< 12 September	14 September >

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sun Belt Conference Men's Basketball Tournament venues[edit]

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

The content of the list is merely a reiteration of information that can be found in the table at Sun Belt Conference Men's Basketball Tournament. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - concur with nominator that the article is redundant. -- Whpq (talk) 13:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with nominator. This article served a purpose once, but now it's redundant. Rikster2 (talk) 00:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No need for these as stand alone articles. Jrcla2 (talk) 03:21, 19 September 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 List of East Stirlingshire F.C. players. The consensus is that the subject is not sufficiently notable for his own page. However, there is agreement that a redirect to the newly created List of East Stirlingshire F.C. players is a good way forward. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Russell (footballer)[edit]

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

Declined Prod. Prod reason was " Never played or managed a team in a fully professional league, therefrore WP:NFOOTY". Decline reason (by article's author) was "The article was created because of his notable links with East Stirlingshire F.C. i.e. record number of apperances and voted fans favourite player. Also to remove a redlink in the list of East Stirlingshire F.C. managers". Being voted a fan favorite does not confer notability. Does not qualify under NFOOTY, does not qualify under the general Sports Notability, does not qualify under the GNG. Hasteur (talk) 23:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of East Stirlingshire F.C. players, which I am more than happy to create if no-one else wants to - we could create a full list in no time, references are readily available, and such lists are common for football clubs. Giant Snowman 18:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Agree redirect and creation of list would be appropriate although he isnt notable on his own as part of the clubs history he is. Warburton1368 (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested - useful for navigation. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 17:58, 17 September 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. Ironholds (talk) 02:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom Hearts III[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Violates WP:CRYSTAL. This game has not been confirmed yet, and the only information is on rumors and speculation. JDDJS (talk) 23:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:CRYSTAL states that "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation." This article has verified speculation, so it does not violate the policy. Discussion has already taken place, and the article has been listed as kept. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 00:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CRYSTAL says that speculation and rumors are not allowed even if it is sourced. JDDJS (talk) 04:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What discussion are you referring to? The only other AFD was years ago and resulted in a delete. 02:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  - It was under a different name. I will try and find the discussion. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 02:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, nevermind. There was never a discussion about this exact article with this content. The one I was thinking of was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom hearts 3 (video game), which was about a failure of an article, and User:New Age Retro Hippie wrote this article afterwords. The point still stands though that your argument is invalid as the speculation is sourced and notable. Also, the speculation is only a third of the article. The other two thirds are official statements and general critical coverage of the game, both of which would be actually in the article when the game is released. The "Rumours and speculation" section is just filler for now. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 02:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Very little is not speculation. And while sourced speculation is allowed, as far as I know, there are no other articles that are almost entirely speculation. If you can show me an article that survived AFD or had made some other significant milestone that was made mostly of speculation, then I'll consider closing this AFD early. JDDJS (talk) 03:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Are you looking at the same article? There are three sections about the same size, each with 5 references. "History", the biggest section, which is all official comments by the developers on when the game will be developed, why it's taking so long, etc. "Rumours and speculation" and "Expectations" are the other sections, which while the content seems similar, one is about reliable source's rumors and speculation, while the other is actually pre-release reception. I believe this article is encyclopedic, and meets guidelines. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 12:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Blake's comment.Tintor2 (talk) 01:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with the concerns by Blake and Tintor2. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A highly anticipated video game will gain coverage prior to its release. The amount of sourcing in the article support notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, delete, delete. This is a textbook case of WP:CRYSTAL. By "unverifiable speculation", we mean that the details being speculated are unverifiable, not that the existence of speculation is unverifiable. Since the game is not yet even in development, this entire article is made up entirely of people guessing what might be in a game that might not ever be created. There is nothing encyclopedic about that. Powers ^T 15:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The game may not have been announced but it is still notable and should be kept as it has had a significant amount of coverage, try to remember that Notability is not temporary. King Curtis Gooden (talk) 15:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The game has been mentioned within the industry and is well established as a future title. Its not unlike Duke Nukem forever except it will hopefully be a better game and not sit it game-hell for so long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.64.207.146 (talk) 18:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not at all like Duke Nukem Forever, because Duke Nukem Forever was actually in development when it became notable. Powers ^T 22:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note At my sandbox, I copied everything from the Kingdom Hearts III page that wasn't just speculation. There seems to be nothing left there that can't just be added to Kingdom Hearts. JDDJS (talk) 00:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How is criticism and most of the "Expectations" section speculation? That is the kind of information that is usually included in video game articles. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 02:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know what you mean about criticism. The expectation section is just what random people think might be in the game, which is not usually in articles. JDDJS (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Have you verified that these people are random, or have you made an assumption that the authors of the articles used random people instead of reliable secondary sources that have deemed the subject of "Kingdom Hearts III" to not only be notable enough to cover all discussion by the developers on it, to not only cover a number of rumours that have occurred frequently, but also providing their own comments on the potential contents of the game. Hell, even without the reception, it's still borderline notable by the factually true information in the History section and the coverage of rumours. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 05:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - By random, I mean they are not developers and therefor are just guessing. And I'm still waiting for another case in which an article existed before the the topic was made official. If you can find another video game, a movie, a TV show, a book, a song or anything else that had its own article before it was announced, then I'll likely withdraw this nomination. JDDJS (talk) 18:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Have you even read the "History" section? The game has been discussed multiple times by the developers, and even announced as having a 2012 date. The developers have confirmed a "Kingdom Hearts III" project as being in the works. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 18:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This Article has been up for deletion since the 13th and there is 6 keep votes and 2 delete votes, hasn't the consensus that it be kept been reached? King Curtis Gooden (talk) 14:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Discussions are normally open for 7 days, and AFD is not a vote. -- Whpq (talk) 15:34, 15 September 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) 23:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Blake. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 05:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Anyone saying "Keep per Blake" needs to address my rebuttal above. "Unverified speculation" doesn't mean "speculation that hasn't been verified to exist"; it means "speculation that hasn't been verified to be accurate". Please note the difference. Powers ^T 02:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Directly from WP:CRYSTAL "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. While Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." --JDDJS (talk) 03:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CRYSTAL specifically states that expected events can be notable, if widely covered and with verified speculation. The very first line states this. And there is no speculation or rumour in the article, only discussion of notable rumours and speculation. KHIII is an anticipated title, and it is factually on the way. No padding to be found. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 07:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - "And there is no speculation or rumour in the article, only discussion of notable rumours and speculation." -- Huh? How can you discuss notable rumors and speculation without including the speculation or rumor in the article? Reporting that speculation exists is not "encyclopedic knowledge [that] can be verified". Powers ^T 12:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think what he is saying is that it doesn't say "fans think this might happen" but "we think this about the speculation." We are not covering the speculation, but covering the coverage of it. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 17:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per users above me. The article is thoroughly referenced and its reliability is very high. UhOh ^STACK STACK _STACK 18:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - http://uk.games.ign.com/articles/118/1181920p1.html practically confirms that the game will be made, by revealing that it will be the last game Xehanort is in. Ajkseqawhj (talk) 22:29, 20 September 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. Courcelles 23:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consco[edit]

