The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - TP 01:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Selby Whittingham[edit]

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

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

Unsourced biography (possibly autobiography) of a non-notable living person. Orange Mike | Talk 23:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and cleanup. Plenty of sources seem to be available. What's your reasoning for non-notability? Pburka (talk) 23:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • response all his publications but one seem to be published by the same obscure society, possibly Whittingham himself wearing a different hat. There is no assertion (far less evidence) that I can see that Whittingham himself, rather than Turner, is notable: no articles about him, etc. There are no footnotes at all, unless you count LinkedIn (not a reliable source for much of anything). Sole author of this unsourced BLP on an art expert is User:Art Experts, whose arguments for retention have included "Dr Whittingham has the right to have his entry which is not promoting him but promoting an interest in J.W.M. Turner, the 19th C painter!". --Orange Mike | Talk 23:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Google News shows that he's quoted periodically by the Telegraph, the Guardian and the New York Times as a Turner expert. I think he's got a reasonable claim to notability, regardless of the quality of the article. BTW, I also suspected that the article was autobiographical, but the primary editor has identified herself at Wikipedia:Help_desk#illicit_amendment_to_an_entry. Assuming this is accurate, she's neither the subject nor an immediate relation. Pburka (talk) 00:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • He is an expert on a notable subject; but that does not make him himself notable. I do acknowledge that the editor in question has outed herself (although the plural username and the use of the royal "we" must be abandoned). She writes only about obscure art experts, and is only marginally notable herself. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Pburka, could you please add some of the reference you have found. If you add some that establish his notability then the problem is solved. Bgwhite (talk) 05:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • He is an expert on a notable subject who has himself received non-trivial coverage in reliable sources over an extended period of time thus satisfying WP:GNG. Note that AfD is not cleanup -- our obligation is to examine the subject, not just the current state of the article. I have now added the references which I identified in my previous comments to the article. Pburka (talk) 14:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Contrary to what Pburka says, there are not "Plenty of sources". As far as the references in the article are concerned, if we ignore the one that just says "www.turnermuseum.org" and nothing more, all but one of the references are written by Selby Whittingham, not about him. The other one refers to Whittingham, but is not about him. It is an annual report of an organisation called "The Independent Turner Society" which, according to the Wikipedia article, was founded by Selby Whittington. Thus, among the nine "references" in the article, we have a total of zero independent sources. Also, not one of the (non-independent) sources contains substantial material about him. OK, so much for the cited references, but what about other sources? Checking the first few dozen Google hits, I found Wikipedia, a few pages on the web site of Whittingham's "Independent Turner Society", other pages by Whittingham or containing brief quotes from him, a couple of websites selling one or more books by Whittingham, and so on, but apart from the Wikipedia article not one single source which contained significant content about him, as opposed to by him. If "Plenty of sources seem to be available" then why not tell us what and where those sources are? Simply stating that they exist without giving any information about them is not helpful, and certainly doesn't establish notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Lack of independent sources. The references section of the article is mostly the bibliography of the author.Farhikht (talk) 09:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The analysis convincing made by JamesBWatson is quite convincing. --Crusio (talk) 09:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and please note there are numerous references. Again, what are the reasons for non-notability? This is a well known scholar. If Who's Who in Art? last year (and the 12 preceding years) is not a "reliable course", I wonder what is? There are now ample references to the entry and no reason to discuss deletion. User talk:kanoe114;45 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Do you have any more information about that publication? I've tried searching for it on Google books and Amazon with no luck. For example, who are the authors, editors and publisher? Is it this? Pburka (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Found on google books)Who's who in art, Volume 25 by Bernard Dolman. The Art Trade Press, Ltd., 1992 - Biography & Autobiography - 598 pages. Selby Whittingham entry Page 508. "WHITTINGHAM Dr Selby, BA (1964), M.A. Ph.D(1975);art historian;founder of Turner Soc. 1975;" etc. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 15:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. I've updated the citation in the article based on that. Pburka (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Noted Turner scholar and expert - Guardian: Selby Whittingham, an expert on Turner Evening Standard: Turner expert Dr Selby Whittingham. (Msrasnw (talk) 16:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  • comment - noted as a Turner scholar, indeed arguably a fanatic (not that there's anything wrong with that). The question is whether he is notable in his own right; and I feel the answer is "no". --Orange Mike | Talk 22:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, doesn't "noted as a Turner scholar" meet the criterion at WP:PROF? DGG ( talk ) 18:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Heavily citated, descriptive, and long enough, I am "pretty sure" WP:GNG is met. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment "heavily citated"? Note that almost all the citations are to works published by his little breakaway society; and the remaining citations are feeble in the extreme. Most of the biographical material is totally unsourced, including all the colorful tidbits about his mom, his ancestor, etc. WP:GNG is in my opinion nowhere near met. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• A possibly useful reference: Is his winning this Frank Mason Prize useful (http://artwatchuk.wordpress.com/tag/the-watteau-society/) to try and save the article? (Msrasnw (talk) 23:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]
• Clarrification and a worry about the tone of some of the comments here : I think Dr Whittingham seems not only to have been the founder of the little breakaway society The Independent Turner Society but also a founder of the original Turner Society in 1975 - from which the latter broke away. I am also worried about the tone of some of the comments here - accusing Dr Whittingham of writing this article - accusing him of being a fanatic and calling the Independent Turner Society a little break away society is not, in my view, what we should be doing in Afds. I think this is the sort of thing that gives wikipedia a bad name. (Msrasnw (talk) 13:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep I consider the publication record sufficient to show as meeting WP:PROF, as an expert on the subject of Turner. DGG ( talk ) 18:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources (particularly press sources) added by Pburka. PWilkinson (talk) 01:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable and meets the criteria...Modernist (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Plenty of sources to pass WP:General notability guideline. Nitalake (talk) 22:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - TP 01:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Darrell Sundai[edit]

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

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

Seems not satisfy WP:MUSIC. Though sources are present many of them seem trivial and fail to establish why this musician is truly notable. As far as I could tell, none of the suggestions in WP:MUSIC were met. ERK ^talk 23:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:MUSICBIO. sources provided are not reliable. LibStar (talk) 00:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm not finding any significant coverage for this musician in reliable sources; doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or any of the WP:MUSICBIO criteria at this time.  Gongshow ^Talk 03:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. fails WP:MUSICBIO fully. Ray-Rays 07:10, 29 October 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 delete. v/r - TP 01:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Onthanusi Sultanate[edit]

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

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

There do not seem to be any reliable sources for this in English on google. It seems like a hoax. Pass a Method talk 22:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Google hits are all Wikip copies or search traps or both; books finds nothing at all. It's possible that the transliteration is wrong but in that case there's so little substance here that starting over with a different source is no great loss. Mangoe (talk) 02:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Possible hoax, and no big deal to recreate if a source is found. --Banana (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Can't find anything that's not a mirror of this. Can't find anything useful on alleged source. Happy to look again if new sources can be found. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - TP 01:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly O'Mara[edit]

Kelly O'Mara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A TV news reporter. Has been working for three years in a small market. No independent, reliable sources about her that can be found. Fails nobility requirements for a journalist (WP:CREATIVE) and WP:GNG. Prod was contested. Bgwhite (talk) 20:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 20:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Interestingly, apparently her TV station is one of the smallest markets in the United States, in remote northern Maine. As much as I am fascinated to know that she was "raised in the Christian faith" (in America no less!) and "first worked as a kindergarten through 5th grade teacher at a small school in Wytopitlock, teaching a total of eight students and where O'Mara's golden retriever, Harvey, was a class pet," (no Harvey pic??!?!) this is an impossible case for notability. Also, target should be redirected to the station.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 11:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (t) 01:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jaya Ho[edit]

