip ). Based on the sources that I found, there has been discussion about particular implication's for the woman's career and the fact that she had not been known to the public before the photo came out are not "fluff."

I think it's clear that this won't be a standalone article, but I think in regards to the Situation Room photo the speculation about Tomason needs to be taken seriously, since various secondary source publications are reporting about it in detail in multiple articles.

WhisperToMe (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speculations that a woman who appears in an official White House photo, taken by an official White House photographer and officially released to the press, that such a women is super secret and her career is destroyed because now her face is public are so incredibly asinine that they have no business in an encyclopedia. Except perhaps when someone really notable makes them and we can report the ridicule by others. Newspapers want to be sold to readers, so they have different criteria. Hans Adler 21:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong keep~~ merge Director for Counterterrorism for the National Security Council hunting terrorists is a notable position. She is notable for her position and one event does not apply to that. Surely a notable position especially considering the U.S. is fighting a "War on terror" involving hundreds of thousands of people and Director for Counterterrorism is a key position in all of that. IQinn (talk) 23:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the war on terror involves hundreds of thousands of people. I would add that not all of them are notable. In the article on the United States National Security Council, her position is currently listed as, essentially, "others as necessary." Please note: there is a Senior Director of Counterterrorism position currently listed in the United States National Security Council article -- one can surmise that this is her boss -- and it is currently a redlink. For all you/we know, there are multiple "Directors of Counterterrorism." Prove me wrong. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you are right Nick Rasmussen seems to be her boss. Why wasn't he in the picture? IQinn (talk) 00:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is a candid snapshot of a single moment of the meeting, not a posed photograph. As several sources note, she just happened to be standing there at that ti,e, and that there were a half-dozen other NSC members nearby, equally anonymous. Tarc (talk) 01:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to merge even though i guess it might be recreated in a few month or years when more information about her and her involvement in the hunt for OBL becomes available. IQinn (talk) 01:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect. The articles would very excellent sources if it wasn't that what all of them say is that they don't know anything about her. I guess that could spark some notability in the not so far future, but it just hasn't happened yet. The photoshop incident is covered already at the target - frankieMR (talk) 01:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep She is notable for more than one event. The WP:BLP1E doesn't apply. She appears to be notable. The fact she's in the photo speaks for itself. --MarsRover (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What's the second event she is notable for? Hans Adler 19:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1) getting in the situation photo 2) being cropped out by Ultra Orthodox newspapers. These are not the same event. --MarsRover (talk) 23:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear - please help wikipedia to overcome the detriment to the project through the increasing commenters that support outside of policy - all experienced contributors should comment to reduce such keep votes and administrators should not count votes but strongly close in consideration of wikipedia policy and guidelines. the "I like it its interesting to me and I don't have an interest in wikipedia policy or wikipedias protection and development - I like it and I want it to be hosted on wikipedia false keep comments. Off2riorob (talk) 23:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, quick squelch the dissent before it gets out of control. I didn't state any of the things you implied. Perhaps we need less of those comments for the sake of wikipedia. --MarsRover (talk) 23:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Being a head with a caption in the initial photograph is not an event. Please try to keep the AfD rationales within the bounds of common sense. Tarc (talk) 01:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, those are not two separate events. The photograph is the event, and her notability flows exclusively from the photograph. Describing every single thing that happens with regard to the photograph and her relationship to it doesn't mean you're describing multiple events, you're just describing multiple details of a single event -- and the event is a photograph. In order to pass BLP1E, a person must be notable for separate, not directly related (ie "separate") events. There are clearly common sense exceptions that can be made to what I've just said (e.g. John Wilkes Booth), but I'm completely confident you haven't discovered one of them with your argument. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 01:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ginseng for the providing an insightful comment that is actually possible to reply to. I don't completely agree but I changed my Keep to a Weak Keep. In the actual BLP1E policy I don't see the word "separate" used in describing the events. Nor the idea of notability flowing from one event to the next. I don't disagree with you. I sounds like a good way to describe multiple events ("famous photo" and "newspapers editing out out our political figures") that should be considered one event. But the policy doesn't actually say that. --MarsRover (talk) 04:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Director for Counterterrorism for the National Security sounds like a notable position to me. Appearance in the picture means she is highly notable for this one event but this does not seem to me to mean she can't be notable enough for us anyway given the importance of her job. It seems to me she is notable for this one event but that this is supported taking us beyond BLP1E. Also as an aside they were commenting on her in Have I got news for you on the TV in the UK and I wondered who she was. It was nice to find out here! User:WhisperToMe suggested additions here User:WhisperToMe/Tomason would also seem to me useful extra content. Merging into the The Situation Room (photograph) would seem to me just to be deletion as it would unbalance that article to have much more than her name there. (Msrasnw (talk) 11:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Even if this article is kept we will not be adding that content here, it's a BLP (an encyclopedic style life story) and not a conspiracy speculative rumour article. That is the reason for its deletion as a one event. Also her unelected employment position does not assert any specific notability either, her job description and reported title is not a historic post in any way. All her current notability is related to the photograph and that is where until there is further details emerge or occur that is where in relation to wikipedia notability guidelines her name should redirect to.Off2riorob (talk) 11:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you think the position "sounds" notable, but I think it's been effectively demonstrated multiple times in this AfD that the position is not notable. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and preferably, redirect to The Situation Room (photograph). It still is useful to identify her in the context of the now-infamous photograph. If her notability rises above a little photoshopping in a minor newspaper, however, I would accept article recreation. Peter (talk) 19:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Situation Room (photograph), assuming that remains as an article; Delete otherwise: She just plain doesn't meet WP:BIO yet, even if she might in the future. Right now the only thing that makes her interesting to anyone is the game of "Who's that leftover person in this photo that's hot right now?" — which will fade in the next month unless she appears somewhere else. Her source-verifiable notability comes solely from (possibly inadvertently) appearing in a photo where everyone else is arguably notable; that's already covered by WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:BLP1E. We don't have a separate article for Andrew Giuliani because of his (well-known and more active) appearance in his dad's inauguration footage in 1994. Other arguments that have been given for Audrey Tomason being notable right now, but are mostly based on assumptions:
1. Even though we don't know her, she must be key to this operation, or she wouldn't have been there: But drawing a direct line between those two is hasty generalization fallacy — she could have not been there 15 seconds before or after, and come in with other new information right at that moment. Being familiar and useful enough to the other people in the room to stand in the room without being suspicious, and being of the executive decision level of the other people there, are two different things. There were
2. She must be someone important because words like "director" and "counterterrorism" were in the title applied to her in this photo: But we have no idea what "director" means in that section of the government, and someone else already pointed out that there is a "Senior Director" that is someone else, and we have no idea how many "directors" there are, and no evidence that the title even means anything, rather than being one of those custom-created titles that executive-branch staff get so they don't have to spend minutes explaining their duties to everyone they come across somewhere else.
3. A couple of fringe newspapers edited her out: But they also edited Hillary Clinton out. That's about The Situation Room (photograph) and about women in society, but not about Tomason.

An analysis piece on The Atlantic two days ago pretty much explains the problem (though the author seems to take the opposition position, assuming that this Wikipedia article was already a done deal):

But what's fascinating is that Tomason wasn't actually the only young staff member in the room, Tommy Vietor, the National Security Council spokesperson, told me. "There is no mystery or story here," Vietor said in an email. "There were at least half a dozen people with similar profiles in the immediate vicinity where that photo was taken." Yet only one has a Wikipedia page. [...] I know the sit room's photograph's moment has passed, but I hadn't seen the presence of so many other staff members like Tomason noted anywhere.
— Madrigal, Alexis (2011-05-10). "The Other Audrey Tomasons in the Situation Room". The Atlantic.

--Closeapple (talk) 00:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to The Situation Room (photograph). She is only notable for being in that notable photograph, so clearly WP:BLP1E applies..—Chris!_c/t 21:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Obama has previously said that only a very small group of people in his government were informed about the operation, and that he did not even tell his own family such as the First Lady. Thus this means she is of such importance that she was allowed access to this extremely top secret information, otherwise she would have not been allowed to be there. A random young government employee would not be allowed to be there, even if the government says she just happened to be there. Also, the person who nominated this article for deletion claims that the photograph controversy landed her a wikipedia page, which is not true. The page was created before that, though in light of the photograph.Michael5046 (talk) 00:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Once it was actually happening there was no more reason to keep it so super-secret. Your second point: As you created the article on 4 May, I am sure you can tell us what your sources were at the time. The Daily Mail reported on this photo on 5 May, apparently based on the Flickr release of the photo, so presumably it was released on 4 May or earlier. Hans Adler 06:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It really doesn't matter whether Obama has said that "only a very small group of people" were aware of this. That doesn't automatically confer notability on that group of people. You may be right that she is "of such importance," but we are concerned about the Wikipedia definition of notability here. The notability guidelines do not care whether a "random young government employee" would or wouldn't be allowed to be there; they care whether or not the person at issue is notable, and in the case of a BLP they care whether or not the person at issue is notable for more than one event. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a clear case of WP:BLP1E. Her title does sound impressive, but if it were as notable as some are saying, she would have been mentioned by reliable sources prior to the photo. She wasn't, which makes it pretty clear that this is a single event (and not even one that has anything to do with biography, just her gender). Primary sources such as alumni reports and organizational flowcharts that mention her name aren't a substitute for notable mention prior to this event.--Loonymonkey (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The information given here: [10] indicates 50,000+ people have looked at this page. This seems to me a lot and is, to me surprisingly more than [11], which is has only been viewed 25,000 times. I realise that this is not a relevant to addressing WP:BLP1E arguments but I raise it here because I think that we should at least bear in mind that we have been a source which very many might well have been glad of. Hope it is Ok to raise this and it doesn't contravene any rule. (Msrasnw (talk) 21:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Actually the project was used in the beginning and unreliable content that was posted here was used to increase controversy regarding this living person and we were republished and cited and sadly became the primary false source - that speculative and original research was removed from our article and through that viewing figures were reduced - if you stick to the actual boring details you will get lower viewing figures - now that experienced editors are watching the article similar content has no chance of posting again - and viewing figures will be unaffected by a redirect to the photo article. Off2riorob (talk) 22:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Clearly WP:BLP1E applies, but the commentary in the international media means the individual is worth explicitly noting in The Situation Room (photograph) - Nigholith (talk) 00:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Sending readers to The Situation Room (photograph) seems exactly right to me. When people are curious about someone with a peripheral role in a major event, they look him or her up on Wikipedia, and those people should have the opportunity to find out what is reliably known about Tomason. There is no reason to scrub her from Wikipedia entirely -- there are too many "who is she?" articles out there. --Tbanderson (talk) 16:29, 16 May 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 (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) by Athaenara (talk · contribs) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rajiv Bera[edit]