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

WP:NN company - sources are all press releases - unable to find significant mentions in RS. Tagged ((Notability)) since December 2009. (Most G-hits are typos for other companies) Toddst1 (talk) 16:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Wp:notability looks borderline but likely. Has encyclopedic informative content. An apparently defunct company, content is probably not skewed by COI. North8000 (talk) 16:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The past tense is the savior here, they are selling nothing and documenting something. Stub article on a software firm of the past. Sourcing needs improvement. Carrite (talk) 00:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:12, 10 September 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 - T P 22:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – was pondering on a relist, as well, as this may need more discussion. Searching for "Consco enterprises" may help, where I found this as a result. –MuZemike 23:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A software firm that was absorbed by CA in 1988 won't have the same easily googlable sourcing that more modern companies have. I found some significant coverage here in Computerworld. They also reported the formation of a Consco Users Group. Available only in a snippeet view, but this does cover them. It's also unclear how signficant this item is. But I think the sources found here for a pre-internet era company establish there is a high likely more sourcing is available offline. -- Whpq (talk) 13:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Whpq; though the current pr-newswire sourcing is bad, there does appear to be significant coverage elsewhere if one digs enough. Dialectric (talk) 10:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Among the Fallen[edit]

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

Seemingly self-published novel written by non-notable author. Article is also primarily promotional. Drdisque (talk) 22:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete already speedied twice for the above reasons. According to one of the references it is not due for release for some months Porturology (talk) 09:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should be salted after this discussion is closed then. -Drdisque (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, and in fact lacks significant coverage in even unreliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yes, can't find anything on it; article not encyclopaedic; not notable; seems self-promotional. Chiswick Chap (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as per nom and Whpq. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 12:07, 20 September 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. While the deletion nomination may not have been the best, no one apart from the creator actually argues for keeping this list, while the other opinions basically agree that the topic is too broad, too indiscriminate, and lacks specific coverage as a general topic (coverage of individual examples probably exists). Fram (talk) 13:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of eponymous band names[edit]