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

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

Ok, it is a hymn, but that alone doesn't establish notability. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There have been thousands upon thousands of hymns written. What makes this one special? StAnselm (talk) 23:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC) In light of the work that has been done to establish notability, I am changing my vote to keep. StAnselm (talk) 21:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to disambiguation page (first preference) or keep (second preference).   StAnselm — When I saw Slumdog Millionare, I got confused as to whether "Jai Ho" was some pop/techno adaptation of "Jaya Ho" (I don't speak Hindi). I looked up "Jaya Ho" on Wikipedia and found no article and no dablink. I got confused and had to do quite a bit of digging on various websites to find that the song and the hymn are unrelated; because I didn't know about the "Jai Ho" transliteration/spelling, it was only by chance that I found that the two are unrelated: Someone else on a different website had happened to transliterate the Slumdog Millionaire song title "Jai Ho" as "Jaya Ho." I've set "Jaya Ho" to redirect to "Jai ho" and made "Jai ho" a disambiguation page distinguishing between multiple uses of the corresponding phrase: It links to the Slumdog Millionare article using the article's capitalization "Jai Ho", and it lists the hymn as "Jaya Ho". BTW, for the validity of "Jaya ho" as a transliteration, see the history of Jaya ho, which now-blocked/deleted user WillyGA created in an act of vandalism by posting what amounts to a victory cheer. (Jaya ho now also redirects to Jai ho.) — Antediluvian67 (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from Nom - I have no problem with the article becoming a disambig, which it now is. A closing admin can feel free to close this AFD if they choose as resolved to be a disambig. It still isn't "notable" per se, but in the interest of completeness, it would make sense as a single line and external link, and is for all intent, relatively deleted now. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. There is some Google Books coverage, but not very much. -- 202.124.73.183 (talk) 02:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to Keep. Sources added to the article by Cunard (see below) seem to take this article across the line. -- 202.124.73.83 (talk) 00:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I have undone the redirect by Antediluvian67 to allow the AfD to run its course, although a redirect may be a good final outcome. -- 202.124.73.183 (talk) 02:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to Jai ho Jai ho, it's off to work we go. Non-notable hymn, and there's not even a single item to disambiguate, let alone two. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have found this article from C. Michael Hawn, a professor of sacred music at Perkins School of Theology. I also found discussion about the hymn in a book by Carlton R. Young.

  For Young's source, I have been able to obtain part of the source through Google Books snippets view:

  Hindi; trans, by Katherine R. Rohrbough, 1958 phonetic transcription from the Hindi by I-to Loh, 1988 This traditional Hindi hymn was brought to the USA by the Centennial Choir of India, Victor C. Sherring, director, and in 1955-56 was performed by them in concerts and worship services in seventy cities that celebrated the centenary of Methodist missions in that country. Victor C. Sherring has written: "The hymn was first included in Jaya Ho, Songs of Joy from India, 1955-1956, a collection of songs in Indian and Western musical notation published in Lucknow by the Centenary Music Committee; and in Joyful Songs of India, 1955-56, a collection of songs in translation from Southeast Asia.

  Cunard (talk) 07:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, StAnselm and 202.124.73.183, for reviewing the article after my rewrite. Cunard (talk) 00:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is no consensus here whether the articles meets the notability guidelines or not. Davewild (talk) 19:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Wean[edit]

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

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

Wean does not pass WP:CRIME Vic49 (talk) 19:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Vic49 (talk) 19:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vic49 (talk) 19:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable enough for WP:CRIME. --Cox wasan (talk) 11:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Minor criminal, fails WP:CRIME. - DonCalo (talk) 17:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• keep—seems to meet gng, although the article is in quite bad shape. i fixed it a little, added one nyt source, one wash post source. the dude is discussed in all those books in the refs section that aren't cited inline, but that's a matter for editing, some of which i will try to do soon. however, the fact that he's discussed in them is enough to meet the gng.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In both newspaper articles he is only mentioned once as a witness and not as mayor criminal. Notability is not about being mentioned in a newspaper article. - DonCalo (talk) 08:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you are absolutely correct that his notability is not established by the newspaper articles. that is why i noted above that he was discussed in the books and stated explicitly that it was the books that i was basing my argument that he meets the gng. did you look at them? here's one:

Anthony M. DeStefano (27 May 2008). King of the Godfathers: Big Joey Massino and the Fall of the Bonanno Crime Family. Citadel Press. pp. 130–. ISBN 978-0-8065-2874-8. Retrieved 29 October 2011.

this is the only one with an actual preview in gbooks, but it's got pages on the guy.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Mentioned in 4 mafia books. Portillo (talk) 09:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the article needs some attention but there is in my opinion no question about this one passing WP:CRIME. --BabbaQ (talk) 11:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

how does it meet WP:CRIME? LibStar (talk) 15:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• delete clearly fails WP:CRIME. Article actually is more a case for Joe Massino being notable. LibStar (talk) 15:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i'm glad you called out BabbaQ on his WP:JUSTAPOLICY, because i think that the level of discussion at afds in general could stand to be a great deal higher, but i don't see how you're not doing roughly the same thing. here's the relevant sentence from WP:CRIME: Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role. now, it's clear to me that this guy meets it, but i can see that this is a borderline case and that reasonable editors can disagree on whether or not he meets it. how does he not, in your opinion?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are enough references and material to meet GNG. There is a full page on him in the mafia book already used as a reference. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly, there are some sources available. The trick now is to use them to fix the article, but cleanup is not a deletion issue. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I was the one who first brought this article up for attention, as I saw no evidence of this guy having any major impact on his crime family or the world at large. I wasn't entirely sure if I could still vote, but if I can I consequently recommend deletion. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 13:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Have been editing these LCN articles since 2007 and have never seen this guy mentioned anywhere else. Having good references does not make someone notable.Rogermx (talk) 03:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep significant involvement in major criminal activities over a period of time; adequately sourced. According to some views expressed here (and at other similar article AfDs), the criteria for career criminals would be "famous" , but, like for everything else here, it's merely "notable". DGG ( talk ) 04:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - TP 01:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better Dayz (Online Web series)[edit]

Better Dayz (Online Web series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unremarkable unreleased webseries. Google news search on "Better Dayz" webseries shows no results. Standard search on the same terms show a lot of social media and primary sources, but no significant coverage from independent reliable sources MikeWazowski (talk) 19:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. Sparthorse (talk) 19:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - TP 01:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ryann Aoukar[edit]

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

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

I can find no evidence that we are dealing with a notable and well-awarded designer. Drmies (talk) 19:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can't either. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete Nor can I... --Crusio (talk) 06:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ha, as it turns out the contributor probably has a serious COI; moreover, the subject is a former colleague of mine (in the broad sense of the word--worked for the same university). So I have a COI as well! Oh, what to do... Drmies (talk) 18:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - TP 01:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andri Rafn Yeoman[edit]

Andri Rafn Yeoman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that Mr. Yeoman has played in the Icelandic league. As this league is not fully pro, playing in it does not confer notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tómas Óli Garðarsson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both per nom, non-notable players. GiantSnowman 20:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both. Fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 18:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, really unavoidable with the deletion of the parent series article. postdlf (talk) 23:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Au~eiku episodes[edit]

List of Au~eiku episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Along with Au~eiku, article is regarding a show that has no notability. No sources, also WP:CRYSTAL would apply. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No independent sources, blatant violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Articles created by a SPA with a clear COI. Should have been Speedied. Edward321 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (yak) 19:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• NoteAu~eiku was deleted earlier today per AfD. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - TP 01:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Breedlove[edit]

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

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

Subject fails the notability requirements of WP:BIO. Alaska's first internet cafe, which he founded, has received some media attention and may itself be notable but none of the sources discuss the founder, if they even mention his name. JohnInDC (talk) 14:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. None of the referenced sources even mentions Breedlove, except one, which is written by Breedlove. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Anchorage Daily News article which is pictured states that Mr Breedlove was founder of Alaska's first cyber cafe. This was an great achievement for Alaska & Anchorage tourism. Will be posting local Anchorage channel 2 news coverage from 11 Sep 1996 as soon as it arrives from archive which also states founder and how it has help put Alaska on the map.
  -- Amienutter (talk) 11:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Minimal if any notability. Does not pass WP:GNG as it is. Even with the presumed 15 minutes of fame on TV once, does not pass WP:BIO1E. Uʔ (talk) 15:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• A brief bio of the founder may be included in Surf City, An Internet Cafe, assuming someone writes that first. Uʔ (talk) 15:57, 27 October 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, Rcsprinter (state) 19:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A google search shows multiple hits to Surf City & Robert A Breedlove as founder — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.81.115.94 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - NB, the foregoing IP appears to be the same individual as the article's author, Amienutter, who has already commented here. JohnInDC (talk) 12:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The IP was blocked as sock-puppet for one week; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amienutter. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. RadioKAOS (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Speaking not only as a once-upon-a-time patron of Surf City, but someone who has been using the Internet since 1989, I could perhaps offer a different perspective. To me, this smacks of historical revisionism. So Surf City was founded in 1996. A whole lot of people in Alaska, and everywhere else for that matter, had jumped on the Internet bandwagon by 1996. There were a number of Internet evangelists in Alaska for years by that point, most notably H. A. Boucher. Boucher's activism can be amply verified by reliable sources, though what coverage was given to him was mostly on account of his stature in business and politics rather than his computer wizardry. In comparison, the other late 1980s/early 1990s Internet evangelists in Alaska, myself included, were mostly a ragtag bunch of high school and college kids. Lance Ahern, who founded the ISP Internet Alaska roughly four years before Surf City started, was far more of an Internet pioneer in Alaska than Breedlove.RadioKAOS (talk) 13:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - TP 01:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everett Robinson[edit]