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

Non-notable person. University awards do not confer general notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing in the article that demonstrates notability (only university awards, which are not enough). i can't see any significant coverage in reliable sources.--Beloved Freak 18:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG or any other kind. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 18:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 11 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional characters named Sarah or Sara[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTDIR, which prohibits "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional)." I fail to see how being called "Sarah or Sara" is a significant enough connection between these characters for there to be a listing of them. Furthermore, this list is entirely open-ended and there are no criteria to judge which characters should be included or not. Anthem of joy (talk) 16:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per "WP:NOT an indiscriminate list" of information. This one is unmaintainable, the selection of works is either random, or, if meant to be exhaustive, must include even the most trivial of accessory figures in the most trivial of pop culture ephemera. No structuring, ordering principle within the list. No encyclopedic value. Note that it was actually created with the edit summary "hooray we have a new directory of names that runs against our WP:NOT a directory policy, yayyyyyyy" – which would make it a borderline case for speedy deletion as an intentionally disruptive (WP:POINT) creation, if not for the fact that the creator apparently considered it a lesser evil while refactoring this list out from the main Sarah (given name) article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious delete this prohibited list. Doczilla _STOMP! 11:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't think of any reason to keep this, I don't think we need pages listing every fictional character with a certain name. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge into List of people with the given name Sarah or Sara or selective upmerge to Sarah (disambiguation). All (notable) fictional characters named "Sarah" who are primarily known by that given name need to be mentioned on the dab page Sarah (disambiguation). To prevent the dab page from overflowing, per MOS:DABNAME it was and is feasible to have the List of people with the given name Sarah or Sara. So as not to disturb disambiguation (and also navigation), don't delete valuable dab content and instead drop it off in a parent list. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can merge the names of any characters which have articles if you wish, but I don't really see the encyclopaedic value of having a list for people with a common first name. Anthem of joy (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still delete - do not upmerge. In fact, List of people with the given name Sarah or Sara should get deleted too. Doczilla _STOMP! 04:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Standalone lists need to be about notable topics, just like any other article. There's no indication that anyone has ever found this a list worth creating. Will Beback talk 20:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I used to argue for lists of most notable people with a name, within Anthroponymy articles; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Archive 6 if you can be bothered. Now I acknowledge that popular names result in a hopeless case that can never be comprehensive, nor have consensus on selection; the same goes for List of people with the given name Sarah or Sara. I do agree that any person known by the name Sarah alone (cf. "Elvis") should be on the disambiguation page, see MOS:DABNAME. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to Sarah (given name). Apparently split on 15 December 2008 (along with List of people with the given name Sarah or Sara, also at AfD), but no edit summary was used. See [12] --Tothwolf (talk) 07:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Directory of loose items around a random name. Being fictional characters is but a circumstantial connection - frankieMR (talk) 23:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and DO NOT Merge - per original nomination, has no utility and violates NOT#DIR with no justification. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article does not meet the criteria of appropriate topics for lists because the list falls into what Wikipedia is not since it is an indiscriminate collection of information, a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization and the concept behind the list is trivial. Jfgslo (talk) 04:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn . Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perennial water shortage in Nairobi Kenya; considering rain water harvest ting as a possible solution[edit]

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

~~Apparent university admissions essay posted as article; WP:OR and potential copyvio as having been previously published by poster. TransporterMan (TALK) 15:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdraw nomination — Article moved in edit conflict; new name prodded. Will wait for prod results. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:10, 10 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Chronicles of Rick Roll[edit]

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

I'm not sure if this is notable- the movie is only in concept and still being shopped. Except for some Teaser Trailers, it does not yet exist. Is this considered advertising? I suggest removing the article until it has at least started principle photography. Wkharrisjr (talk) 15:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Film hasn't commenced principle photography. Delete. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. To quote the article "According to CNN, these trailers are made up of concept footage shot in hopes of securing studio backing for a major motion picture." So we do not have a film in production... we have concept footage being shopped in hopes of seeking backing. Further, we do not even have enough persistant and in-depth coverage to merit it as even a possible exception to WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb notes above the usual time to start an article on a notable commercial film is at the commencement of principle photography. (Low-budget and/or independent films that don't have saturation marketing should indeed often wait for an actual release.) This film has not even been green-lit yet. It is just an idea (and maybe a script).More importantly it lacks coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Johnson[edit]

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

Not sure how notable this author is? Cssiitcic (talk) 18:20, 20 April 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, UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This AFD was not entered onto the AFD log. I've done that now. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep nea & guggenheim. i'd say the john donne archive is good work, body of work small, but early in career. Slowking4 (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to Guggenheim Fellowship. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Possibly the Guggenheim Fellowship wouldn't be enough on its own, but her works are reviewed in reliable sources, including by The Independent in the UK and there are RS articles covering the subject herself. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:21, 14 May 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. –MuZemike 15:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

English People's Party[edit]

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

Could not locate any significant coverage in a secondary source to establish notability. Maintenance tag linking to WP:GNG removed by article's author, so I presume these are all the references they can bring to bear. Marasmusine (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm only seeing forum posts and Wordpress blogs discussing this topic on Google -- and a review of the article's history demonstrates that the nominator has been down this path with the article's author. Don't really see anything suggesting notability. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 14:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just noticed a problem with the three sources (as opposed to external links) offered as the article presently stands. I was puzzled by the inclusion of one of the references, which indeed would be a reliable source if it in any way referred to the party in the article - I am fairly sure I have used that source myself and was puzzled why the Northern Ireland local election results from 2005 were relevant. Of course, the source doesn't mention the party; as the party didn't exist in 2005 according to the article, that is hardly surprising. I checked the edit history and noticed that when an editor added the infobox (in this series of edits), he used the infobox from the English Democrats Party article as a template. Nothing wrong with that per se when you want to get the formatting and syntax correct, but the references weren't removed from the infobox, and so still refer to the English Democrats Party. So as the article stands at present, there are no sources that the party is a registered party and the sources offered, at present, do not refer to the party. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 18:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I also want to point out that before I took this to AfD, I asked at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics if there was a more specific notability guideline for political parties. For example is being registered with the Electorial Commission enough for inclusion? No response as yet. Marasmusine (talk) 21:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I was wondering about that myself, particularly regarding the registration question. Honestly I think that the mere fact of registration wouldn't be enough; while looking for the current registration status for this party, I came across a list of parties that have been deregistered since 2002 here, which lists by my count around 400 parties that have been deregistered in that time. It really does come down to independent reliable-source coverage. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. I should say that a search on the Electoral Commission site does confirm that the party was registered on 11 Feb 2009 and the leader, nominator and treasurer is Andrew James Constantine, so there is no verification problem there. The article goes on to give a date of founding of 20 Nov 2010 and that gap would be unusual in any circumstances. There must be a story there which could be told if there were reliable sources. Perhaps if it only takes two people to register a party it might take 21 months to gather together enough for a launch. I'm in favour of a fairly low standard of notability for political parties but their acheivement so far is the 354 votes they got in a local election earlier this month. In the absence of coverage in independent sources and any other evidence of notability I think it fails GNG. --AJHingston (talk) 22:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No substantial independent coverage of the party, so fails WP:GNG. Has only fielded one candidate in a local election - who wasn't elected. If they had garnered coverage due to that or for any other reason that would bring them over the GNG threshold, fine, but that coverage doesn't exist. (In a technical aside, the current refs on the article should be removed. I would add the actual link to registration as that would be valid if I could generate a static link from the Electoral Commision site.) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 11 May 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 Isaac Asimov#Other writings. The arguments for deletion far outweigh the arguments for retention given. In this case, lack of independent coverage and none provided in so that notability can be established, which have not been adequately addressed by those favoring retention. Opting for a redirection to preserve edit history. –MuZemike 15:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

World Season Calendar[edit]