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

Not a definitive criterion of naming. List is maybe 1% complete at best, and completing it would make it WP:IINFO. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly don't agree with the stated reasons for deletion. Lists don't get deleted for being incomplete, and they don't have to be completable to have encyclopaedic value. That's why we have things like Lists of African Americans, for example. And what's a "definitive criterion of naming", and which rule or guideline refers to that? WP:IINFO certainly doesn't. What WP:IINFO forbids are summary-only descriptions of fictional works, lyrics databases, and excessive listings of statistics.
But that doesn't mean we shouldn't delete this list, it just means we need to look at different guidelines. It seems to me that the guidelines we should really be interrogating are WP:N (are there any sources that treat this as a separate topic?) and WP:SALAT (can we explain how this list contributes to the sum of human knowledge?)—S Marshall T/C 23:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral As User:S Marshall, I disagree with the rationale of the nomination but cannot really think of any policy expressly for or against. We do already have List of band name etymologies, which is far more detailed and informative. However, this article is specific and does provide accurate information. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 06:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SALAT (which IMHO is a derivative from WP:IINFO, but this is beyond the point now), also as the subject wasn't mentioned in sources, delete per WP:N and per WP:SYN (though I admit that WP:SYN argument is close to borderline in this case). Ipsign (talk) 07:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:SYN is unapplicable as one could demonstrate easily that the band names are indeed eponymous (indeed it says so on every article listed). I certainly won't be upset to see this list deleted but it appears to be sufficiently limited and yet not too specific to breach WP:SALAT. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 08:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, "indeed eponymous" is not enough to assert it is not WP:SYN. WP:SYN is about advancing the point which is not in original sources, and I can with a straight face argue that by creating such an article which categorizes bands by this criteria (which criteria wasn't used by anybody else), the article implicitly advances the point ("implies a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources") that this categorization is of any importance/notability. While I admit it is borderline synthesis, I think that examples given in WP:SYN show that definition of what is considered invalid synthesis, is very broad, so WP:SYN should apply here too. BTW, the other way to see the same thing (with exactly the same conclusion), is WP:N, so if everybody agrees to delete it on the basis of WP:N and not WP:SYN, I won't argue too much :-). Ipsign (talk) 13:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Full disclosure, I'm the article's creator. Having an eponymous band name often influences band politics, the legacy of individual members, how the musical act is perceived, etc... It has been a major issue in modern music. Anyone can reference the huge political battles that broke out in Motown when Barry Gordy started renaming some of his musical acts. Diana Ross and the Supremes vs the Supremes, for example, or the Temptations ultimately deciding against becoming David Ruffin and the Temptaions. And these events are not isolated. Also, while it is indicative of lists to be light treatments of a topic, this topic in and of itself is one of real-world implications beyond simple trivia. I have considered the nominators objections, but poor article quality is not of itself a reason for deletion, and it is not my understanding that only finite lists may be included at Wikipedia.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 20:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate. Too many bands would potentially meet this definition with too much argument and subjectivity. Some are nothing more than solo artists with a rotating back-up band. Some are bands that loosely allude to some of the members in the name. To the creator, if there are sources that talk about the politics of bands over naming issues, it may make a worthy section in an article about bands in general. But only to the extent that it is sourced. This is an encyclopedia, not a VH1 special. Dzlife (talk) 13:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the lead paragraph specifies loose allusions are not acceptable criteria for addition to the list. In addition, all bands must have their own article. This limits the scope of the list somewhat. I agree entirely that band politics are not to be considered. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe that this would be much more maintainable as a category rather than a list. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Ipsign (talk) 08:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Despite its own inclusion criteria, this list is still too general or too broad for any real value, as per WP:SALAT. This list is high maintenance and could become extremely long. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 12:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NK Elektra Osijek[edit]

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

Non-notable soccer club which currently plays in the Croatian fourth level. Never appeared in top flight or the national cup and thus fails WP:FOOTYN. Timbouctou (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. —Timbouctou (talk) 21:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Timbouctou (talk) 21:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 23:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 23:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No delete - the sources are written, logo is prominently, history is written. It is true that club is not known, but if articles: NK Višnjevac, NK Belišće, NK Mladost Antin and lot other can be preserved, I do not see why do not this article can be preserved. --IvanOS (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason why Elektra fares worse in comparison is that it only plays in the 4th league - all three others you mentioned were at least in the 3rd league (and the worst of them is actually tagged as having questionable notability). Did Elektra ever play in a higher-level league? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - As a rule of thumb football clubs are considered notable if they either either appeared in the national cup or appeared in the nation's top level league, which in Croatia's case practically means all first and second level clubs. Everything below that is decided on a case-by-case basis. Elektra never featured in Prva HNL and never played in the Croatian Cup. Regarding the other three clubs mentioned - NK Belišće spent three seasons in top level (1992-1995) and appeared in the Yugoslav Cup seven times, even reaching Round of 16 in the 1979–80 Yugoslav Cup. IvanOS is right about NK Višnjevac and NK Mladost Antin though, I'll AfD them right away. Timbouctou (talk) 21:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - no evidence of meeting WP:FOOTYN. GregorB (talk) 20:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lighton[edit]

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

"A lighton is a hypothetical subatomic particle that moves faster than light." Only fractionally better than original research. Almost superflous to point out that the author of the article is the creator of this theory. Has been described in the International Journal of Sciences which does not yet have an article here - it did only start in August. But given that, its claim to be "one of the world's most cited scientific journals" is somewhat questionable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~Delete ~~or Redirect~~ (is what I meant) to Tachyon. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to Tachyon. (there is nothing to merge) TR 08:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for pointing out the tachyon. I would now say delete as vandalism - the text is cribbed from the tachyon article and there is no evidence that anyone uses the term lighton. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and oppose redirect. I see no evidence that the term "lighton" is actually used as a synonym for tachyon, rather than just completely made up. -- Whpq (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It simply does not meet notability guidelines. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete term completely made up. --Meno25 (talk) 06:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. COI article used as a soapbox. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 12:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Brady 517, Chad Henne 416[edit]

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

Largely unremarkable American football game that occurred yesterday. Contrived "title" for the game (it's not called by this title by any football press). Would speedy but I don't see that sporting events are eligible for any of the criteria. Drdisque (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; this can be quite adequately handled in a list of league records and doesn't need its own separate article (especially not with this title.) Bearcat (talk) 04:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:ROUTINE coverage of a game is not notable for a stand-alone article. The notable aspects of the game are already captured at List of NFL quarterbacks who have passed for 400 or more yards in a game and List of National Football League records (team). —Bagumba (talk) 06:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the game itself is not necessarily notable, even if the "record" may be--but then the "record" should be in a "list of NFL records" rather than having its own stand-alone article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bagumba. Rlendog (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above.--Giants27(T|C) 20:58, 20 September 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gaffer (boss)[edit]