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

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

Another Alex de-PROD without a giving any reason. Individual is not notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment- Appears to be this entry at findagrave; military service does not meet WP:Soldier; no helpful criteria covered, but may assist further searches. Dru of Id (talk) 06:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - championship-winning manager. However, it's only one championship, and for that I have to ask: what level of baseball were the Madisonville Miners at? If they were AAA, AA or even A, I'd argue winning the championship with them establishes notability; if not an A-level team, though, it probably doesn't. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Madisonville Miners were a Class-D league.. similar to todays rookie leagues. Spanneraol (talk) 14:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete... this guy doesnt quite do it for me. Spanneraol (talk) 14:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep person has achived multiple titles, I feel meets the requirements for both WP:GNG and WP:STUB. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 19:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nowhere in GNG or STUB does it say that "achieving multiple titles" passes those thresholds. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:25, 24 October 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, Rcsprinter (whisper) 19:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. With no prejudice toward recreation. The topic is notable, but the article does not have any salvagable parts. v/r - TP 01:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Travel policy[edit]

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

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

A personal essay with no reliable sources so unverifiable. Sparthorse (talk) 19:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unsourced personal essay or notes. AllyD (talk) 19:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy - a very new article with considerable scope for development, but it might take a lot of work searching through planning applications, regional "green" policies etc. --Northernhenge (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The topic is obviously notable as entire books have been written about it such as Travel and Entertainment Best Practices. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing per our editing policy which makes it fairly clear that we don't go deleteing new work just because it's not a GA yet. Warden (talk) 14:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above statment by Warden, and the fact that more sources can be found, this is fully salvageble. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - With no prejudice yet towards recreation. Maybe a topic can be created on this, but this article is currently all unsourced mush.--Yaksar (let's chat) 10:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied by User:Acroterion

I'm closing for cleanup purposes only and don't necessarily either support or oppose the decision to speedy delete the article. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HUMANIST LIFE GOALS AND VALUES[edit]

HUMANIST LIFE GOALS AND VALUES (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested PROD. Concern was: User essay, fails WP:OR and WP:IINFO. Eeekster (talk) 18:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete. Possible copyright violation. Non-encyclopedic personal essay. --Joefridayquaker (talk) 18:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Essay. I tried searching for the text elsewhere so as to speedy this as a copyvio but came up empty. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as copyvio unsourced original essay. Carrite (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoudreza Hejazi[edit]

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

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

No reliable sources that demonstrate the notability of the subject and in particular the subject appears to fail the notability guidelines for academics. The included references are either not reliable or do not provide substantive coverage. A contested Prod, so taken to AfD. Sparthorse (talk) 18:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As written, the article doesn't include anything that would lead me to believe that the subject is notable. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Almost no GS cites in highly cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete No evidence that this meets WP:PROF. --Crusio (talk) 06:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As a recent Ph.D. he is unlikely to pass WP:PROF and the citation record confirms this assessment. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per David Eppstein and others. That said, though, I think the usual caveats apply here - he is a new PhD, as noted, so it's possible that future research or publications may indicate notability. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A new reference (Mahmoud's biography in Marquis Who's Who) has been added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.57.70 (talk) 23:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Marquis Who's Who uses information supplied by the subjects themselves and is not independent. In addition, Marquis is more or less a vanity press outfit. --Crusio (talk) 06:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lamborghini Jarama. Of course anything worth merging can be done so from the history, as long as it's attributed properly. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lamborghini 400GT Jamara[edit]

Lamborghini 400GT Jamara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

There is already an article about Lamborghini Jarama, to which any additional information about the 400GT should fit quite well. Tupsumato (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. Seems like a reasonable search term; no need to delete. Pburka (talk) 18:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge' The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect - fair enough. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alfa Romeo 14c[edit]

Alfa Romeo 14c (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No sources provided and Google search did not bring up anything related to "Alfa Romeo 14c", meaning that it's highly likely that such car does not exist, even on paper. Tupsumato (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax. Perpetrator has been making trouble elsewhere. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. You are the weakest article, good bye. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 21:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The article as it is smells (the "up coming McLaren F1" was "up coming" in 1993...), but the car DOES appear to exist...as something WP:MADEUP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - TP 01:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harshnath[edit]

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

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

Notability not established. Creator keeps removing tags, won't add citations, wider view is needed. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources are found. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep or Merge/Redirect with Sikar Found 2 references. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 09:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - TP 01:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Music to Raise the Dead[edit]

Music to Raise the Dead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

All Your Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Restarting debate. Last debate was open 4 weeks with nothing resembling a consensus. Argument is that the album was "hard to find" and "considered" influential, both of which are subjective and weaselly. I can't find a concrete establishment of notability — it's entirely possible for a band to release a non-notable album that just didn't get any attention. I am completely unconvinced by the keep arguments in the last AFD, which were mostly WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:LOSE. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Only have the subjective, weaselly argument. I will try to find a concrete establishment of notability. I am completely unconvinced of neutrality by the nominator. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Against my better political judgment I'm going to wade into this tarpit. For what it's worth I was previously unfamiliar with the band and the cassette, and wasn't involved in the prior debates. There are a number of separate reasons why I think this should be kept:

1. The pop culture notability guidelines are written with the recent past in mind. Due to the evolution of recording technology, it has been possible to release album-length studio cassettes cheaply since about 1980 or so (by and large because of the introduction of the Portastudio and similar products). In 1974, to release an album length studio cassette required a substantial investment of time and money, making such releases inherently more notable than they are today. The production of the cover artwork alone would have cost more than the total production costs most young bands now incur for a CD. As such, I believe that a degree of forbearance is called for.
2. To the extent that WP:MUSIC applies, the standards for released material should govern, not those for demos or unreleased material. By the standards of the era (1974), a full-length studio recording with album art would be considered a release, even if distribution had been relatively limited. A demo (something put together as a promotional tool to book live gigs, in the early 1970s, would typically have no artwork, and would either be a live recording or one or two studio tracks.
3. The fact that the album and the band are still of popular interest after 35 years creates a presumption in favor of notability.
4. While I acknowledge that notability is not inherited, I believe that a certain amount of weight should be given to the problems in article structure posed for Resurrection Band should a decision be made to delete one or two articles on early albums while keeping articles covering the later albums where notability is not in doubt. Doing so would mean that the early albums would have full coverage in the Resurrection Band article itself while the more notable, later albums would have only a summary and a link, hardly an outcome we would want.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Absolutely none of your filibustering is based in policy. You're saying we should consider it notable because it's not "new". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disappointed that you believe I'm engaging in debate merely to waste time as I wrote the words above in a sincere attempt to help the project. I don't believe that my reasoning can be accurately condensed to "notable because it's not new."

I believe that WP:MUSIC has many shortcomings and don't see it as the last word. WP:MUSIC was created to address the very real problem of proliferation of articles on ephemeral bands for which there are no useful sources. Such articles are usually promotional in nature and are conflict magnets, and something had to be done. But the criteria don't always make sense for bands from another era -- would we delete articles on Tiny Hill's recordings just because we can't find online sources confirming their individual notability? The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So now you're bringing WP:WAX. Screw Tiny Hill, we're not talking about him now. We're talking about these two albums. Tell me what makes them notable besides "well, they MIGHT be, let's give them the benefit of the doubt". The source is most certainly vague as it says that the album "may be" two different things. Do you really think that's enough to base an article on?! Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect Music to Raise the Dead to Resurrection Band. Starting with the Music to Raise the Dead cassette and looking at the article's current pair of references: (1) I'm not familiar with Firestream; what makes it a reliable source, and where is the review? I'm getting a 404 page. (2) I'm not finding any mention for this recording in the Powell book, at least not using Google Books. As for other sources, the best I could find are passing mentions here and here. All Your Life has similar issues with the current references in its article. It appears that these recordings, while performed by an indisputably significant band, were promotional limited-edition releases and are not really part of the band's discography (meaning that sources identify Awaiting Your Reply as the band's debut album). If my understanding of these earlier recordings is correct, then I would sort of liken them to, as an example, Manic Hedgehog, a pre-Radiohead demo recording. Demos and promotional/limited-edition releases are not the same thing, but both of these cases involve recordings done prior to the bands' proper debuts, and neither looks to have significant coverage in reliable sources, thus not meeting WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. I prefer to redirect (rather than delete) Music to Raise the Dead for two reasons: (1) multiple sources mention it as the band's slogan, and (2) it's a reasonable search term. Regarding All Your Life, I would delete it and move All Your Life (song) in its place, perhaps with a hatnote directing readers to the Resurrection Band article. Of course, if it can be demonstrated that significant coverage exists in reliable sources for these albums, I'll happily change my !vote to keep.  Gongshow ^Talk 02:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and speedy close - immediately re-opening the AfD after the last one closed smells of WP:POINTyness. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Above Argument by The Uninvited Co. Inc., and I personally beleive this can be salvaged as enough accurate information is given. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 arguments point out that the article does not meet the general notability guideline due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources, with a consensus of established editors pointing this out. The keep arguments are largely very weak, do not base their arguments on wikipedia's policies and guidelines, with the only main argument being that the article passes WP:ENTERTAINER. However this is refuted by several of those supporting deletion, and those arguing for keeping have failed to produce reliable secondary sources. As such the consensus based on wikipedia's policies and guidelines is clear for deletion. Davewild (talk) 18:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Plott[edit]

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)).