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

This proposal for calendar reform is not notable (WP:N) for lack of substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. It is briefly described at the end of Isaac Asimov#Other writings, but a redirect there has been reverted, hence this nomination. Sandstein 12:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence to substantiate these claims. SimpsonDG (talk) 12:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Plainly not notable. I'd certainly support a redirect. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 14:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A notable calendar reform concept published by a well-known author in an off-line work. This Deletionist attempt (after repeated, aggressive page-blanking attempts) is unwarranted, but typical of the war against content in general, and against Calendar reform specifically. Please note that "Notability" as defined on WP does not mean "only notable ONLINE citations." In 1973, his publication of this calendar concept, and it's notability, obviously occurred offline. WP:N (General Notability Guideline) states: "Sources are not required to be available online". This is something that many Wikipedian Deletionists often ignore. Nhprman 14:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect even "Inclusionists" recognize that a primary source -- for example, a book published by the person who invented the calendar -- is not valid for demonstrating notability, offline or online. There is no "war against content" happening here, and the "aggressive page blanking" you are referring to is, as far as I can tell from the article's history, an attempt by the admin who nominated this AfD to save the topic by converting it to a Redirect. If you can find reliable, significant coverage of this calendar that was not written by the calendar's inventor, by all means add it to the article. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A book does indeed count as a primary source. And when the unjustified war on off-line content ends - including the rather extreme interpretation of "notability" (it's never meant to mean "online notoriety") - the strong opposition to it I'm demonstrating will, too. Thanks. Nhprman 15:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This online/offline distinction you're drawing has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. That Asmiov's book is an "offline" source is not the issue. It's that it's Asimov's book. A primary source cannot be used to demonstrate notability. Read the guidelines. It's clear you don't know what "primary" means in this case because if you agree that the book is a "primary" source, you are agreeing that the book cannot be used to demonstrate notability. A source must be independent of the topic at hand -- that is, a source cannot be a "primary" source. It must be "secondary." Very clearly, Isaac Asimov writing about his own calendar proposal is not "independent of the topic at hand." So, again, if you can find secondary sources -- some other reliable source writing about Asimov's calendar proposal in a significant way -- by all means add it to the article and I will happily change my vote. This is not about online vs. offline content, and I don't know why you think it is. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I say this because this is usually the standard line from deletionists, and frankly, if I cannot go right now and find *links* to these sources, they will be assumed to have never existed, so it clearly is an issue of online notoriety and the production of ONLINE news sources that establish this version of "notability" for some people, though I wouldn't presume to say this applies to you. Nhprman 20:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Isaac Asimov#Other writings as possible search term. No third party reliable sources to demonstrate that this is a notable topic. -Atmoz (talk) 23:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article should clearly be kept. The only justification for deleting it is because of a pedantic adherence by Deletionists to their strict interpretation of Wikipedia's rules. How about a little common sense here? The intent of the notability rule is to prevent the introduction of trivial or frivolous topics, such as an article on some high school kid in Montana who's considered "cool" by his friends. Should such an article be deleted? Of course it should -- it's of no general interest. But what is gained by deleting a general-interest article on a calendar reform proposed by a well-known author? This is clearly not a frivolous topic; nothing is gained by the article's deletion, and significant content is lost. Also, as a more of a common-sense indication of notability, I would point to the fact that a number of people have considered this article sufficiently notable to justify taking the time and effort to translate it into three other languages for other-language editions of Wikipedia. I have also found a number of external Web sites (ignoring content farms) that link to the article, whose links would be broken if the article were deleted. I see nothing whatsoever to be gained by the deletion of this article. SimpsonDG (talk) 04:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per SimpsonDG above. The content is clearly encyclopaedic, and the article itself serves to support Calendar_reform#Specific_proposals. The proposal is mentioned at Asimov's article but very briefly, and it is not clear how the proposal works. Content could be merged, but that would just cause unnecessary clutter in a section best served for biographical purposes - frankieMR (talk) 13:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These "keep" opinions do not address the core policy requirement of WP:V#Notability: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Per WP:BURDEN, it is the responsibility of those who whish to retain the article to supply such sources. Because nobody so far has named reliable third-party sources (whether offline or online) that cover this calendar reform proposal, policy requires that it is deleted. Sandstein 14:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise you didn't address the point being made, which is that the notability guidelines are meant to keep the project from running astray as consequence of unattended inclusion of frivolous content. The guideline template itself notes that it is an accepted standard that we are expected to follow, but common sense is advised and occasional exceptions are foreseen. If this was my calendar proposal being argued then notability would definitely go against it. Without going that far, if this was Ann Coulter's calendar proposal then it would also come down to the particular notability of the proposal, since she is known and regarded in a separate field of knowledge. Asimov on the other hand was and still is a respected figure of the scientific community, and the proposal is a significant addition to the subject of calendar reform proposals (as opposed to the subject of Issac Asimov himself, for whom a brief mention of the proposal does suffice). I'm not saying that the proposal inherits notability from Asimov, what I'm saying is that the content is relevant to the encyclopaedia for its scholar and even general purpose value, while also being verifiable and discriminate - frankieMR (talk) 15:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no coverage about this in reliable sources to establish this proposal as a notable calendar reform proposal. Not everything that a notable person does is notable. With respect to Asimov being a respected figure in the scientific community implying that the proposal should thus be documented here in Wikipedia, I am not able to find any scientific discussion of this taking this as a serious proposal. -- Whpq (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent treatment of this topic is cited in the article, a Google Books search turns up no references at all, and the failure of the "keep" proponents here to cite any secondary sources suggests that such sources simply do not exist. Fails the GNG. Deor (talk) 20:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, either to Isaac Asimov#Other writings or to Calendar reform#Proposals; it is already covered in both places. This proposal of his has never been seriously discussed or considered by anyone else. --MelanieN (talk) 15:26, 17 May 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 Winx Club#Characters. –MuZemike 15:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor Winx Club characters[edit]

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

Trivial fictional elements with no secondary sources for verification - see WP:WAF and WP:V Marasmusine (talk) 11:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Sure I Care I just stumbled on this by accident. With the result that we have:

Possibility 1: Get Rid of It Trivial, no one cares, it's all unreferenced, and certainly not notable, at least in any encyclopedic sense. I imagine that few diehard fans don't know all of this, and nobody else cares.

Possibility 2: Keep It, It's Harmless Provided it can be referenced, this list might be useful for some researcher somewhere, and in the name of completeness, it's useful.

Possibility 3: From the person who holds to Possibility 1: "Possibility 2 is garbage. What will we get next, the name of somebody's cat???"

There's a genuine issue behind all that. When does Wikipedia become so overloaded with strange, trivial lists and details that it's beyond any plausible or reasonable use by anyone?

Just asking.

Timothy Perper (talk) 17:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's really ugly and unreferenced, and of no relevance to anyone unfamiliar with Winx Club. Random article should give you interesting things, not this sort of nonsense. --Anthem of joy (talk) 19:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to Winx Club#Characters per WP:BEFORE. When I created this list, I excluded the Specialist characters (the boyfriends) from the main article and the Specialists are back in the main article. I am concerned that the text for the Specialist characters has been copied from this article to the main Winx Club article. If this is the case, the list of minor characters cannot be deleted per WP:MERGE to preserve the history of who wrote the text. --Malkinann (talk) 21:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all character lists to List of characters from Winx Club . 184.144.163.181 (talk) 04:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 11 May 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. –MuZemike 15:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of magical creatures in Winx Club[edit]

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

Trivial fictional elements with no secondary sources for verification. Marasmusine (talk) 11:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all character lists to List of characters from Winx Club . 184.144.163.181 (talk) 04:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete List of non-notable characters which fails verifiability and does not meet the criteria of appropriate topics for lists since the topic is trivial, non-encyclopedic and falls into what Wikipedia is not by being an indiscriminate collection of information, a complete exposition of all possible details and an unnecessary content fork. Jfgslo (talk) 04:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unencyclopaedic cross-categorization. --Anthem of joy (talk) 20:34, 16 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Vaughan[edit]

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

Footballer fails WP:NFOOTY as he has not played at a fully-professional level of football. Also fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant media coverage beyond the routine match reports etc, that fail WP:NTEMP. --Jimbo^[online] 11:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --Jimbo^[online] 11:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 11:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 22:44, 12 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flair finance[edit]

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

PROD was removed without addressing the concern of notability. It seems not to meet the software standard either. Non-trivial Google hits are slim and the promotional aspect of the article may be its raison d'etre given the March release date. Sitush (talk) 09:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per nomination. Yet another shareware personal finance management application; someone wants a Wikipedia page to advertise their shareware. Article contains no references and a long features list. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced, no indication of notability, created by an SPA, so probable spam, as noted above. Dialectric (talk) 13:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I cannot find any reliable secondary sources for the material. Press releases and directory listings, and unfortunate associations to "Ric Flair", sure. Kuru (talk) 20:15, 11 May 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. The arguments for retention (i.e. the inclusion of sources which can establish notability) outweigh the reasons for deletion. Moreover, the rough consensus is clearly on the retention side. –MuZemike 15:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Brunswick Curling Association[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:ORG. 70 years of existenceyields only 12 articles in gnews [13] and most of it is not indepth. very little meaningful content in article LibStar (talk) 07:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nominator fails to establish how it is not notable. Google news is not a measure of notability. -- Earl Andrew - talk 12:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've not found significant coverage to meet WP:ORG. You have failed to demonstrate how this article meets WP:ORG or evidence of significant coverage. WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 12:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No third-party coverage found. Nothing that makes this ~~curling club~~ provincial governing body any more notable than any other. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a curling club, it's a provincial governing body for the sport of curling in the province of New Brunswick. -- Earl Andrew - talk 22:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Agree fully with Earl Andrew.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE. Zero attempt is made to show how this subject meets WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 22:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a provincial governing body for the sport of curling, there are probably lots of secondary sources to ensure this is covered by WP:ORG. I'm interested to know if the nominator has any familiarity with the sport in Canada, because I'm thinking he doesn't. -- Earl Andrew - talk 01:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are plenty of third-party sources that either reference, describe, or are members of the New Brunswick Curling Association, as required by WP:ORG. It meets the WP:ORG criteria for a non-commercial organization. It is a non-profit organization that hosts or sanctions activities that are national in scope, and those activities are verifiable by reliable sources, like curling results webpages, curling club pages or the curling association page itself, which contains a plethora of information on the association. There should be no problem if the NBCA is not mentioned in many Google News articles but is mentioned in an adequate amount of third-party sources which confirm the activities of this organization. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 01:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"There are plenty of third-party sources " please provide evidence. LibStar (talk) 01:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list of sources that reference, mention, acknowledge, describe, etc. the NBCA. (not exhaustive)