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

Dictionary term Fasttimes68 (talk) 21:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This looks like more than just a dictionary definition, but rather more like a good start to an article about a profession. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this shouldn't kept as an independent article, but I do think that it would be a shame to lose the content and reference. Not sure where one would merge it, though. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Supervisor per Bridgeplayer below. Closely related content. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a dictionary definition plain and simple, not an article about a specific profession. In it's current form it is too generic and only has one source that describes a gaffer as a glassmaker, while the lede clearly indicates the term is generic for boss.Fasttimes68 (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the material in this article could be merged into one of the other many articles listed on the disambiguation page for gaffer. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be opposed, but to which ones? Only the glassblower item is sourced.Fasttimes68 (talk) 01:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a dictionary definition. -- Whpq (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Consider this source: The Changing Role of the Working Supervisor. In this context, gaffer is a term like supervisor, foreman or crew chief. These are all blue links and so should this be too. Deciding what to do with it is thus a matter of ordinary editing per our editing policy, not deletion. Warden (talk) 17:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Classic example of WP:OTHERSTUFF. However some of those articles you mention are really disambiguation pages. Fasttimes68 (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Classic example of WP:VAGUEWAVE. WP:OTHERSTUFF explains that references to other similar articles may be helpful as part of a cogent argument. And my argument seems cogent because it is backed up by an academic source. Warden (talk) 17:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"These are all blue links and so should this be too. " is the comment I was referring to regarding WP:OTHERSTUFF

The RS you cited is not in the article.
Even if it were it still makes this a disambiguation of supervisor.

Fasttimes68 (talk) 18:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not editing the article until the proposal to delete it is withdrawn. If I cite sources here, they won't be deleted - the information will be kept for all time. And supervisor is not quite the same thing because the point about such leadership roles is that they are about doing as well as leading. There are numerous sources which explain the concept as it applies in glass blowing, e.g. "Joseph Bournique was the "gaffer" in the Castor Place shop. Gaffers (an archaic term for "old gentlemen") were master glass blowers who supervised, and often took over themselves, the most important of the glassblowing operations.". Warden (talk) 18:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a generic term, not a glassmaker. If this information belongs anywhere, it is in a more specific article about glass makimg. Fasttimes68 (talk) 18:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as valid encyclopedic information. How you classify it or where you stick it at, doesn't matter to me, as long as valid encyclopedic information is kept. It was originally all on one page. [1]. The talk page for gaffer has the discussion on how best to split it, into various separate pages, as was done. Dream Focus 20:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article in current form claims to be about a "boss", yet the only enclyclopedic information is about a glassmaker. The talk page for gaffer did do a page split, however all of the other pages created were for very specific terms. If this article could be improved and sourced to describe a gaffer as a boss, then it should be kept.Fasttimes68 (talk) 21:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or merge) per Warden and Dream. It's encyclopedic and notable, but perhaps need not be its own article. Bearian (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Supervisor which is its prime meaning. The material about the 16th century usage would fit nicely there. The glassblowing use is already mentioned in that article. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:40, 21 September 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 all. It appears this AFDs grasp exceeded its reach, suggest re-evaluating articles on an individual basis as opposed to a bundled nom. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kiyoshi Yoshida[edit]

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

The only information on this person is that he/she (the article does not mention the gender) composed the music for one film that wasn't even that famous. Does not at all seem notable. Will rethink if expanded JDDJS (talk) 20:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references have been presented which satisfy WP:BIO. No real claim of notability. Edison (talk) 21:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This film has won multiple awards, see http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0808506/awards Splouge (talk) 21:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But none for the music. One film does not make him/her notable. JDDJS (talk) 21:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has bought the following articles to my attention. These are also anime composers who only have one, or in some cases none, major work mentioned on their pages. I may not be doing this correctly, but I feel they should be added to this AFD.

Masaki Kurihara
Kousuke Yamashita
Makoto Yoshimori (composer)
Keita Haga
Junpei Fujita
Hijiri Anze
Ken muramatsu
Takeshi Senoo

JDDJS (talk) 22:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a difficult case. It doesn't help when the majority of the articles have as the entire text, <name> is a Japanese composer. All but one article only has references to IMDB and the Anime News Network (ANN). ANN is user generated content, so it is not reliable. So, I'm left with hunting down sources and I'm not finding reliable ones. Unless somebody else can find anything, I'll have to say they don't meet WP:COMPOSER and delete all. Bgwhite (talk) 06:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The primary sources can easily confirm the information, just check the credits in the DVD package or in the credits at the end. Dream Focus 13:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if I had the DVD packages, it still wouldn't matter. It wouldn't necessarily fulfill WP:Composer and GNG states significant sources is need to establish notability. Bgwhite (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all until reliable sources can be found. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My case was that there were many anime composers that had significant contributions already noted in Wikipedia and I first wanted to add stubs then add the references. Adding references can take a large amount of time and it would be good if rather than proposing for deletion others also looked for and added references. It would be helpful if more people who contribute to anime articles that list composers could also expand composer articles. Splouge (talk) 06:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added all the links that I could find for now. Splouge (talk) 21:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Not seeing any reliable sourcing to verify notability. --DAJF (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kiyoshi Yoshida easily meets WP:MUSICBIO. Has done the theme song for a notable series, and music for a notable film, plus music on various other notable series. Dream Focus 12:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Takeshi Senoo - several of the Aria soundtracks have charted on Oricon, and therefore he meets WP:MUSICBIO. --Malkinann (talk) 21:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point to where this is found. I will then change my position on Senoo. Bgwhite (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His involvement and peak positions of the soundtracks are listed on List of Aria soundtracks. --Malkinann (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The AFDs should be separated, not all jumbled together. Many of these people have worked on notable soundtracks for animated films. Dream Focus 17:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Takeshi Senoo List of Takeshi Senoo's albums ranked on Oricon. Moscowconnection (talk) 16:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that the AfD should be separated. Moscowconnection (talk) 16:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kousuke Yamashita. His "Kurosagi" OST ranked on Oricon. Moscowconnection (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the caveat of whatever can be sourced and translated. Anime has a huge market in Japan, and there's no reason their composers should be non-notable merely because of the genre. Bearian (talk) 19:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All. I'm changing my vote to "Keep all". Why should these very different composers be deleted as a list? It's a very dangerous practice. What are the inclusion criteria? "These are also anime composers who only have one, or in some cases none, major work mentioned on their pages."? It's rather vague. Moscowconnection (talk) 22:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Kiyoshi Yoshida's Oricon profile also lists 4 DVDs that charted. Moscowconnection (talk) 22:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kousuke Yamashita and Kiyoshi Yoshida - per Moscowconnection, these people's works have charted on Oricon, therefore meeting WP:MUSICBIO. --Malkinann (talk) 23:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kiyoshi Yoshida. The only reason I give: mentioned in Cavalaro's book. James470 (talk) 15:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