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

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

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

Sources are weak. The article subject is allegedly notable for playing Starcraft and hosting coverage of Starcraft tournaments on GomTV, which is internet-only and not a television station in any of the traditionally understood meanings of the term. Note that this waas previously deleted when it was under the subject's nickname, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tasteless. This version uses some different sources, so is probably not eligible for speedy deletion as a recreation of deleted content. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Also, imo, a speedy, though as long as we're here, and given the history, we might as well seek a more final determination. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Subject fails WP:GNG as he has not been the subject of substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Pburka (talk) 18:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree. There's a good handful, but most of them are quite old or from relatively niche sites. Some exceptions; "Sons of Starcraft" kickstarter.com project, Up Close Gamers, Gosu Gamers. --BlueNovember ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per before. The sources have only gotten better since the last nomination, and WP:USEBYOTHERS and countering systemic bias (pro starcraft is a serious affair in Korea, Plott is the most prominent figure in the west associated with that aspect of Korean culture). de Bivort 21:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you please be more specific about how USEBYOTHERS improves the claim that the article subject is notable? It's not clear what you mean by mentioning it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, in the last AfD, people said that the various databases at teamliquid are not reliable sources. But they are widely used in gaming articles, besides being a private wiki (some people had claimed that it was a wiki and therefore unreliable). de Bivort 03:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I see. I would argue that reliability is not relevant in that case. The site is a wiki that apparently seeks to cover all possible aspects of Starcraft. Therefore inclusion there, reliable or not, is not evidence of notability. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed, WP:USEBYOTHERS pertains to the argument that the TL databases are not reliable, which has been made by others, not the general notability claim. de Bivort 21:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails GNG, lack of reliable, third party sources. Sergecross73 msg me 19:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Wrong. GOMTV is a cable network in Korea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.204.16.124 (talk) 03:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  To clarify in a more polite way, the GomTV StarCraft2 tournament is broadcasted on Korean cable TV channel anibox. See Korean Anibox page on October's tournament English news article --205.250.61.36 (talk) 04:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the article is relevant and fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.162.84 (talk) 04:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC) — 76.185.162.84 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep - There are multiple documentaries on his life as a caster and Progamer. SentchaDNA (talk) 06:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, agree with Pburka. This does not pass GNG, and does not qualify for NSPORT. Majority of article is unattributed or not attributed to reliable sources. Overthinkingly 07:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  After resolution, look over similar articles like Artosis. Overthinkingly 07:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  See discussion thread under Pburka's comment. (I also took liberty of fixing your link to Artosis' page). --BlueNovember ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - He is world re-knowned in the Starcraft community. The GSL is on TV in Korea. Stacraft is also the offical sport of Korea according to wikipedia. This is a no-brainer keep, with perhaps some rewrites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.138.125 (talk) 08:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC) — 76.124.138.125 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Strong Keep - From WP:ENTERTAINER,

Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities:

1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Y
2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. Y
3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Y

I don't think that's really debatable. --BlueNovember ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Passes WP:ENTERTAINER as mentioned above. Marcus1979 (talk) 09:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Passes WP:ENTERTAINER, though the article could do with a rewrite. The Supreme Court (talk) 10:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As mentioned above - Passes WP:ENTERTAINER. Guillane (talk) 11:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)— Guillane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep - To the Deleters, would you vote down a commentator on games like John Madden? StarCraft commentary/watching is a big thing Hasteur (talk) 13:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  John Madden has an extensive resume outside his career as a commentator, including a college football stint, a Super Bowl victory as an NFL coach, and a pitchman for at least half a dozen products in nationwide advertising campaigns. Further, he was a commentator for 29 years for games viewed worldwide by upwards of 90 million people, so your comparison of Plott to Madden is a bit off-the-mark. Horologium (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Known and passionately followed by hundreds of thousands of people. Has videos on internet with millions of hits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.14.227.71 (talk) 14:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC) — 108.14.227.71 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep - Notable viral personalities such as youtube stars have their own wikipedia page. This article details another one with a longer and more pronounced career who has a casting contract in South Korea and does professional commentary for MLG events and large South Korean events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.179.22.84 (talk) 14:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC) — 76.179.22.84 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• EZ Keep - Clearly notable article with great sources, and meets requirements of WP:ENTERTAINER. samrolken (talk) 15:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  To all the above, I am not aware of sportscasters ever having been described as "entertainers" before, they are usually considered to be in broadcasting like a news anchor but I suppose I could see how a "color man" could be considered somewhere in between. However, a bald assertion that he meets all points of that guideline is not sufficient. Proof from independent reliable sources is, as always, what is needed. For your reference, here are those points:

  1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.

  2.Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.

  3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

  He meets all those points, does he? He's the John Madden of South Korea? Surely there would be hundreds of sources, like there are regarding John Madden, if that was the case, S. Korea is the most plugged-in nation on earth, so there should be piles and piles of good usable reliable sources if he is is super famous as this sudden flood of keep voters is claiming. Bring on the giant pile of reliable sources and I'll gladly rescind my nomination. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Seems like if he meets the criteria for WP:ENTERTAINER, it doesn't matter that much if you think sportscasters are entertainers or not. de Bivort 21:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  What an utterly bizarre thing to say. If we determined that an article subject was a carpenter and not an athlete, would we then apply WP:ATHLETE anyway? Of course not. If he's not an entertainer then the guideline for entertainers is not relevant and we fall back on WP:N. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -A quick google search for 'tastosis' brings 67,900 results, as far as I'm aware this word isn't used for anything but the tasteless/artosis casting pair and doesn't appear to be a common misspelling. I think that's enough to be notable. Others have already posted some of the relevant links that are reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.114.207 (talk) 15:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC) — 88.111.114.207 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep - Initial nomination is incorrect in its assertion that GomTV is "internet-only and not a television station in any of the traditionally understood meanings of the term." It is broadcasted on the ANIBOX network in Korea. Tasteless plays a prominent role in some of these broadcasts. ^[1]Rendon.smug (talk) 16:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC) — Rendon.smug (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  I'm willing to believe that I'm wrong about GomTV, although a source or a link or something to back that assertion would be nice. Even if I am mistaken about that the rest of my nomination stands. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  You can see the GSL logo on the front page of the Anibox site, aniboxtv.com Protolink24 (talk) 16:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  As well as the announcement Here, which I attempted to link the original post. Rendon.smug (talk) 17:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe you guys know something the rest of us do not, this translation [1] mentions Starcraft tournaments being on something called "Annie box" but does not seem mention GomTV or Nick Plott. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes I know Korean. "Gom" means "Bear" and Google translate will obviously translate it literally. The GSL, produced by Gom TV is aired on AniBox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.79.159 (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Anibox is a Korean anime channel. This release is announcing that they will be airing GomTV's GSL tournament, which is the only major Starcraft 2 tournament in Korea at this time. As for the show that Tasteless is co-hosting, the description can be found here.Rendon.smug (talk) 17:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  please check your link, it appears to be referencing someone named Nicora A. Plott, I think you might find this more informative. 69.180.26.56 (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  You ask for reliable sources, but then say the sources that are given (i.e. [teamliquid.net]) aren't credible because it is a community site. It seems to me that you have not done any research into teamliquid. They actually publish articles about the community for the community, they do interviews and write blogs and columns. It is not all opinion pieces either, but news for the community is also reported through that site. Just because ESPN or other Major magazines don't cover the Esports scene does not make it any less viable than Baseball, Football, or other sports. So, please clarify what you want when you say sources, because I can go find sources, but they are all community/team sites. It is very much still in its infancy, but it is just like local journalism for sports teams. thank you 69.180.26.56 (talk) 18:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Keep"-has a huge unique fanbase, with an informative summary of his life on the wikipedia page. Can it be expanded? Yes. Does it deserve to be deleted? Not one little bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cotcot2 (talk • contribs)