Sources
http://www.nbcurling.com/index.htm http://www.nbcurling.nb.ca/en/home_en.php http://www.nbcurling.nb.ca/fr/home_fr.php http://curlingclub.net/other-curling-information/nbca-curling-position-perfect-fit-for-marg-marandas-skill-set/ http://www.joeant.com/DIR/info/get/6171/90526 http://icing.org/orgclubs/northam/canada/newbruns/clubs/nbca.htm http://www.ontcurl.com/resources/curling-websites.aspx http://www.mycurling.com/Curling_Associations/Canada/ http://www.sussexgolfandcurlingclub.ca/ http://www.intherings.ca/links.html http://www.curlinghistory.com/canada/new%20brunswick/n_b_association.htm http://www.saintjohn.ca/en/home/cityservices/communityenrichment/sportsrecreation/localsportwebsites.aspx http://www.dccurling.ca/links.htm http://www.sportsourcedirectory.com/sportassociations/curling-associations.html http://www.virtualreferencelibrary.ca/vrlOntario.portal?startingCatNo=1941&_nfpb=true&click=catDisp&_pageLabel=vrl_page_home http://www.nwtcurling.com/links http://www.recreationnb.ca/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=8 http://www.usacurl.org/usacurl//index.php?option=com_weblinks&catid=17&Itemid=23 http://www.recreationnb.ca/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=54:nb-curling-association&catid=71:past-employment-listings&Itemid=82 http://www.seasonofchampions.ca/2009worlds/news307.asp http://www.playdowns.com/tag/new-brunswick-2/ http://www.curling.com/ http://www.twincitiescurling.org/links/index.html

Hopefully these are satisfactory. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 02:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

almost all of these sources are not independent of the subject. you need third party sources like mainstream media/newspapers, not simply websites of other curling clubs/organisations. LibStar (talk) 03:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in WP:ORG says they have to be independent of the subject. Why would a source mention the NBCA if it wasn't on the subject of curling? Why would any source mention an organization if it wasn't on the topic of what that organization does? You are really grasping at straws, for what appears to be some anti-curling stance of some sort. -- Earl Andrew - talk 12:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

see the overview in WP:RS. Wikipedia is quite clear that third party sources should be used for demonstrating notability. You and others are grasping at straws for notability and have failed to demonstrate existence of reliable sources. This has nothing to do with anti-curling stance I nominate a wide variety of topics for deletion every week. LibStar (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone seeking to keep this article should create inline citations on the article, not just in this discussion, especially any showing national or international curling events or participation in events. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Google might only give twelve hits. A search of ProQuest's Canadian Newsstand database reveals 312 results. A few of the more notable ones are listed below (citations abbreviated to save time and space, but have been filtered to remove trivial mentions):

"N.B. curling loses one of its great contributors; Tribute: Forsythe remembered as grassroots volunteer who pitched in where needed" Kevin Barrett. Telegraph-Journal. Saint John, N.B.: Mar 12, 2010. pg. B.7 (About a former president)
"Bathurst Curling Club still going strong, despite tax debt" Katherine Hunt. Telegraph-Journal. Saint John, N.B.: Apr 11, 2011. pg. A.5 (About association's efforts to maintain curling clubs in the province)
"'Semi-official' Moncton will host 2009 men's world curling championship" Sean Hatchard. Telegraph-Journal. Saint John, N.B.: Sep 1, 2007. pg. C.8 (Association's efforts to get an international event)
"NBer named national curling president; Elections Al Forsythe of Moncton is the new president and Beth Sullivan of Bathurst fills vice-president's post" Andrew Mcgilligan. Telegraph-Journal. Saint John, N.B.: Jun 19, 2007. pg. B.8 (Personnel changes)
"Curling body should re-examine how it determines women's champion" Dave MacLean In the house. New Brunswick Telegraph Journal. Saint John, N.B.: Jan 12, 2007. pg. B.7 (Pretty much exactly what the title says)
"President leaves post with game enjoying progress; Ron Hutton has been a loyal servant to curling" DAVE MacLEAN. Telegraph-Journal. Saint John, N.B.: Apr 8, 2005.

There are more, but I believe these cover the notability issue. Provincial coverage, but it covers a number of years, events, etc. There are more, if need be. Canada Hky (talk) 18:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the coverage is all in New Brunswick. see comment below. LibStar (talk) 05:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this organisation clearly fails WP:CLUB. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. LibStar (talk) 05:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The NBCA is not a club, it's an organization. -- Earl Andrew - talk 14:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CLUB is specifically for non commercial organizations such as NBCA. Not just for clubs. LibStar (talk) 14:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The NBCA's activities involve hosting national and international events. The NBCA played a role in hosting, among other events, the 2009 Ford World Men's Curling Championship, which is an event that is international in scale. It also hosted various Canadian men's and women's national championships. The scope of those events are national. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 23:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and where is the national coverage for this? LibStar (talk) 23:49, 15 May 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. Various arguments include "article meets WP:GNG" vs. "article does not meet GNG" vs "article does not meet WP:NSONGS". As far as merging is concerned, I do not feel that there is a rough consensus for that either here, but that can certainly continue to be pursued outside of AFD. As such, I do not think there is a consensus in any direction in this AFD. –MuZemike 15:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yoü and I[edit]

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

The article has not charted in any major music market, has no lead or important background, recording or critical information. Can very easily be merged with Born This Way CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 07:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This song is basically like Speechless, which also is in the "Other songs" category. It has had live performances and coverage and has sufficient information to warrant keeping this page. calvin999 (talk) 14:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No dear, "Speechless" charted on a number of charts for to pass WP:N. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the sense that it is not a single but has had live performance and publicity, so yes.calvin999 (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate The article is just a bunch of live performances, which is albeit a copy of material present in the parent album. There is a limit of the unnecessity and the uber fans creating everything and anything. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: Doesn't meet the normal criteria established by WP:NSONGS, and there is nothing exceptional enough to treat it as an exception case.—Kww(talk) 14:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What would you say to "Incubate"? It seems to be the safest alternative.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 11:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. This article still has expanding to do with the sources already listed, those on the talk page, and others. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This does not even meet WP:GNG. Jivesh • Talk2Me 15:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Give it some time to flourish. --200.106.15.3 (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What? This is Wikipedia, not a music blog or gagapedia. I do not think it has enough information to remain. If you want it here, find more background, composition, critical reception, live performances, credits and personnel. Most importantly, organize the article's structure. Jivesh • Talk2Me 15:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on this currently, though I will need to be away from the computer soon. I invite other contributors interested in fleshing out the article to assist in any way possible. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hasn't charted. It isn't notable by any means. If it is released later as a single or something, we can write an article then. -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 16:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : I would say let's wait until this one goes on chart. I think it's a well-developed article and don't want to see it removed. Iantolee (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete as nominator~~ Incubate - Simply does not even come remotely close to passing Wiki: Songs.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 17:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is your input needed here? We already know where you stand, since you nominated the article and all... I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 22:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject has had plenty of independent coverage. It passes WP:GNG so I don't see why it won't pass WP:NSONGS.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't pass WP:NSONG. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 18:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. Here's what it comes down to for me: there is a good deal of information in the article sourced to reliable sources that should reasonably be presented in Wikipedia. If this article were deleted, then large portions of the material would get pushed back to the article on Born This Way. That article, then, would be left heavy on the coverage of this song. It makes more sense to keep the information parallel and out in a separate article for the song. —C.Fred (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense. So to not "over-load" one article, you create an entire extra article for a small amount of content. In the long run, your creating extra articles, work, and bulk (not to mention breaking the agreed upon rules) instead of just adding a few more KB to Born this Way, which is still, even in Legolas' sandbox, quite small and comfortable.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 19:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I agree with C.Fred. Certainly the information should not be deleted--even if consensus decides the article is not worth standing alone, a merge would be more appropriate. The article can be expanded further from the sources already used in addition to others that have not yet been added, and surely there will be more information to include (production details, reception, personnel, etc.) in less than two weeks once the album is released. --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, your using Wiki: Crystal here, you have no way of knowing what will happen to the song. Secondly, the song has been performed several times and still has almost zero coverage. We are not going to bend the rule because editors feel that the song will soon chart. If anything, it should be put in an incubator, and hidden away until it (if it does) achieves any charting or more information.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 19:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My argument has never been that the song will chart. My argument is that the song has received enough coverage to warrant its own article (which will not be given the opportunity to reach its full potential if the article is deleted). --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Whether or not a song charted should not be a determining factor as to whether or not we have an article on it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree on that point: using the notability test in WP:NSONGS plays an important role in not having millions of articles about album tracks. Nearly every album track will get mentioned in at least two reviews of the album, and people would want to use that as justification to create articles about every single one of them. What we have here is some trivial points about the song, and nothing that really even needs to be covered in the parent album article. The flip side of the problem is that people use charting as a pretext to create articles based on the argument "but WP:NSONGS says it's notable! It has to get an article!", but at least that's a bounded problem. Having articles on every album track in the universe is not.—Kww(talk) 01:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since it is currently not notable enough yet.--Blackjacks101 (talk) 20:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Give it a chance to be notable, even though it already is. So obvious that it will chart anyway calvin999 (talk) 23:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it hasn't even been released yet. It is purely fan based and is not notable enough as of yet. --User:spiceitup08 —Preceding undated comment added 21:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Keep: The song has been performed to a record crowd on Today, on Oprah, on an HBO special, at Elton John's Tiara Ball, dozens of times on tour, covered on American Idol, and will be played again on American Idol tomorrow. All of these performances have second party coverage and have been referenced in reliable sources. There are 24 valid references in the article, merging this with the Born This Way album article would either cause an abundance of information towards this particular song, or alot of information to be lost. The song is from a notable artist, with a notable producer and features a highly notable guitarist, and the article is still under significant expansion. The creation of this article may have been premature, but so would be it's deletion.