There are many long standing unaddressed problems with this article as can be seen from the tags, some dating back to January 2009. These are not notable awards. The article is poorly referenced, with improper references to self-published sources, and considering that the so-called awards refer to living people, the BLP concerns should not be ignored. Archetypal (talk) 20:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC) Archetypal (talk) 20:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Referenced information was added to the article to establish topic notability. Furthermore, Per Wikipedia is not a directory, the article's inclusion on Wikipedia is appropriate, as the article has an organized focus and is not, per Wikipedia directory guidelines, like "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". The article completely passes all eight points of WP:NOTDIRECTORY guidelines. Furthermore, the article can also serve to promote the creation of new articles for wrestlers, and is functional and appropriate as a Wikipedia article in list format. Northamerica1000 (talk) 22:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I accept that article does not contradict WP:NOTDIRECTORY. However, I do not see that the awards have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (WP:GNG), which is to be expected from a subjective award given by a minor newsletter. In short, the subject matter is insufficiently notable. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 05:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--while as a directory of awards there is nothing inherently wrong here, the awards themselves do not seem to have the coverage to show notability.--Yaksar (let's chat) 14:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Yaksar. Some awards are notable and can become the subject of a good list. But this doesn't have the sources to do it. Dzlife (talk) 13:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The WON Awards are considered the top wrestling awards given by a third party publication. I should also point out that the list is, in fact, fully referenced. Each Awards issue of the Observer includes a complete history of the awards. Unfortunately, you need a subscription to view it, but I have double checked everything and they are referenced. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 13:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but who exactly considers these to be "the top wrestling awards given by a third party publication" and is there any evidence for it? As far as the citations, Wrestling Observer counts as a primary source (i.e. Meltzer is publicizing his own awards). I don't own either of the books cited but the SlamSports citation is merely a passing mention of a wrestler having won an award (i.e. a trivial reference), not an article about the awards themselves. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:23, 20 September 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. Rlendog (talk) 21:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

King Apparatus[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG– no charts, no awards, no independent significant coverage. Archetypal (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC) Archetypal (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, this article was created at a time when Wikipedia's referencing rules weren't as thoroughly codified as they are now — meaning not that they lacked notability but that we didn't have to source articles in quite the same way we do now. In fact, it took me less than ten minutes to track down a number of reliable sources to demonstrate that they do meet WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG, which I've added to the article already — and given that their career predated the days when everything was published to the Internet, it would not be at all difficult to find still further sources with a library search. Keep, and please do give some thought in the future to the fact that being unreferenced is not the same thing as being unreferenceable, especially for an article that was written five years ago when our sourcing rules simply weren't what they are now (and doubly especially for an article that was written by an editor like me, who's quite well-known as being one of the biggest hardass sticklers for demonstrable notability on the entire site.) Bearcat (talk) 21:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Billboard Magazine in 1994 has more than passing mention, and a breif mention in this book.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per reliable sources that establish notability of the topic, which were added to the article by user Bearcat and those listed above by user kelapstick. The statement within the nomination that there is "no independent significant coverage" has been disqualified. It appears that the nominator didn't follow the guidelines listed in WP:BEFORE for source searching prior to nominating this article for deletion, which nullifies the basis of nomination for deletion. Northamerica1000 (talk) 22:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've heard of them, which of course is not a reason to keep, but I was pretty sure that they would meet notability, and the references added by Bearcat (thanks!) establish that they have received the necessary coverage to meet the inclusion guidelines. -- Whpq (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources identified above by Bearcat and kelapstick. Subject meets WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 20:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news archive search shows a heap of results, but most are pay per view and I'm a cheapskate. Found this one though. [2] One pay site says in its summary that the band is a "two-time winner of the CASBY award (the Canadian equivalent of the People's Choice award)". Dream Focus 02:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearcat. Also need to second Bearcat's note about difference between being unrefereced and being unreferenceable, and to remind that per WP:BEFORE, it is nom's responsibility to do basic source search before starting AfD. Ipsign (talk) 11:40, 20 September 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. Courcelles 23:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Cruz Skateboards[edit]