  I realize you just came off a three year hiatus to make this remark, so you may not be up to speed on current practices here, but please don't post your comments inside somebody else's,[2] and and please sign your posts. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- Nick "Tasteless" Plott is an e-sports caster for many events, including MLG in the US, which regularly receives over 100k concurrent viewers (more than the average HBO premiere) specifically for the game he casts, Starcraft 2. Mentions of this subject being niche are uninformed. The most populated Starcraft forum in the non-Korean scene is teamliquid.net with, at the time of writing this, 13,000 active users and over 50 staff. Nick has also done voice acting for a few very notable Korean films, along with his co-caster, Dan "Artosis" Stemkoski. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.65.49.114 (talk • contribs) — 99.65.49.114 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete. The references for this article are exceptionally weak, and the assertion of notability is weak at best. I count three press releases, and an open wiki in the citation list, and the rest of the other sources aren't really about the subject. The first link doesn't seem to link to anything at all relevant (it's some sort of list that doesn't reference either Plott or "tasteless", nor to his brother or the guy he allegedly beat in the first round), and a lot of the other links do the same thing; I don't know if they're broken, improperly formed, or require one to be logged in to the site to view, but as it stands now, there's very little verifiable information. Most of the links don't convey any information about Plott, they simply mention him as a commentator. FWIW, I don't see a whole lot of notability for his younger brother, Sean Plott, either; that article might be a candidate for deletion as well. Horologium (talk) 16:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Sean Plott may not be the best sourced article, but there is no doubt in my mind that he fulfills the requirements of WP:ENTERTAINER. There are articles featuring him from Forbes, NPR's "All Things Considered", and The Economist. Protolink24 (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Not even a question, keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.91.137.116 (talk) — 184.91.137.116 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete - Fails GNG --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep You should probably use (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) which will yield articles on the google news (since he is commonly referred to as Tasteless and not as Nicolas Plott, this makes it even harder since tastelss is a relatively common word, though the article definitely needs a clean up. Bopditybop (talk) 20:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)— Bopditybop (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• comment - my keep is above, but I think this strengthens it and I'm adding it here so people notice.

  WP:CREATIVE indicates notability if "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." As the main commentator, he has clearly played a major role in the English-language broadcasts, which are themselves a collective body of work that has been the subject of many articles and reviews. This is confirmed by this RS: [3] which also indicates he is an authority to which Reliable Sources defer for commentary. de Bivort 21:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  A two-sentence quote in an article about somebody else? Nobody is disputing that he is a commentator on Starcraft matters in Korea. What you need to find is not a source that quotes him, but rather a story about him. That is how notability is determined on Wikipedia. The idea that Starcraft commentary is a collective body of creative work is a somewhat unique interpretation of that guideline. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• weak Keep NPR's brief coverage and Forbes's coverage probably let's this cover the letter of the GNG, though the coverage is sketchy enough I'd !vote to delete if that's all there was. But a news archives search turns up huge numbers of in-passing references in RSes and more detailed coverage in things that probably aren't RSes. RS but trivial:[4], [5], [6],[7],[8]. Hobit (talk) 01:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update to delete. As was pointed out to me the two best bits of coverage actually are for his brother, not him. Hobit (talk) 21:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Nicolas Plott has been a gigantic influence on the development and evolution of eSports, which has grown considerably in the recent years, especially outside of South Korea. As eSports like Starcraft II continue to grow, those who played a major role in its growth, such as Nicolas Plott, will need to be credited. The current rate of growth in eSports is phenominal, but if it were to taper off in the coming years, it would be reasonable for this page to deleted. I would urge that if nothing else, we retain this page for at least another year, and if it isn't obvious that Nicolas Plott is worthy of having his legacy recorded in Wikipedia by then, this page would be more eligible for deletion. Thelehmanlip (talk) 2:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - He's made a pretty strong name in his field, that is e-sports, and certainly fits the definition for entertainer. MrPhelps (talk) 05:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two more inactive users who suddenly came back just to participate in this AFD. There certainly have been a string of amazing coincidences here the last two days... Beeblebrox (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You nominate an article about one of the most prominent figures of the professional Starcraft community and don't expect people who are generally disinterested with Wikipedia's politics to weigh in? If you had seen one of the documentaries made about him you would know how popular he is. Rendon.smug (talk) 18:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is odd is that people who are generally not interested, and/or have never edited here at all seem to be coming out of the woodwork just to participate here. How, if they are so uninterested, did they become aware of this discussion at all? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All it takes is one person visiting the page to see the big box at the top and suddenly hundreds of people are discussing the article, Wikipedia's rules/policies and perceived similarities to mmo's, ect. People are strongly encouraged not to post unless they have new information to contribute and a working knowledge of the mechanics of the deletion process, but apparently some morons have slipped through the cracks. Rendon.smug (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which leads me to ask: where is it that this other discussion you refer to is taking place? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday a post about this made the front-page of SCReddit. The original post was likely inappropriate under canvassing, but those of us who are active users in reddit and familiar with Wikipedia's policies have attempted to run damage control in that regards.Rendon.smug (talk) 19:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that would be inappropriate canvassing I'm seeing there. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As that may be, the post was made by a non-wiki regular in good faith, and any of us who stayed around are legitimate users also acting in good faith. It would be quite a shame to let the discussion of the page for a person so influential in the community be tainted by one overzealous and frankly clueless Redditor. Rendon.smug (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete who cares about video games? 86.174.111.59 (talk) 17:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)— 86.174.111.59 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete, per nomination. Closing admin should take into account the inappropriate canvassing taking place. AstroCog (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nomination. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 23:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I see no evidence of the presence of sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Nyttend (talk) 01:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • National Public Radio? Forbes? I'm pretty sure those two meet your requirement. One can argue if they are indepth enough to count toward WP:N, but their reliably would seem to be beyond question. Could you explain? Hobit (talk) 20:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you've overlooked the fact that both the NPR and Forbes stories are about Sean Plott, not Nicolas. The NPR story does not even mention his name a single time. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did miss that. !vote updated. Hobit (talk) 21:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Changed vote to Delete or Merge. Nick Plott is undoubtedly a prominent figure in Starcraft professional gaming. As a player he was briefly world class. As a broadcaster, he is the most famous Starcraft colour commentator. He has been well known in the esport community for at least 3 - 4 years. Recently, he was featured in a documentary, and he's made other appearances in the media (I think in a National Geographic documentary in 2004/05. Has been interviewed by CNN a few times.) I don't know if he deserves his own page, but he belongs on wikipedia. Maybe on GOMTV_Global_Starcraft_II_League's page? FYI, I came to this page after reading StarCraft_II:_Wings_of_Liberty#Professional_competition, which led me to team Evil_Geniuses, which had a link for Plott as a notable alumni. I was a bit surprised that one of the members of team Evil Genius, EG-Idra, did not have his own page. Now I see Tasteless's page is up for deletion! I think the page should stay if it is cleaned up and properly sourced. At the very least, Plott should receive mention on GOMTV's page. E: changed my vote to delete. After skimming the article, reading its sources, and doing a few google searches, there just aren't enough secondary sources to support a quality article for Tasteless. Add Tasteless to the GOMTV page. Maybe in a few years he will have achieved enough notoriety outside of the esport scene to deserve his own page. Steve C. Litchfeld. (talk) 04:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because of your "changed my vote to delete" bit, I've struck out "or merge". Please revert me if you wish I hadn't done it. Nyttend (talk) 19:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per previous discussion, and noting that there are still not decent sources specifically about this person. Most of the sources are unreliable or are only very scant mentions (mostly that he is casting at an event). Polequant (talk) 12:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no sign of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, thus not enough verifiable facts to sustain an article; WP:V, WP:GNG, WP:BLP.  Chzz  ►  22:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and WP:GNG. Previous arguments regarding WP:ENTERTAINER don't acknowledge that WP:ENTERTAINER details additional criteria for notability, and that simply passing WP:ENTERTAINER isn't exclusively sufficient. Additionally, some aforementioned 'wealth of sources' such as blogs, Youtube links and opinion pieces aren't generally considered reliable sources. The canvassing is disappointing and I don't agree it was done in good faith - if the canvasser had assumed good faith himself, he would have trusted the Wikipedia community to make the correct decision without soliciting outside help. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt the canvasser has had any experience with the policies of Wikipedia. Considering his post on a outside website his reason as 'for esports', he clearly solicited help with an agenda. -Overthinkingly 03:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your interpretation of WP:ENTERTAINER is simply wrong. The additional criteria in WP:BIO can be sufficient for notability. People who meet them are not necessarily notable, but they are likely to be notable. Isron (talk) 15:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, my interpretation of WP:ENTERTAINER isn't wrong, though it may well differ from yours. The term 'presumed' is used heavily in notability guidelines. The section in question is listed under the parent heading 'Additional criteria', which immediately follows the section 'Basic criteria'. Note the word is 'additional', not 'alternate'. In practice, that's exactly what it means - additional. The elements of ENTERTAINER are useful in helping establish notability, in addition to the basic elements we expect all notable people to satisfy. The specifics in the basic criteria section should also be met - an entertainer still should have "been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject".