Or, to be really anal about this, the article could be placed in the incubator until it charts in a few days. Bruce Campbell (talk) 01:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A standalone article on a song that hasn't been released yet DOES seem a little premature to me. Will it chart? Almost certainly. Will it deserve (i.e., have earned) undisputed notability moments afterwards? Again, I feel a "yes" coming on. And will it then deserve a full article? Again, I think "yes." But I am concerned about encouraging other editors to fill Wikipedia with articles about other songs by other artists which have not "yet" gone anywhere (has anyone noticed the proliferation of articles about Ukrainian footballers? They each have their own article, and my proposal for deletion based on a single citation in a foreign language for any of them has been successfully disputed). I am not swayed by the "give it a chance" argument-- that is what sandboxes are for, for incubation. Articles should only be in Wikipedia when their topic has achieved the required public status, not in anticipation of that status. But once that status has been achieved, then by all means. Do not merge, there will be no point. Hold off a couple of days/ weeks, out of respect for the process. KDS4444^Talk 03:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases I would agree with you 100%, but in this case, the song has received a lot of coverage in RS, even before any single has been released, so that would seem to justify a stand alone article. Plus, unlike most song articles, which are no more than 2 or 3 lines long, this one is already fairly well fleshed out, so I see no reason to delete it. Robman94 (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep contains heavy metal ümlaüts \µ/ --MoonLichen (talk) 05:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

What?--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 06:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(He's making a kind of clever joke regarding diacritic marks-- that's all.) KDS4444^Talk 07:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge content to Born This Way. There are some decent sources here, but the article is rather short. I don't see why the information can't be covered in the parent article. Dimadick (talk) 07:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep the article doesn't need to pass WP:SONGS if it passes WP:GNG which, with all the refs in this article, it easily does. Robman94 (talk) 21:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Born This Way - song has not charted, or even been officially released. ℥^nding·start 23:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Born This Way - the article should be rewritten as a short paragraph so that the available information is not lost, but I agree that there is too much detail on a yet to be released song. It's too soon for a full article. If there is any concerns about the sources and content being lost, then some of it could be kept on the Talk page for Born This Way so that it could then be used as source for a new article if needed. 189.216.23.144 (talk) 01:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - with Born This Way. It may be a future single, or may chart via download sales during the album's release week, but I think at this point the live performances of this song are simply for early promotion of the album. There really isn't anything that asserts notability here. - eo (talk) 11:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As a user had said, keep it...and it will flourish. The article has enough reliable sources; It is only a couple months old; and the article is currently in the middle of an expansion or under major restructuring. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 12:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are simply asking others to bend the rules of WIki: SONGS because its Gaga. We have rules to keep, not to break them. You have no idea if it will fourish. Honestly, Gaga's popularity is in severe decline, so I doubt the song will chart. As another editor said, place it in an incubator and if it does flourish, we can add it back.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 18:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about Gaga's popularity (or supposed decline). My frustration with this particular AfD is growing. The song has received enough press coverage to warrant its own article, AND the article is guaranteed to expand further in about 10 days as the album will be released then. Surely the reception and personnel sections will grow, additional details about the song will be released, etc. I understand that notability requirements are necessary and crystal balling is discouraged, but sometimes articles should be allowed to grow. ~~There are more Delete votes here than Keep votes~~ (Edit: Actually, I believe there are an equal number of Delete and Keep votes, but three additional Merge votes), but I hope admins see that there are enough Keep votes to let the article alone. It does not contain redundant information presented in the Born This Way article and will be growing as additional information about the song is collected. --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a few keeps are IPs, so in reality there are more deletes, not including the merges. Look, we have time, the nom is only like 2 days old, let us wait for a clear consensus. Again, this is Crytal. I appreciate your feelings and assumptions, but as of now this should be in an incubator. I mean, take the article I promote. While I do the singles, and read biographies, there is enough info to create articles for most songs, whether popular or not. That is why I recently requested for people to think about it more, and have a higher bar set for songs.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 20:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan, why are you lobbying so hard to get this article deleted (or merged)? It's my understanding that a song article needs to pass *either* WP:GNG *or* WP:SONG and in this case, there are plenty of RS articles about the actual song so it easily passes WP:GNG, so why isn't that enough for the article to stay? Plus, from a purely common sense POV, once the single is released it will undoubtedly pass WP:SONG also. On the other hand, if the article is deleted, when the single is release, someone will have to file a request to have it undeleted, which is just making work for people. Robman94 (talk) 21:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm lobbying for its removal because I don't think it passes Wiki: SONGS at the moment. That is all. Following CRYSTAL, we can only go by its present state. Apparently, more than half of the editors here agree with me, so its not like my views are alone. I clearly said if it were put in an incubator until its release and possible charting that would suffice.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 22:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it passes WP:GNG? And if not, why not? My impression is that rules like SONGS and BAND were added as a way that articles could remain that don't pass GNG. In other words, you could (in theory) have a hit single that sold millions of copies, but nobody wrote about it, so it would fail GNG, therefore something else was needed to keep it around, hence SONGS was created. But I don't believe that it's supposed to work in reverse to kill articles that do pass GNG. Your thoughts? Robman94 (talk) 01:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (and merge content to Born This Way), this is a classic case of creation before achievement. People have created the article because they think the song will become notable. Several live performances alone are NOT criteria for notability. Per WP:NSONGS it clearly states thats songs are only notable upon charting and/or receiving independent coverage. They only receive an indepedent article if there is enough verifiable info for a reasonably detailed article. It is the latter stipulation (about reasonably detailed article) which is covered by WP:GNG however the crux and creation of the article itself is covered by WP:NSONGS. I'm fed up of reading discussions where people have misunderstood the two policies and seem to believe that the notability of an artist or of a particular peformance of the song makes the song itself notable. This is simply not a case. An article of this size, with its considerable lack of detail is simply not required. Remember articles are creater after notability has been established not in ancitipation of notability. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 02:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question This is a question for all the people who say that this song fails WP:NSONGS, could you please explain WHY you think it fails the policy. Some people have said that we should wait until the song has been released as a single. I assume those folks are talking about Lady Gaga releasing it because it has already been released as a single by Haley Reinhart [14]. Even if we treat the song as unreleased, the policy states "Unreleased material... are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." This song has been covered in articles in Billboard [15], Los Angeles Times [16], New York Post [17], Entertainment Weekly [18], USA Today [19] and 6 MTV articles. (And those are just the articles that are specifically about the song, I didn't include ones that just mention it). The policy goes on to state: "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". The current article on this song is approximately 660 words long. So, if that's not a long enough article and that's not enough RS refs, could someone please state how long an article needs to be and just how many articles need to be written about a song, because the WP:NSONGS policy page fails to address that. So, bottom line, I am stating that I believe this *does* pass WP:NSONGS and I've laid out my reasoning. If you believe that it does not pass WP:NSONGS, then I don't think it's sufficient to simply say so, I think you need to say WHY you think it doesn't pass. Robman94 (talk) 17:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it passes now, having been released as a cover by a notable artist (to the extent that American Idol contestants are actually notable). You are reading the clause incorrectly: "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article" says "An article may pass all tests for notability, but still not get an article there isn't enough material", not "An article may fail notability tests but still get an article because it can be big. WP:NSONGS is one of a handful of specific notability guidelines that reads as an exclusionary filter, not an inclusionary one.—Kww(talk) 11:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're saying the same thing. In other words, for this particular song, it passes the notability test AND there's enough info to write a 660 word article. I see that you struck out your 'delete' !vote above but you didn't replace it with a new !vote, what is your opinion now on whether the article should stay or go? Robman94 (talk) 15:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I no longer care much, but no, we don't agree. At the time I placed my !vote, it did not pass WP:NSONGS. A 660 word article is not much more than a stub, and doesn't warrant an article, but it's cleared the bright-line tests and there was some material. Until it was covered, it was a clear "delete", and now it's sufficiently borderline that I'm not going to argue either way. You were still reading the guideline backwards though: you have to pass the test of (charted, covered, or received an award) and have enough material to create a substantial article. Only in very exceptional cases should there be an article about a song that didn't chart, receive an award, or get covered by multiple artists, even if you could build a 3000 paragraph article detailing the outfits the artist wore during every live appearance that she performed it.—Kww(talk) 16:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate It seems like a complete waste to delete this article when it is almost inevitable that it is to chart once the album comes out. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 21:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate: Are we going to waste this information? What if, after the release of the album, this song charts and becomes notable? Don't keep it, nor delete it: the best solution is to incubate. --Evengan (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I agree, it would be a complete waste of peoples time and energy to delete this article. It's so obvious the song will chart around the world once the album is released. Just keep it as it is and keep it under "Other Songs". This song/article is exactly the same as Speechless, except Speechless has charted. They have both had media coverage, critical reception and Live performances. calvin999 (talk) 21:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So why not Incubate? its kind of like a compromise.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 07:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agreed with that. Incubating is in a sense Keeping. Who put a strikeout through my "keep"? calvin999 (talk) 17:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate or Merge (I really have no preference) A majority of you who are suggesting that the article be kept really need to review CRYSTAL. The song fails notability, at the present time, plain and simple. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 09:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Give it a chance to become notable. People are too quick to just remove articles. It it was closed tomorrow, I guarantee that it would have to re-created or re-open within the next few weeks. calvin999 (talk) 11:28, 17 May 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 both. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UIS (company)[edit]

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

also

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

This is just a run of the mill tech company, no sigifivcant coverage, all the refs are minor in nature, reads like an advert. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:CORP

Also nominating the sister artical Paul Dorian created at the same time by a WP:SPA who I suspect may have a WP:COI with one or both of the subjects. - In the case of Paul Dorian, no indication of notibility, fails WP:GNG, reads like a resume. Mtking (talk) 07:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I just only a few hours ago created this article and 5 minutes later MtKing was trying to delete it. If you look at MtKing's even most recent history and talk page it shows that is very bitey and goals to go from article to article trying to delete them. So let's talk Notability policy. If you believe that the article have not significant source to verify notability then I say although I haven't yet completed the creation of the article there is at least one obviously notable fact. That Dorian and the company are currently listed among Silicon Valley's Top 40 under 40 according to the Business Journal.^[1] That is an honor and achievement of which they were nominated and received credit for from a nationally respected business publication. Just remember "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." is considered notable.