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

Non-notable company, no indication of meeting WP:CORP, no reliable secondary sources. Huon (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find any reliable sources to pass WP:CORP after 5 pages of searches on Google... ^Jguy_Talk^Done 23:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per reliable sources that establish notability of the topic: "Extreme Success - A hedonist work ethic leads to big bucks for SC entrepreneurial slacker" from Metro Santa Cruz, published by Metro Newspapers. This is an entire article about NHS, Inc., the company that manufactures Santa Cruz Skateboards. Additionally, there's Associated Press coverage: "Skateboarders Across Nation Find They Are Defying Law and Gravity". These reliable sources were found after just a cursory web search, and it's very likely there are more available on the Internet, as well as in other mediums. Northamerica1000 (talk) 23:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The second source is just a trivial mention, not significant coverage. If I understand the first one correctly, it argues that there is no company called "Santa Cruz Skateboards"? That the basic premise of our article is wrong, that the company is actually NHS, Inc., and that "Santa Cruz Skateboards" is just a brand name? While I doubt whether a Metro Santa Cruz article is sufficient to bestow notability on a Santa Cruz company, if we were to "keep" the article, we would have to rewrite it from scratch under a different title, probably NHS Inc. - so what exactly would be kept? Huon (talk) 23:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Searches for the names of the founders along with "Santa Cruz" and "skateboard" provide ample evidence of the company's notability. See Mercury, EPSN, LA Times, Mercury, a more local source, etc. No objection to retitling the article to the company name. ^Bongo_matic 02:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep — per Bongomatic. there are many, many sources which attest to the notability of this brand of skateboards. yes, the article is crappy and doesn't use the references available. this can be fixed by editing, and is not a reason for deletion. i also have no objection to moving article to NHS, although creating a redirect would do just as well. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Centennial Park Rangers[edit]

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

Now that I've removed all the BS which was copied directly from another team's article with a few names changes for "comedy" value there isn't a whole lot to go on, but it appears that this soccer team plays in a local amateur/rec league and falls well short of all notability requirements -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely non-notable. Can't it be speedy deleted for being utter nonsense? Argyle 4 Life^talk 22:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - utter nonsense and clearly non-notable. Giant Snowman 23:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Non-notable, possible prank, surprised it's not been speedy deleted. Del_♉sion23 talk 20:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication this is prank ... but seems to be a kids team in Welland, Ontario. The town itself is barely notable. One of many kids soccer teams isn't. Nfitz (talk) 02:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. Nomination withdrawn, with hearty thanks to the improvers and a special sticker for User:Cullen328. Drmies (talk) 15:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Mulder[edit]

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

~~Completely unclear why this man may be notable. The main source is from 1718. Delete. JFW | T@lk 20:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

Changed opinion to keep after expansion by Cullen328 (talk · contribs) JFW | T@lk 13:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was a notable engraver who helped illustrate an important early work Insects of Surinam. The distasteful anecdote in the story is given undue weight. I will try to decode Dutch sources using Google Translate, and tone it down a bit when I have time later. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It appears that the nominator didn't follow the guidelines listed in WP:BEFORE for source searching prior to nominating this article for deletion, which nullifies the basis of nomination for deletion. The nomination's basis is upon content within the article, rather than a search for reliable sources. There's no mention in the nomination regarding stated prerequisite searches being undertaken by the nominator prior to nomination. Northamerica1000 (talk) 23:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Northamerica, if I see you make this "BEFORE" remark again (and in this case to someone who's been an admin since 2004) I am going to cite you for making a personal attack: not assuming good faith. Enough with this templated nonsense already. Drmies (talk) 13:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps Northamerica1000 should reword the comment to remove the word "nominator", but the point of the comment appears to have the purpose of improving the encyclopedia. Unscintillating (talk) 02:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have great respect for the two editors taking Northamerica1000 to task above. However, I just don't see that mentioning WP:BEFORE in an AfD debate is an offensive thing to do. Gentle reminders of its wise precepts are always in order, in my opinion. Especially when, as in this case, my own search uncovered many useful references discussing Joseph Mulder in a matter of seconds. I also don't see why the word "nominator" is objectionable, since our AfD procedures do ask certain things of an editor who wishes to nominate an article for deletion. Yes, they are requests and are not mandatory. I know that. If "nominator" is considered an insult of sorts, then I hope that 1000 administrators will be unleashed upon uncivil editors who say far worse things with impunity every single day. Please forgive me for noticing that other things exist behind the scenes here at the world's greatest encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've expanded the article and added references. I will ask an editor I know who is fluent in Dutch to review the source for the story about the baby. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I created this article, so obviously I believe he is notable. His notability rests on two main themes. First of all, he is included in Arnold Houbraken's book of artists, which (however scatalogical the story may be) means he is notable, period. This book of artists is considered today to be one of the top 1000 books most important to Dutch national heritage. Second of all, his works today reach very high prices, placing him well above the notability minimum for artists. The need for reliable sources unfortunately also means that the scatological story happens to be the only one on hand. Surely we don't delete biographical articles based on our perception of the quality of the biographer? The artist's work should speak for him, but as yet I have found no public domain examples (which doesn't mean they don't exist). Jane (talk) 11:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a clear keep, IMO. I've tweak the poop story a little bit. Drmies (talk) 13:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, editors beware: his name is also spelled "Josef". I found another nice tidbit and added it. Drmies (talk) 14:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a clear keep, IMO. Others have already stated good reasons above. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jane makes a good case. Notability is confirmed. Dream Focus 00:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 21:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leathermarket JMB[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication of meeting guidelines at WP:ORG. Sources given either are trivial mentions or no mentions at all. Apparent WP:conflict of interest as the article creator appears to be the organisations chairman. noq (talk) 19:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, little better than an advert.I also find it in rather bad taste to use the passing mentions in the murder story covered in reliable sources as notability claims.RafikiSykes (talk) 21:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh look we now have a rescue tag. I'm not a deletionist by any stretch but surely there are better candidates for rescue than this blatantly promotional offering.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RafikiSykes (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources about the organisation. That somebody with a job placement there was murdered is a coincidence and does not establish notability for the organisation. - Whpq (talk) 16:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability per WP:CORP not established. ukexpat (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and RafikiSykes. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 12:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 21:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ektoise[edit]