It's worth keeping in mind as well that the WP:ENTERTAINER criteria require that the entertainment program itself be notable, independent of whether the tournament is notable. The comparison may be that the Australian Open tennis tournament is certainly notable, but 'Fat Jim's Twitter Commentary from the Stands' probably isn't. The current sources don't really establish this. In fact, the sources in the article at the moment aren't good quality, they're mostly primary sources and the majority have barely passing mentions of Plott. We expect sources to have non-trivial coverage of the subject of the article to be useful. A one line mention that he'll be appearing really isn't good enough. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 22:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied; article is purely promotional in tone and has no sources. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Insignia Charge Cards[edit]

Insignia Charge Cards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable product. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - TP 01:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

North East Autism Society[edit]

North East Autism Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable charitable organization. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; article lacks depth, sources, and anything to indicate the subject is notable. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  20:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Susie Cornfield[edit]

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

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

Non-notable author. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per notability guidelines and due to a paucity of independent sources. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete no references for livign person, in current state article seems like promotional piece, although it seems likely author could pass notability test if proper research were done. 78.26 (talk) 17:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Numerous publications. Meets WP:CREATIVE. Nitalake (talk) 21:52, 3 November 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, v/r - TP 01:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unverifiable in reliable sources. Number of books written is not a criteria for inclusion. Having lots of line item listings in google books and a single weak citation in scholar (without reference to the actual book being referenced) falls short. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - TP 01:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert A Foster (actor)[edit]

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)).

Robert A Foster (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Child actor with appearances in 1 TV serial and an advert. Not enough to pass WP:ENTERTAINER. No substantial 3rd party references that would pass the WP:GNG. Tassedethe (talk) 16:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom, primarily due to the lack of independent sources. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Robert A Foster is a child actor who has been in Just William which has just been nominated for three Bafta Awards, links to independent sources ref BBC and News— Preceding unsigned comment added by USER NAME OR IP (talk • contribs) DATE AND TIME 00:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.137.69 (talk) — 92.3.137.69 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep, If you have a look at the links on the Robert A Foster Page you will see he has been in more than just an advert and one TV serial, if you read the info and you can see he has done a short film also.— Preceding unsigned comment added by user name or IP (talk • contribs) 01.01 28 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.219.3.230 (talk) — 2.219.3.230 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

keep , Robert A foster is a child actor was in Just william has been in adverts and deserves a page on here so people can see what this child actor is doing>>unsigned>> 07.3628thoctober2011(UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.240.181 (talk) — 81.154.240.181 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep If you look at Robert A Foster page it has Independent sources and 3rd party references to BBC, IMDB, British Comedy Guide and others, he is a child actor who has been in more than just two things as listed above, if you look at links he has also done modelling and a see a link was added yesterday to say he has done a short film, the page also seems to being viewed so people must be interested in finding out about him. Just William has also just been nominated for three Bafta Awards. Robert A Foster will always be of interest because of his appearance in Just William. Gem09 (talk) 07:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep per Reliability in some(but not all) of its Sources. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if anyone feels that I commented incorrectly, I do not use Wikipedia a lot and was looking up info about Just William and cast when I saw the comment about Robert A Foster page, I do think the page is of interest and I found it interesting. I did not get given a link to this page and asked to write a comment about the page. I hope I have done this correct this time 92.3.137.69 (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TOOSOON. The child's short career, while being verifiable, fails WP:ENT. His lack of coverage fails WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - TP 01:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Javone Prince[edit]

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

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

This actor is not notable yet. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I think this is pretty borderline, but WP:ACTOR looks for significant roles in multiple TV/film/etc. productions. Javone Prince appears to have a significant role in PhoneShop, but hasn't had significant roles in other productions. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete No references that I could find to get him in under WP:GNG, so have to go by WP:ACTOR. I agree with Ginsengbomb said, that there hasn't been any significant roles besides PhoneShop. PhoneShop only ran for a seven episode season. I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Bgwhite (talk) 06:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per meeting WP:ENT in that some of his characters repeated in multiple episodes of notable productions... such as playing Jerwayne in 6 episodes of PhoneShop and playing Damien Scott in 5 episodes of The Verdict... showing that such were significant to those productions. Wikipedia does not require a multi-year run for any series for it to itself be considered notable, and while he has had lessor roles (as has all actors), we do not judge by only the the least of what he might have done. Inclusion is based upon verifiability and being perceived as perhaps just notable enough even if not seen as the most notable actor ever, and his work can be verified in multiple reliable sources.[9] AND, his work as a comic has also received attention,[10][11] so the GNG is comfortable approached as well. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Hm. MQS raises some good points here, and the role on The Verdict appears to pass muster by the WP:ACTOR guidelines. Changing my vote. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep per MQS. In particular, Prince's role in The Verdict, taken in concert with his role in PhoneShop, suggests he passes the WP:ACTOR guidelines, if perhaps barely. There's enough between these two roles and the coverage of his work as a comic unearthed by MQS above to change my mind, at least. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mining. v/r - TP 01:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mineral waste[edit]

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

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

This article was originally PROD'ed as a WP:DICTDEF but the prod was denied with the reasoning "that's a reason to expand, not delete". Unfortunately, the title is too broad to expand the article in any single meaningful direction. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mining. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:DICTDEF. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied as promotional. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Portable cluster[edit]

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

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

This page looks as an advertisement for a particular product without relevant content to Wikipedia. In addition, it has been marked as an Orphan since 2008. Ljvillanueva (talk) 16:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - TP 01:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Rye[edit]

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

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

Non-notable actor. Cited references mention the actor only in passing. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I am not familiar with the theater scene in London, it appears to me that the subject, capable though he may be, does not meet either the WP:GNG or the acting-specific criteria for inclusion here. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - TP 01:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Herzlinger[edit]

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

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

Non-notable designer. References all appear to be ads, directory entries or "advertorials" WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, spot checking of the sources does not reveal independent, in-depth coverage. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Palestine national football team results[edit]

2012 Palestine national football team results (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:CRYSTAL ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 16:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's nothing there. Waitak (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Page author removed AfD tag. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete A3 - no content - WP:CRYSTAL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There's nothing there yet, and won't be for quite some time. Perhaps it can be recreated later. But not now. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 05:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is other pages that has this content in this page for example Syria national football team results 2012, So what is the problem to keep this article.--Uishaki (talk) 16:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:N and has no content. - Ahunt (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete, per WP:CRYSTAL. Bring it back when there's something to write about. Next year, in Jerusalem, I'm sure it will have become notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy "Bring it back when there's something to write about" That is what I was going to say except move the page to userspace and move back when Palestine plays there first game. It would be better than having to restart the article. PS I understand your Pesach reference ;) Bar Code Symmetry (Talk) 03:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and the fact that there is no content. 11coolguy12 (talk) 00:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:CRYSTAL. GiantSnowman 18:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This discussion turns on whether he meets WP:PROF #6, with no argument that he meets the main notability guideline. There is sufficient consensus here that the article does not meet the WP:PROF criteria, due to the institution not being a "major academic institution", and that therefore notability has not been established. Davewild (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Smith (minister)[edit]