That reference alone should clear the subject because it applies to the following:

"Significant coverage" means that source address the subject directly in detail. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.

The Biz Journal article was published for the purpose of honoring the list of entrepreneurs.

"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.

The publication is respectable and has its own Wikipedia page.

I ask administrative editors not to give in to someone that is clearly trying to harass for one reason or another. This article has at least one proof of notability and I'm sure I could find more if I was distracted by Mtking's efforts. --Rainman64 (talk) 07:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Paul Dorian seems a notable CEO. I think it might be preferable to have two separate AFD discussions, I have never seen a double up AFD like this but perhaps its OK.... it will likely be messy when closing trying to work out one from the other. UIS (company)also seems at least over the grass cutting notability of WP:GNG Off2riorob (talk) 14:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete CEO- Main claim is selection as #14 of '40 under 40' of 'current' local 'san jose bizjournal'; not a well known award (think Oscars, Tonys, People's Choice, Time magazine Person of the Year), no award, just a list. 'Current' is 2008, list is not numbered (he could be #1 or #40, but at least it's not just alphabetical) trivial mention of name, age in June08, president of (insert company here), tech guru who fixed all the computers of his elementary school, charged people to fix their computers while in high school, hired his dad, and likes to eat - food. Most 'references' are sourced to publications he's supposedly known for writing in, his linkedin page, etc. No coverage found in reliable sources elsewhere in the state, let alone nationally. Fails WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO. WP:TOOSOON. Willing to be convinced with WP:RS. Dru of Id (talk) 18:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete UIS definitely; delete Paul Dorian weakly. The fact that UIS is yet another IT consulting firm ought to weigh heavily against inclusion. The article doesn't say they invented the wheel, split the atom, or otherwise achieved anything approaching long term historical notability; and without some kind of history making achievement there's no reason why anyone outside of an IT department ought to have heard of them. Being ranked #14 of Silicon Valley's Top 40 under 40 - apparently a Top 40 list and puff piece about youngish proprietors in a local business tabloid - does not get to that kind of historic significance; and that would appear to be the best of the sources given. The CEO is apparently also a blogger or colummist for an online tech paper; not sure this makes him an encyclopedia-worthy public figure either. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 11 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Akindele Akinyemi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable: fails (in order, from least specialized to most specialized) WP:GNG/WP:BIO/WP:POLITICIAN as candidate who never won anything and whose views have not received coverage in reliable sources. GNews hits rundown: 13 (2 are about someone else; the rest are either not significant coverage, not reliable sources, or neither.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ray^Talk 18:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy strong Delete None of the references are reliable. The author should have a look at WP:SP. This is almost an orphan page with no reference that is recognised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manorathan (talk • contribs) 19:28, 15 May 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 Eastern Football League (Australia). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Football League Umpires Association[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. why does an umpires association of a low level amateur league even get an article. nothing in gnews [20]. LibStar (talk) 06:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NSPORT, does not represent "competition at the highest level", no reliable independent references to notability. WWGB (talk) 02:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree it's non-notable. Perhaps a redirect to Eastern Football League (Australia)? Jenks24 (talk) 08:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 11 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boys II Men (album)[edit]

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

Album has no claims of notability. Fails WP:NALBUMS. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 05:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hit #40 in Sweden and has been reviewed by dagensskiva.com (I have no idea how reliable the source is). Adabow (talk · contribs) 10:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hit #40 in Sweden, obviously notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here's another ref [21] (translation here [22]) that claims the album "broke new ground for Swedish hip hop by bringing in influences from electronic dance music from around the world." Robman94 (talk) 17:39, 16 May 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. Bilateral relations between countries that have gone to war with each other are notable. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Japan–Montenegro relations[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. the article is based on factoids, 11 Japanese people living in Montengro, no resident embassies, Montenegro being in the Russo-Japanese war despite being a minor ally. gnews coverage merely confirms a few football games between the nations [23]. those wanting to keep should show actual coverage of a relationship. LibStar (talk) 05:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mergeto Foreign relations of Japan and Foreign relations of Montenegro. No idea what to do with this article afterwards though. 184.144.163.181 (talk) 05:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you cannot redirect to 2 articles. LibStar (talk) 05:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge pertinent information to both Foreign relations of Japan and Foreign relations of Montenegro. I don't see a need for a redirect here. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - purely experimental, "what if I do this?"-type of article. Nothing encyclopedic here, just random fluff. Dahn (talk) 00:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA), which considers Japan-Montenegro Relations to be notable. --Tenmei (talk) 21:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

that is not a third party source. Almost every foreign ministry website describes bilateral relations as good, wanting to cooperate etc. LibStar (talk) 22:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Combined notablity exists here (war is a big one to me) plus it is an alminac entry standard for all encyclopedias. Outback the koala (talk) 21:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no, Macedonia played a very minor part in the Russo-Japanese war and is covered in 1 line in that article. bilateral articles are not inherently notable and must demonstrate WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is never minor for a nation to declare war on another, and send troops to fight agianst them. And the amount of coverage something gets in another Wikipedia article is not relevant to anything. Dream Focus 10:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Dream. This war is especially notable for its extention because of diplomatic irregularity. Outback the koala (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Montenegro was once at war with Japanese, and sent troops to fight against them. Dream Focus 10:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as above. Montenegro was once at war with Japanese, and sent troops to fight against them. --Vinie007 18:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep There isn't much here, but I think that the coverage of the diplomatic irregularity of a 100 year war might just push this into notable territory. Qrsdogg (talk) 03:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Verrier[edit]

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

This article has been completely rewritten over the years, but is still without sources, nor does it engage any of the arguments with Verrier's work in any attempt to be neutral. This article seems to be written by Nancy Verrier herself, one of her acolytes, or whomever at her publisher writes her jacket copy. This article is biased and without citation and has been in all its various edits for years now. It doesn't even cite Verrier's own work. Ample time has already been allowed for the author(s) of this article to provide balance and citations. Rimeice (talk) 05:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is mostly unsourced puffery, and the subject fails to meet the requirements of WP:AUTHOR or WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 20:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

God's Army to Purge Homosexuality[edit]

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

Article does not demonstrate notability. Mrmewe (talk) 04:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence from WP:RS that book is notable. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence from reliable sources that the book is notable. Non-notable book by a non-notable publisher. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - POV push. Carrite (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above. No references or other evidence of notability. Ebikeguy (talk) 00:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

J.D. Ironfield[edit]

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

Subject appears to have a few bit/extra parts in a few television episodes and does not appear to meet WP:NACTOR. No significant roles and nothing attributed to WP:RS. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Note: much of the article contained hoax/joke content and/or egregious violations of WP:BLP; I have removed what I feel fits under that, but feel free to also see the version of the article prior to this AfD nomination. Kinu ^t/_c 03:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sad. The poor article was obviously the target of some nasty vandalisms by IP 76.125.249.72 who used a series of edits to eventually blank the page,[24] and received a warning on his talk page,[25] SPA editor User:UBERNESS,[26] who has been blocked,[27] and IP 168.216.187.42 who has (as of this note) not received a warning for the nonsense he inserted into the article.[28]. Child stars have a tough time here. The negative attention the article has received aside, the subject's short career fails WP:ENT and his lack of any coverage fails WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marika Michałowska[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSICBIO nothing in gnews [29], google search reveals mainly mirrors. claims of "2nd best DJ in Poland" in some not well known award is not really a claim for notability. LibStar (talk) 02:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not shown. — Kpalion^(talk) 01:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harrison Thomas LaTour[edit]

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

The only claims to notability are dubious (e.g. that he is a 'noted' genealogist is just based on being one of dozens of people thanked on someone's self-published web site) or poorly documented (membership in Sons of Confederacy, consisting of generic links, not to specific item), and none of them seem to meet the notability standards for scholars: Google Books turns up no matches that aren't reprints from Wikipedia, Google News nothing. Contains significant material which appears by cites to be original research by synthesis, and a pedigree that is entirely undocumented. Fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:SYNTH, WP:RS and concerns over WP:BLP. I don't see anything here to salvage. Agricolae (talk) 02:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Agricolae (talk) 02:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Srnec (talk) 23:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No substantive claim of notability. Will Beback talk 20:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lgc2010 (talk) 21:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is Harrison Thomas LaTour, a paid genealogist and historian^[2].

RE: Question
Tuesday, February 10, 2009 11:08 AM
From: "Gregory Pilcher" <pilcher@xxxxxxxxxxx.com>
To: harrisonlatour@yahoo.com

Thank you, Harrison, the check will be on its way today. This is really helpful. It shows that my grandfather, and his second wife, Stella Crawford, were living with my great grandmother, Cora Stagg Parrott Long.

I want this information so that I can join the Military Order of the Stars and Bars and, eventually, the Sons of the American Revolution. How do I reference this information to use in my application?

Secondly, can you trace my ancestry through the Stagg line to John Stagg of New York, who was, I am told, an officer in the Revolution? If so would you please do so for me?

Thanks, Father Gregory

The following pages are pages on wikipedia that was created or edited by Harrison Thomas LaTour and the
LaTour Genealogical Collection:

Several points merit clarification:

1) It takes more than just being a paid genealogist and historian to meet Wikipedia notability standards. It's not like they are rare, that genealogists don't grow on (family) trees. One must have attracted significant third-party coverage (see WP:BIO). [As an aside not relevant to Wikipedia, what kind of professional genealogist is so indiscreet as to publicly post private correspondence from a client, with their personal email address (which I have munged for their sake) to a public forum?]