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

May not meet notability criteria for WP:MUSIC. Google search indicates coverage by blogs, local radio stations, and non-independent sources. Van Isaac_WS 19:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A band looking for notability, but does not have it. Fails WP:GNG and as far as I can tell WP:MUSIC. Mt king ^(edits) 00:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete although I hope the article can be rescued, current references do not establish notability. 78.26 (talk) 05:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete there are sources, but they're not really enough. Either blogs, local music shows or in one case a non-independent site. The rest are listings. Even going by the band's own website they haven't actually released anything that's not published on their own label, and don't even play live very often. Whilst their music is very interesting (free download on their website, thanks) unfortunately that's not enough to save the article as it is. Note, also, that the band were previously deleted under their former name at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purity Device and that article wasn't really sourced any more poorly than this. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC. Quality of sources provided is poor. LibStar (talk) 09:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unfortunately, this article fails WP:BAND, and will continue to do so until such time as they get a hit in a mainstream chart. Mjroots (talk) 09:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not finding significant coverage in reliable sources; subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 20:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacking reliable and sufficient sources. 11coolguy12 (talk) 06:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to fail the criteria of WP:BAND. - Sudo Ghost 06:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is a difference between a source mentioning a chart position and a source that writes about the chart itself and/or the organization or entity that compiles said chart. That seems to be the crux of the debate here, and it seems nobody has been able to locate such sources despite thorough searching. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FAR (chart)[edit]

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

No non-trivial secondary sources found. Prod removed by author without comment. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources to published material have been added. FAR is a recognized chart in the music industry, especially with respect to the niche Americana and Roots music genres. Google search for "freeform american roots" yields 32,200 hits referenced from artist pages and industry (promoter, label). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wbmnstr (talk • contribs) 19:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of which mentions the FAR chart. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google search for "Freeform American Roots chart" yields numerous mentions, contrary to the statement above. There is a case that the FAR And Away — Best of 2010 section is in itself lacking in notability but the chart itself would appear to be recognised in secondary sources. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 19:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted by the nominator that while it is encouraged to leave a comment when removing a PROD, it is not a requirement so the fact that happened in this case has no relevancy to the AFD. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 19:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "numerous mentions" I found are twelve in number, and amount to literally no more than "Song X is at position Y on this week's Freeform American Roots Chart" — hardly non-trivial coverage. The long-deleted United World Chart and various other charts at WP:BADCHARTS went through the same thing: people were citing the positions here and there, but that didn't amount to non-trivial third party coverage or a notable chart then, and it doesn't now. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly do not misrepresent my comments. I used a standard Google search [3] (which does indeed give "numerous" hits), not the specific "Google news" search you have used.
However, as you have demonstrated, the chart has been mentioned in mainstream news sources such as NME, Los Angeles Times and the Baltimore Sun. I submit that the chart's mention in such secondary sources indicates its notability.
Deletion/retention of other articles relating to music charts has no bearing (WP:ALLORNOTHING). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google 12 links in 'News' -- but 18,700 in 'Web'. Seems very notable if New Music Express, Baltimore Sun, Los Angeles Times are referencing the chart in recent news articles as you indicated. User talk:Wbmnstr —Preceding undated comment added 20:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