Ian Smith (minister) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A "simply not notable" case here, speedy was overturned on the basis that it at least tries to assert notability, so here we are. This article's existence essentially depends on how far we wish to stretch the sub-guideline WP:PROF's criteria #6, "The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society." Ian Smith is the head of the Presbyterian Theological Centre, the theological college for the Presbyterian Church of Australia. I hold that the threshold of "major academic institution" is not met by a private college with a student body of 100 [12]. Tarc (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:PROF is, as written, overbroad, insofar as it would lead us to consider a substantial share of all those who spend a lifetime in a teaching career at a post-secondary school to be notable. The fundamental test of WP:N should govern -- the presence of reliable, independent sources who write about the subject. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, not notable by any standard, something evident in the text of the article itself. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The nomination sounds a bit like WP:NOTBIGENOUGH. I don't think we're stretching WP:PROF #6 to say that the subject passes those guidelines. The only point, as far as I can see, is whether the Presbyterian Theological Centre qualifies as a "major academic institution". Now, the number of students is not all that relevant - the significant thing is that it is one of three official seminaries of the Presbyterian Church of Australia. BUT if you look at the notes on the criteria of PROF #6, "if the person has held the post of President or Chancellor (or Vice-Chancellor in countries where this is the top academic post) of a significant accredited college or university..." It puts the emphasis on accreditation. It does use the word "significant", but that is not well-defined, and I would suggest the PTC is significant. Hence, this passes Wikipedia:Notability (academics). It simply isn't good enough to say "WP:PROF is, as written, overbroad" - it is a notability guideline, not an essay. StAnselm (talk) 21:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  "Not big enough" doesn't have the slightest applicability here, don't even see why someone would cite that. As for "major academic institution", yes, student body size can indeed be a consideration. This is a miniscule, private institution that IMO itself barely qualifies for a Wikiepdia article. If the only thing you can hang your hat on for this guy is that he heads this bitty college, then that really isn't enough. Single notability guides can't be abused in this fashion to give an utter and complete notability failure an article. Tarc (talk) 22:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

totally agree with Tarc. Presbyterian Theological Centre is not a major academic institution. Ian Smith (minister) is no vice chancellor. LibStar (talk) 06:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep on basis that Presbyterian Theological Centre qualifies as a major academic institution and WP:Prof#C6 is satisfied. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete Presbyterian Theological Centre is not a major academic institution, it is a small specialist training college for people wanting to do Christian ministry, and does not offer a wide range of disciplines. fails WP:BIO LibStar (talk) 22:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the claim of Presbyterian Theological Centre being a major academic institution is so questionable i've nominated it for deletion. LibStar (talk) 06:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And a glance at Google Books shows that to be a poor nomination, and strengthens the notability claims of this article. StAnselm (talk) 08:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:PROF #6, as the Presbyterian Theological Centre is in accredited institution in a country where accreditation is not given lightly; it offers recognised bachelor's and master's degrees (offering a "wide range of disciplines" is not part of WP:PROF, or we'd be forced to delete the article on the Dean of the Harvard Law School). -- 202.124.73.114 (talk) 08:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— [[User:202.124.73.114]|202.124.73.114]]] ([[User talk:202.124.73.114]|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/202.124.73.114]|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

right the presbyterian centre is as notable as Harvard Law School. You have to be kidding me. LibStar (talk) 10:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We wouldn't be "forced" to delete anything on anything. Wikipedia is not proscriptive. If someone is deemed to have sufficient notability then they get an article; if not, they don't. That's what these discussions are for. Harvard Law School is known throughout the world; I doubt whether the Presbyterian Theological Centre is known even to most Australians. Its principal cannot be deemed to be automatically notable just because of his office. He would have to have personal achievements that made him notable beyond this, and with all due respect to the gentleman, he just doesn't seem to. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Principal of a tiny institution (yes, size does matter in these situations). Nothing else that seems to make him notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While nobody disputes that the university is accredited the claim that this makes it a "Major academic institution" is laughable. Suggest changing the notes on wp:PROF 6 if the wording allows people to wikilawyer that he meets it, while the main criteria clearly shows he doesn't. Yoenit (talk) 09:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you just accuse me of wikilawyering? As it turns out, clarification was sought a few months ago, but the discussion didn't progress very far. In fact, I questioned the word "major" myself, but no-one responded. StAnselm (talk) 09:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Perhaps even Speedy Keep - the president of an accredited university certainly meets our academic guideline - and an accredited university is, by definition, a major academic institution (contrast with some think tanks on the one hand and a non-accredited university/many high schools on the other). --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 10:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it's not a university. LibStar (talk) 10:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a seminary. It grants post-high-school degrees. That makes it a university. I mean, it even grants a doctorate, for crying out loud! --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 10:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

not a university, not even listed on the official Australian government website for universities. http://www.studyinaustralia.gov.au/en/Courses/Universities LibStar (talk) 11:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a list of universities. Try again? Not that a list matters either way - any institution that issues a higher education degree is a wikt:university. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 11:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The appropriate official Australian government website link would be here. -- 202.124.74.103 (talk) 12:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which says it's a theological college in the broad category of "university/higher education" but not precisely a university. 12:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LibStar (talk • contribs)

It offers government-accredited higher degrees, including doctorates. That's university-level. It is audited by the Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA). -- 202.124.72.198 (talk) 13:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Presbyterian Theological Centre has been closed after the nomination was withdrawn. StAnselm (talk) 04:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not actually terribly relevant. The article on the institution was nominated for deletion after the article on its principal. And I for one voted to keep the former and delete the latter. The institution, as a degree-awarding body, is clearly notable. That does not make the principal automatically notable. For an analogous example, a town is automatically notable; the mayor or chief executive of the town council is not unless the town is of considerable size and importance. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree that one doesn't lead to the other, but I think you missed the point. LibStar was arguing that the article on the person shouldn't be kept because the institution wasn't notable; by withdrawing the article, he was implicitly conceding that argument, and that needed to be stated. Not every factor to be considered need be definitive in and of itself. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I'm afraid I didn't miss the point, since I think it also needed to be stated, for the record, that the head of a notable institution is not inherently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete*. He may be deeply involve in religion, education and writing, but truth is none of them are notable. I can understand why there are some keeps for this minsister, however if you break it all down, nothing notable and anyone can be involve in several different activities. Ray-Rays 07:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Would you mind elaborating? Being the head of a university is not something I'd normally discuss with "anyone can be involve (sic) in several different activities." --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I agree with the nominator's view that the Presbyterian Theological Centre is not a "significant" institution for the purposes of that guideline. His leadership of that institution aside, there's nothing else really I can see that would also confer notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Text Santa[edit]

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

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

WP:CRYSTAL ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 15:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - WP:CRYSTAL, no references, written more like an ad than an article, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 18:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Cotton[edit]

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

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

Does not meet notability criteria. Also, article was created by SPA user (TomCotton2012) with a strong potential for COI. Arbor8 (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - candidates for such offices are not notable. If he wins then that's another matter, but that's for the future. asnac (talk) 16:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Candidacy for congress is the subject's only claim to notability, and he's not yet formally a candidate. I believe that an article would be justified should he secure his party's nomination and compete in the general election. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. OK to redirect to a NPOV article about the political campaign, if one is written. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - TP 01:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Geoffrey Banks[edit]

Russell Geoffrey Banks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unknown actor, never had notable roles. Fails to meet WP:ARTIST by a mile. Created by single-purpose account User:Chezleblanc, likely conflict of interest. bender235 (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete despite such memorable roles as "Portuguese Soldier" and "Fleeing Businessman (uncredited)". Clarityfiend (talk) 19:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• keep he is on over 100.000 websites for film ... and has worked on some the biggest films and commercials in 2009 to 2011.. no brainer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chezleblanc (talk • contribs) 22:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TOOSOON, at best. Being a stand-in does not a notability make, nor does having only minor descriptive roles,[13] even if in notable productions. And I note that his asserted involvement in many of the articles claimed productions fails verifiability. Failing WP:ENT we then look to WP:GNG... and see he has no coverage in reliable sources,[14] even if searchable in thousands of non-reliable websites.[15] Wikipedia is not the place to host his resume. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 19:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spring Valley Bible Church[edit]

Spring Valley Bible Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable church. No citations to be found in independent sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: not enough reliable sources to pass WP:GNG Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. I've run a gsearch but no sources that can be used. It doesn't even exist any more, and I don't think the info can even be merged anywhere. asnac (talk) 16:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Davewild (talk) 19:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Education for Ministry[edit]

Education for Ministry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Did a good faith search for independent and reliable sources (using Academic Search Premiere and various Google tools) that would support WP:GNG and came up empty handed. This was previously an AfD candidate, which was a no consensus vote, mainly because of promises from editors to rescue and build the article. This did not happen, and given that it's been four years, seems unlikely to happen. AstroCog (talk) 14:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A gsearch indicates this is a widely used programme throughout the world. Enough to confer notability. asnac (talk) 15:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• What is indicated in this gsearch? Existence isn't notability, nor is the fact that it may be widely used. Unless it has attracted notice in independent and reliable sources, it probably doesn't warrant an article. I couldn't find enough beyond primary sources and program advertising on pages for related institutions to justify an encyclopedic article. Perhaps this content could be merged with an article of programs of this type? AstroCog (talk) 16:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It's a little puzzling that there aren't more readily available sources, but I found two sources through GScholar [16] and [17] which discuss the program. Mangoe (talk) 02:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There are a large number of Google Books references and a handful of Google News references. Clearly meets WP:GNG. -- 202.124.75.221 (talk) 23:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - TP 01:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SKATTERBRANE[edit]