2) It takes more than being a Wikipedia editor or having put your family tree on Rootsweb to meet Wikipedia notability standards.

3) You are confusing me about something. Are you are saying that you are Harrison Thomas LaTour? It appears to be the case based on the list of pages you say were created or edited by Harrison Thomas LaTour:

Lincoln Income Life Insurance Company - created and edited by Lgc2010
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation - edited by Lgc2010
Bank of America - edited by Lgc2008
BOK Financial Corporation - edited by both Lgc2010 and Harrisonlatour
George Kaiser - edited by Lgc2010
Lee Wilder Thomas - created and edited by Lgc2008
Jake Simmons, Jr. - created and edited by Harrisonlatour

This pattern would seem to suggest that User:Lgc2010, User:Lgc2008 and User:Harrisonlatour are the same individual. Is this in fact the case? Agricolae (talk) 23:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am Harrison Thomas LaTour. I was not asked to be born Harrison Thomas LaTour, a descendant of a African-Creole Confederate Soldier, but I am. The fact that I am a genealogist and submitted documentation to prove my ancestry to a national organization, the Sons of Confederate Veterans, and they accepted and approved me to become one of the only African-Creole members in the State of Oklahoma is notability.

What makes me any different from Nelson W. Winbush. He was an educator, a retired assistant principal, and a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. Surely, he does not have a wikipedia page because he was a educator, but because of his notability as a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

68.15.121.179 (talk) 00:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not established by claims nor deeds nor fascinating irony. It is established by coverage in reliable third party sources. It would appear to be provided to Mr. Winbush via the St. Pete Times article, which if being cited correctly gives substantial coverage, in depth. That being said, "If he deserves a page, so do I" is not a valid argument - perhaps he doesn't deserve one either. The only question is why do you qualify? Please consult WP:BIO for the qualifying details.

However, you now have a second problem. User:Harrisonlatour, whose edits you have claimed, has been subject to an indefinite block for the past three years. The use of alternative user names to avoid a block is behavior prohibited on Wikipedia. If you feel you have been blocked inappropriately, or that you were appropriately blocked but have repented of the behavior that caused the block to be instituted, then you need to request that block be removed, not simply create a new User account. Unless you have been reinstated, you are not permitted to create or edit pages, and all such pages thus created can be deleted on that basis alone. I have opened an investigation. Agricolae (talk) 00:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: SCV Membership
Re: free research request; re: Pierre A. Leufroi, LA
Saturday, December 20, 2008 11:30 AM
From: "Gale Red" <galered@xxxxx>
To: harrisonlatour@yahoo.com
Cc: "Terry Wabnitz" <terry_wabnitz_scv@xxxxx>

Harrison,

Over a year ago, I researched your Confederate ancestor and sent you an application per your request to join the SCV. Did you ever join, and if so, what camp? If not, is there anything I can do to help that happen? Please get back with me and let me know. Thanks.

Gale Red,
SCV Genealogy Committee
galered@xxxxxx

Leufroy Pierre-Auguste
Friday, November 6, 2009 8:34 PM
From: "Charley Wilson" <charley.wilson@xxxxx>
To: harrisonlatour@yahoo.com

Sir, I was reading your bio about your Confederate ancestor Leufroy Pierre-Auguste. Interesting for sure.

Are you a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV)? If not, you sure ought to be and we can assist you to join the SCV by and thru the CSA service of your GGG-Gf.

I'm an SCV member and belong to the South Kansas Camp No. 2064 in Wichita, KS.

Regards,

Charley Wilson
Wichita, Kansas

Re: Joining the SCV
Thursday, November 12, 2009 7:57 AM
From: "jrpriddy@xxxxx"
To: harrisonlatour@yahoo.com

Thanks Harrison. I enjoyed speaking with you last night and hope you can make our December 1st meeting.

I'll pass along your ancestor's and family genealogy information to our Edmond Camp Adjutant and State Genealogist.

Best regards,

John

John Priddy, Commander
Oklahoma Division
Sons of Confederate Veterans
jrpriddy@xxxxx
405-330-xxxx
405-808-xxxx

Lgc2010 (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again your purpose in quoting these private communications is unclear. If you mean this as reliable sourcing for your claim to notability, they fail that, being unpublished and not really documenting anything, other than that two people were privately curious about your membership status. It is unclear to me that you understand what this discussion is even about. Agricolae (talk) 23:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that I am a African-American Creole member of what was once a racist organization is notability. My great-great-great grandfather, a African-American Creole faught for what he believed in. He was a part of history. I owe it to him to make sure that his battle for freedom and liberty was not in vain.

How educational is it for students to learn that Africans faught for the Confederacy during the American Civil War. The Harrison Thomas LaTour page educates and brings use close to who we are as a individual.

68.15.121.179 (talk) 01:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but this is not how notability works on Wikipedia. Someone is notable, by Wikipedia standards, not because they think they are notable (whatever their reasons) or because their great-great-great-grandfather was notable, but because other people have thought them notable enough to give them independent in depth coverage in published sources known for fact checking (i.e. reliable sources). Second, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. We don't make pages to prove a point or because we owe it to someone. Further, I have to question the perspective that suggests that your Civil War ancestor would have battled for his freedom and liberty in vain if you don't get to have a Wikipedia page until it is merited. Agricolae (talk) 02:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

B. Alan Bourgeois[edit]

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

Non notable author of self published books, found in no libraries at all -- see worldCat DGG ( talk ) 01:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:RS and WP:N. Monterey Bay (talk) 03:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Does not demonstrate notability. Mrmewe (talk) 04:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability per WP:AUTHOR, no significant coverage in WP:RS found to satisfy WP:GNG. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:SNOW. Qworty (talk) 20:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dhananjay Kumar[edit]

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

Fails WP:ACADEMIC. Rd232 ^talk 01:44, 10 May 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)).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is just a cv, not an article, so even if kept it would need major work to get into shape. The Google scholar citation counts (60, 55, 48, etc, for an h-index of 17) aren't impressive enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1. And the awards listed are all very minor. As the nominator concludes, he does not appear to pass WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorting by subject matter I find GS cites of 60, 48, 25, 22, 18, 17, 9, 5 .... to give an h index of 7. Not so impressive. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Don't Delete. This article can be reframed. Let the student community know their professors. I don't find any item exaggerated here. By deleting this article, we will be discouraging others in particular student community who likes to see their professors on such platform. Students are one of the major stakeholders of Wikipedia and hence their interests also need to be preserved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krishnan KP (talk • contribs) 12:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC) — Krishnan KP (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Fails WP:PROF, Wikipedia is not a freshman orientation handbook for a local university. Ray^Talk 17:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retain if Room, I don’t know, what is the definition of “a local university” as pointed by ‘Ray’. If an institute is local it cannot be university; conversely, a university cannot be local. By the way, the university mentioned in this article i.e. “Anna University” is not a local university in any stretch of imagination. Someone can easily verify it by Google search. If Wikipedia has a strict guideline and tightly defined notability of professors WP:PROF, this article on “Dr. Dhananjay Kumar” must be deleted without any further delay. As far as research contribution of this professor is concerned, I am enthused to appreciate after going through some his research papers. Someone, who is aware of the contribution (including social/non-technical) of this professor, can update this article. Finally, if Wikipedia team has no much objection, I would vote for retention of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodrigs F (talk • contribs) 15:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC) — Rodrigs F (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Wikipedia does have strict guidelines and tightly defined notability of professors. They are described in WP:Prof, which the editor above is advised to read before commenting further. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:53, 14 May 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. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Annie O'Donnell[edit]

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

Nice written, but a a made-up story. A PROD has been deleted. Ben Ben (talk) 01:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as obvious hoax. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. This is ridiculous. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 04:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adriana Mugnatto-Hamu[edit]

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

Biography of a person whose only apparent notability is having unsuccessfully run for office in the Canadian federal election, 2011; as per WP:POLITICIAN, this is not generally sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Also a ~~fairly~~ extremely high probability of WP:COI, as prior to coming back specifically to start this particular article the creator, User:Bobagem, hadn't edited Wikipedia under this username since 2008 — and his edits in 2008 pertained to, guess what, the unelected candidate in the Canadian federal election, 2008 for the very same political party in the very same electoral district. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious delete. Any political candidate without notability in the public does not qualify WP:POLITICIAN. hmssolent\Let's convene 04:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN. and fails WP:BIO, very limited coverage [30]. LibStar (talk) 06:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major League Baseball win leaders by birthplace[edit]

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

While interesting, I don't really see how this would be appropriate as a stand-alone list for the site. No sources that specifically note what makes the two combined variables notable. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I just nominated the same list, only for home run hitters, earlier today. I didn't see this one, or else I would've nominated it too. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Monterey Bay (talk) 03:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Dumb trivia, nothing more, nothing found to support the notability of winners by state/province/country. Tarc (talk) 13:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- no reason for this to exist. --Coemgenus 13:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As it stands now, almost entirely OR. Nor do I think that most wins by state of birth is particularly notable. I might be persuaded that the list of win leaders by country of birth is appropriate, if it could be properly sourced. Rlendog (talk) 19:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong keep - Do you people really believe that it's "no big deal" to be the winningest pitcher from a particular country, or from a particular state? There is nothing "trivial" about this. As for sourcing of the winningest pitchers by country, state, province or territory, these results all come from www.baseball-reference.com, the preeminent source of baseball statistics on the Internet, which site allows you to see lists (with full career statistics) of all players born in each jurisdiction. All a person needs to know to figure out who is the winningest pitcher born in Cuba is to know that 229 is higher than 194 (and thus Luis Tiant, not Dolf Luque, has the most career wins for a pitcher born in Cuba). AuH2ORepublican (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You need sources to demonstrate how wins and birthplace are related, not just the list itself. If people are interested, they can look it up in baseball-reference.com.—Chris!_c/t 19:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above.—Chris!_c/t 19:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandru Dedov[edit]

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

This player has never played in a fully-professional league, therefore failing WP:NFOOTBALL. He also fails WP:GNG. First nominated for deletion back in September 2009 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rihards Gorkšs. Giant Snowman 00:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 00:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully professional league, and there is no evidence of significant coverage, meaning he fails both WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 22:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gints Freimanis[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This player has never played in a fully-professional league, therefore failing WP:NFOOTBALL. He also fails WP:GNG - while Ref #4 is "significant coverage", the other sources are just player profiles and one run-of-the-mill transfer report, which isn't enough in my eyes. First nominated for deletion back in September 2009 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rihards Gorkšs, and again in February 2010 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gints Freimanis. Giant Snowman 00:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 00:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTY as he has yet to play at a fully professional level, and the sources provided on the article are WP:ROUTINE sports items which fail to establish notability - two are simple stats pages, the other two relate to how he hoped to break into the national team by playing in Ireland (unfortunately this failed to materialise due to injury and he returned to the Latvian league after making just two appearances). —BETTIA— ^talk 08:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Coverage is routine. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pender Sessoms[edit]

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

very much appears to fail WP:NTENNIS Mayumashu (talk) 00:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing but tennis sites even mention her, and passing mentions cannot prove notability. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CorpNet.com[edit]

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

Contested PROD read: WP:NOTABILITY - of the three references provided, only the Inc. blog is not simply a mention of the company in an About The Author item. (Also has the strong scent of promo to it; article had previously been attempted to be created under the name of company founder; this time has a first-time user.) Eeekster (talk) 00:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" All suggested edits to page have been changed and replaced out. Please consider removing removal tag. Any advertorial type language has been deleted and replaced. References changes to valid sites. External links changed to valid sites which support legal document filing industry topics. ABKS (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for WP:NOTABILITY. Only one of the references in article qualifies as a WP:RS and talks about the subject (the Inc. blog entry). (The Franchise King is a WP:SPS, the BlogWorld site is one for an expo they were displaying at, and is the sort of promo article that gets run in the show bulletin for those paying for booth space.) I have sought to strip out the more hyperiffic portions of the article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~"Keep"~~ Will work on gathering more prolific references to add in replace of BlogWorld article. -ABKS —Preceding unsigned comment added by ABKS (talk • contribs) 16:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC) ABKS (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~"Kee"~~ Added two new references - Small Business Trends that features an interview with Nellie Akalp and Succeed As Your Own Boss which features an interview with Philip Akalp. Both notable and trusted small business outlets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ABKS (talk • contribs) 17:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC) ABKS (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Akalps are not the subject of the article, CorpNet.com is. Something like Succeed As Your Own Boss which only mentions CorpNet.com in a brief bio of the author or guest does not establish notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~"Keep"~~ Removed reference of Succeed as your Own Boss in article per the above editor suggestion. Will work on adding other notable reference. Please consider removing page delation tag. - ABKS —Preceding unsigned comment added by ABKS (talk • contribs) 13:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC) ABKS (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~"Keep"~~ Added new reference, review of the company, and also added text to history. ABKS (talk) 15:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete" for WP:COMPANY. Fails to meet critera as a stand alone article for scope of activities. Also appears to be self-written and links to an affilliate company WP:ADVERT. Mariepr (talk) 01:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have struck the repeated !votes from the article's creator above. One !vote per person, please. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see press releases, self-published sources, and other blog-style posts of dubious reliability. I can find no significant coverage from WP:RS to show why the company meets WP:CORP, fails WP:GNG. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added new references from notable outlets mentioning CorpNet.com to meet WP:CORP. Edited content and removed 'dubiously reliable' source. ABKS (talk) 12:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nong Poy[edit]

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

Despite a smattering of anonymous cries of "this person is famous" in response to a recent CSD, this person is non-notable. No articles link to this one and the vast majority of wikilinks within the article are red links. There is nothing within the article, nor at the external links (three in total: one dead, one sketchy, and one a YouTube video), to adequately establish notability. In short, the article doesn't meet even the minimum WP:BIO standards. B.Rossow · talk 21:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also note that the single mention of this person in Google News is a note in passing in a local Thai newspaper from the archives from 2006. As expected, there is nothing at all in Google Scholar. Regular Google hits seem more or less limited to pinup-style photo reposts. B.Rossow · talk 04:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Searching by the name "Treechada Petcharat" (which I believe is the proper title for the article) returns several Gnews hits and a mention in Scholar. The Thai spelling "ตรีชฎา เพชรรัตน์" returns about 147 news results, most of which are entertainment and celebrity gossip columns. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 10 May 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. The "keep" !votes are a textbook case of WP:JUSTAPOLICY. However, due to irregularities on the part of the "delete" !voters there is insufficient support for deletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meghan Allen[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

non-notable. appeared in 2 un-notable adult films. Alan - talk 01:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Also being contestant on Fear Factor and Momma's Boys satisfies WP:PORNBIO, with reliable sources to support this. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article that could be merged, but no reason to delete it. Cavarrone (talk) 23:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: - Does not meet standard of notability for porno actors.--Burkina Faso (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:PORNBIO.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Being a contestant on Fear Factor and Momma's Boys does not satisfies GNG. That plus doing some porn also does not (if PORNBIO says so, it's broken. Local notability guidelines are supposed to explain, and not broaden, the general guideline). Is there independent non-trivial coverage about the subject? --Damiens.rf 16:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note The above !vote is in violation of a topic ban on BLP articles [31]. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:PORNBIO. --82.41.20.82 (talk) 11:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Subject clearly does not pass WP:PORNBIO, as she has no pornographic work in her history or credit list. Claims otherwise in the article are utterly unverified and fail WP:BLP. She's a low-profile glamour model with a pair of reality TV appearances and some low-end Playboy credits. The article has a batch of sources that fail RS miserably (including her plastic surgeon's blog), but the single RS is a passing mention in an article about a fundraising event where she served as eye candy. PORNBIO#4, which is claimed here as a basis for keeping the article, is not a pretext for declaring that anybody who's been on a reality TV show and has let their T&A go on display merits a Wikipedia article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable star. Very visible and has been on many programs. Askadaleia (talk) 08:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Credit Card Babies[edit]

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

Disputed proposed deletion (talkpage says Although the single "Credit Card Babies" did not have commercial success, it is notable as the band MEN's only UK commercial release, and as an significant promotion for gay parenting and gay adoption.) - reasoning on the PROD was, "Does not appear to be notable; see WP:BAND". "soundblab" seems to be a website that facilitates self-promotion; this seems to lack significant coverage in independent reliablse sources. Chzz ► 12:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete 8 gnews hits with mainly passing mentions. does not satisfy WP:BAND. LibStar (talk) 05:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to MEN (band). I'd think that, far from being a claim for ntoability, being the band's only UK release actually demonstrates how insignificant that band is in the UK, especially considering the admitted lack of commercial success. LordVetinari (talk) 04:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gregor Smerdyakov[edit]

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

I tried as hard as I could to find sources for this page; however, I couldn't find anything other than mirror sites. Ryan Vesey (talk) 14:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No entry on Comic Book DB [32]. No entry on Marvel Wiki Universe [33]. An entry on Comic Vine (user-submitted encyclopedia for comics not considered as a reference) [34], this minor character seems to have made nine appearances in comic books. After some researchs, no sources so nothing to prove the notability and to verify the informations given in the article.--Crazy runner (talk) 12:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Right now it's been set up to merge into List of minor X-Men characters. And just to add a few notes: cbdb's profile pages are open editing, Marvel's "official" wiki is still a wiki, an appearance list is generated by the GCD [35], and the Marvel Database does have an entry [36] (and frankly this is as valid as the "official" wiki). - J Greb (talk) 16:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor and non-notable fictional character who does not meet the general notability guideline. Also, the article is an unreferenced plot-only description of a fictional work without real-world context. Jfgslo (talk) 00:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Te... Rock Frumos[edit]

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

Delete per WP:NALBUMS, while there is no significant coverage in the media. — ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 17:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Neither the article on the artist nor the article on the album itself give any indication of notability for the album. Moreover, Ştefan Bănică, Jr. has a single line which contains all the information in this article save the track list, and I can't seem to find any reliable sources that would allow that information to be expanded.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Faith (When I Let You Down)[edit]

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

non notable music single redirected per WP:NSONG which was reverted by article creator Mo ainm~Talk 17:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Mo ainm~Talk 17:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is it not notable? It is the first single off of a successful artist's upcoming record (which has a page)... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrkite6270 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:NSONG and tell me how it passes the criteria also as you say it is upcoming record see WP:CRYSTAL. Mo ainm~Talk 22:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I Disagree, WP:CRYSTAL can/should not be invoked here. The album has been confirmed, as has the tracklist, both by Reliable Sources. The page for the single should be kept. -Deathsythe (talk) 16:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore Crystal it doesn't apply but how does it meet WP:NSONG? Also this is a single not a Album. Mo ainm~Talk 16:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that the article in question is for a Single and not a mere song, one which was premired through a joint venture with Coca Cola, I am unsure as to how it is not notable. -Deathsythe (talk) 17:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has the song been ranked on national or significant music charts, has it won any significant awards or honors or has it been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups. If not then it doesn't meet the criteria. Mo ainm~Talk 17:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe those are not the only criteria for notability, as they are very specific and strict. One could argue, given the partnership with Coke for the release of this single, that it is in fact released by several notable groups (Coke and the band itself)-Deathsythe (talk) 17:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No your not wrong there are other criteria namely WP:GNG and this article fails that also in that there is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Mo ainm~Talk 20:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SONG and the general notability criteria. Google has no reliable sources for us, and that is pertinent per WP:GNG. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:26, 10 May 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.