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

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

This is a procedural nomination. This was a contested speedy deletion, and later a Prod tag was removed by the Newbie creator. It appears a musical group, which is marginally notable. I'm leaning towards keeping. Please discuss. Bearian (talk) 14:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but move to Skatterbrane or Skatterbrane Pickups. The subject is not a musical group but an Arizona-based manufacturer of guitar pickups. There are a decent number of Google hits for the name but most of them lead to forums discussions; the brand seems to at least be somewhat well-known among guitarists. Test piggy (talk) 14:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEPIt is true there is a band called skatterBRAIN. You will find that the PAF manufacturer--SKATTERBRANE--has a strong following in guitarist circles, and is featured in various forums, youtube clips. I was writing a very long discussion as to why the article should not be deleted, but it was blocked somehow. SKATTERBRANE is very relevant in the PAF pickup modern variant section of the PAF main article. Not only is SKATTERBRANE publish on line with Premier Guitar magazine, but an article is also featured in their physical monthly magazine. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kink56 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC) — Kink56 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete - this article is about the pickup which seems well respected but not a big mainstream product and doesn't have the kind of following or widespread coverage that would qualify under WP:GNG. andy (talk) 15:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP SKATTERBRANE is also well known in Japan, and has a strong following in Europe, Australia, and two French guitar builders feature their pickups in their builds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kink56 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC) — Kink56 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• KEEP Skatterbrane is a very worthy maker of 50's style guitar pickups, especially PAF styled pickups. For the qualities of Tone and Soul in a responsive pickup Skatterbranes are in the very top tier of such pickups being made today, if not above all others, and deservedly are highly esteemed for these qualities. 68Strat— 68Strat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. – most likely a sock puppet of Kink56

• Keep - The pickup is well respected and has a following of people who value the tone of their guitars, but i think the article could be cleaned up matt —Preceding undated comment added 18:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC). – most likely a sock puppet of Kink56— Theredgrape (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment – not sure why it's been AfD'd if the nominator thinks it should be kept. Doesn't that technically nullify the deletion? I'm leaning towards delete due to a lack of general notability. I've noticed that the article creator has voted several times so I've crossed through them. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 19:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In procedural nominations, sometimes the point is to bring the nomination forward for someone else, even if the nominee is unsure about deletion. This may be done because (a) an unregistered user, who can't complete the AfD process, thinks an article needs to be deleted, or (b) a proposed or speedy deletion is declined. Bearian (talk) 21:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus that the article does not meet the WP:ORG notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 19:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First Baptist Church of Hoover, Alabama[edit]

First Baptist Church of Hoover, Alabama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable church, fails WP:ORG Altairisfar (talk) 14:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No references, no evidence of notability, promotional in tone. 78.26 (talk) 17:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom and 78.26. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 17:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The article appears to be substantially copied from the church's website here. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While I've no doubt that this church has generated enough public interest to garner at least some media attention since 1954, most of those sources are either offline or behind the paywalls of newspapers that do not participate in Google News. The best I was able to find is this: (Skelley, Martha (May 6, 2009). "First Baptist Church of Hoover saves the day for seniors luncheon". The Birmingham News. Retrieved October 27, 2011.) which isn't even really about the church. Also, the article in its current state is borderline copyvio but that's a matter for cleanup, not AfD. - Dravecky (talk) 21:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Delete As the first baptist church in the City of Hoover, Alabama (Alabama's 6th largest city) it deserves to be included; that alone is notability. If other Hoover Baptist churches like Hunter Street Baptist Church and Shades Mountain are included then so should First Baptist Hoover. I don't find the information provided to be "promotional in tone" any more than the information provided for other churches. A list of charter members, church officers, and pastors is no more promotional than a list of former U.S. Presidents. The fact the information may have been downloaded in part from a church website doesn't mean the information is incorrect or false. Perhaps Wikipedia should amend the policies to prohibit all churches from being listed unless it is like the 16th Street Baptist Church were the young colored girls were killed in the 1960's. Since when is an official church website not considered references. The Alabama Baptist Association has many references about First Baptist Hoover, but such information is not available online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.68.229.42 (talk) 07:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you may lack a fundamental understanding of Wikipedia's notability policy. Specifically, notability for church's, which usually fall under the additional notability policy for organizations. Churches can be notable for many reasons, including being historic, being listed on historic registers, having been the site of significant events, being extremely large, etc. But being the "first (insert denomination here) church" in any one of the many hundreds of thousands of communities in the world is not a reason for notability here. Altairisfar (talk) 22:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Hoover Historical Society lists First Baptist Hoover as a historic church in the city. Therefore it is historic to the area. In an area where the City of Hoover, Alabama is younger than the church. Hunter Street Baptist Church uses Wikipedia for recruit purposes by listing it. It seems biased to prohibit other churches in the same area from having this tool for recruiting the Lost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.68.229.42 (talk) 05:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is what private websites are for. See Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Altairisfar (talk) 13:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question Why is there no assertion of notability in the introduction? Has this church won zero awards and has zero independent coverage in secondary sources regarding any kind of notability? Dualus (talk) 18:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Albuquerque Public Schools. Davewild (talk) 19:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Desert Ridge Middle School[edit]

Desert Ridge Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

It's better than some articles on actual high schools, but it has some dead link citations and generally has notability problems (not a high school itself). Raymie (t • c) 14:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - nothing in article hints at the significance that would be required for a non-high school to have an article. asnac (talk) 16:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per standard practice for non-notable primary schools. Carrite (talk) 16:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Albuquerque Public Schools, the school district. The school lacks in-depth coverage from reliable sources. Almost all RS coverage is either routine or primarily about the school district. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the school district per standard practice. James500 (talk) 06:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - TP 01:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Sukhija[edit]

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

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

PROD was declined. Concern=Non notable blogger. Sources are only to his blogs and self produced internet movies. Fails to meet criteria at WP:BLP and WP:CREATIVE. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO with no Google News hits, no Google News Archive hits, and one Google Books hit to a book published by the subject of the article. The official website of the subject has "news coverage" type section where news coverage of the subject is indexed. I've been through 5 pages of Google Search results and can find no coverage from independent and reliable sources. For good measure, I checked "Mark's Travel Notes" and "markstravelnote.com" which produce no Google News search hits ([18][19]) and no Google News Archive search hits ([20][21]). OlYeller21^Talktome 14:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Book cited above was not published by the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DieZurcher (talk • contribs) 14:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The 'keep' statement above was made by the creator of the article. asnac (talk) 16:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.203.167.248 (talk • contribs)

Note: The comment by an IP user above is the user's only edit to Wikipedia. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Ah, OK. The Google Books view doesn't provide much information. I think this is it on Amazon.com and he is indeed not the author or publisher. This means that there was some piece of content in the book that was copyrighted by the subject of this article. As he's cited, this might mean point 1 of WP:AUTHOR but I believe that he fails that inclusion guideline as he's only cited once (not "widely cited"). And of course, publishing, writing, or being cited in a single book doesn't inherently satisfy an inclusion guideline. OlYeller21^Talktome 14:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure about the Amazon link - but this is the magazines official website http://www.swissnews.ch/
      • OK. Even if this was significant coverage of the subject or a citation of his work (which is unclear), the subject still wouldn't satisfy any inclusion guideline. OlYeller21^Talktome 21:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional citations of the subject can be found at http://www.ifitt.ch/storage/SMM_TO_Benchmarkingpdf.pdf which have been included in the subjects article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.2.175.39 (talk) 09:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Subject doesn't reach the notability threshold. — Bill william compton^Talk 15:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: To be notable as an author, a writer generally needs to have received an award for fiction, non-fiction, or journalism per WP:CREATIVE, or have extensive coverage in dedicated articles in the established press; local reports of signing sessions in bookstores do not assert notability. To be notable, a book needs to comply with WP:NBOOK. Routine book reviews do not assert notability. Neither criteria are met by the subject(s) of this article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No claim of notability and doesn't pass WP:General notability guideline. Nitalake (talk) 22:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hyundai. v/r - TP 01:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]