But they're still only tangential mentions that literally say nothing more than "song X was at Y position on this chart". Do you really think a.) that's enough to build a whole article on and b.) that WP:GOOGLEHITS is a valid argument? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable news sources do in fact consider this chart notable enough to mention it. [4] Some results are hidden behind a paywall. If a major newspaper considers it notable enough to mention someone was on it, then its certainly notable enough to have a Wikipedia article for it. Dream Focus 03:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BUT HOW IS THAT NON-TRIVIAL?!?! ALL THEY DO IS MENTION IT IN PASSING!!! ARE YOU NOT LISTENING TO ME?!?!?!?!??! Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be civil here, shall we? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 03:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can determine notability by common sense, and not just word for word interpretation of the suggested guidelines. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Dream Focus 03:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still think you're beating around the bush. Literally all of the sources merely cite the chart's positions. Do you really think that's enough to build an article on? Get your head out of the clouds. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense is correct. If this was a non-notable chart then nobody would care what its positions were. The fact that musical acts and media agencies do mention the chart's positions indicate they consider it to have a degree of importance. Therefore the subject has notability. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 04:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WRONG! It's notable when they talk about it in depth, not just name drop it. You're missing the "non-trivial" part. Saying "but it charted" is trivial. TRIVIAL. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And just how frequently do people talk in-depth about a music chart? It's just a compilation of sales statistics or, in this case, plays. What else is there to say? What we're left with, as previously stated, is whether anyone actually gives a hoot about the chart. And in this case they clearly do (otherwise they wouldn't quote what positions were achieved on it). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 04:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make the point plain. The sources are not trivial because the clearly prove interest in the chart's results. And a chart is solely results. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 04:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG. Coverage needs to actually provide information on the subject to show that it is notable, not simply state that songs had a position on it; that coverage is hardly much more than trivial coverage. Yaksar (let's chat) 05:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So how is this any different from the Billboard Hot 100 chart? all that coverage is about position. User talk:Wbmnstr —Preceding undated comment added 22:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That the FAR chart rankings are cited in music articles does not establish notability. Notability results from passage of the GNG, which requires significant, reliable sources independent of the subject.
The four sources in the article are either unreliable, irrelevant, or not independent of the subject. The first, Conquest, John. 3rd Coast Music Magazine, September 1999., is clearly not a third-party source, as John Conquest created the FAR chart. The second (http://www.nodepression.com/profiles/blogs/the-nomenclature-of-americana) is a user-created blog on No Depression that does not even contain discussion of "FAR" or "Freeform American Roots". The third (http://www.tcmnradio.com/far/far1.htm) is merely a listing of FAR rankings—as articulated above, this does not establish notability. The last source (http://www.countryrootsmusic.com/3rdcm/) is a scan of the September 2011 issue of 3rd Coast Music. This is not an independent source.
Since no significant sources establish notability, this article should be deleted. Goodvac (talk) 09:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Official and Unofficial Club World Champions (Football): the Timeline[edit]

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

Unreferenced, original research based on very subjective assessment of what constitutues an unofficial world championship match. NtheP (talk) 18:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its not impossible for this type of thing to gain enough media coverage to have an article (the unrelated Unofficial Football World Championship for example) but there is no evidence that this is anything other than original research. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:OR. No evidence of notability. Argyle 4 Life^talk 22:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. Giant Snowman 23:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all above. – Pee Jay 13:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, G3 by Fastlily. Non-admin closure. Blueboy 96 22:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harris Walker[edit]

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

Speedily a hoax - no such tennis player exists (e.g. ITF has no record of any 'Harris Walker' - check here Mayumashu (talk) 17:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, G3 I can't find any information whatsoever to support the claims in this article. Moreover, a 15-year-old cracking the fastest serve ever would be all over the news. So tagged. Blueboy 96 20:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The issues identified by the nominator have been addressed by editing, and there is a consensus that this is both a valid concept and one that meets the notability guidelines. If it is still wished to pursue a merge then that should be the subject of a separate discussion. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Protein music[edit]

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

May be a hoax. Sources provided are primary and unreliable Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 17:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to experimental music. I'm quite sure it's not a hoax. It would be nice to have some references from an author besides Ohno but at least those citations appear to be from peer-reviewed journals, as is appropriate for supporting articles on the sciences. It might just make for a pretty decent article later. As it is now, it would probably find a better home in an article such as experimental music. Several Times (talk) 19:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another paper on the subject. It references a number of other potential sources, such as this one. Several Times (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done adding Reliable journal articles from multiple authors. — Saeed (Talk) 22:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks like a valid stub with enough references to support its notability. It requires copy-editing, some editing/simplifying to extend the range of its audience and some cleanup for style compliance. However, I am sure that deletion is off the table. This article is definitely not a hoax. Fleet Command (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - odd, but not a hoax. I think it's shaping up as a decent start, with reliable sources. I re-worded the lead to make more sense. Bearian (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, its "oddness" can be reduced. I do not think it is odd at all but that is probably because of my computer background. I still remember modem and their horrible Modem music. But since DNA's structure is harmonic, the resulting sound is also musical. Fleet Command (talk) 11:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Norbert Wójtowicz[edit]

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

This person is a Wikipedian and wrote the article (and numerous interwikis) himself. However, he is not notable according to Wikipedia:BIO. Already deleted for this reason in the French and Italian wikipedias, deletion being discussed in the German wikipedia. I might add that as a Wikipedian, this person is very notable indeed. Please fix this RfD, if need be, this being my first. Thanks. Gnom (talk) 16:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One cite on GS for a writer on freemasonry, a very popular subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. He appears not to pass WP:PROF, and I couldn't find any hits on him in Google news archive that would lead to a pass of WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while he has some Google scholar ghits in Polish, it's not enough per the prof test. Bearian (talk) 21:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable according to Wikipedia:BIO --Cox wasan (talk) 18:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Idle worship[edit]

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

Contested prod. Facebook game, still in beta testing. No assertion that the game already meets our inclusion guidelines. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:14, 13 September 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) 16:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable beta game. SL93 (talk) 22:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As doesn't meet notability guidelines for web content or in general. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 23:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Solodiesel Cap[edit]

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

Advert pure and simple. The concept of misfuelling is notable per the Daily Mirror source and others such as the AA, but this product is not mentioned and is not notable. An article could be written on Misfuelling, but this is not it. RexxS (talk) 16:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In fact, in my opinion this is close to the borderline for speedy deletion as a promotional article. There is no evidence of notability at all. Of the four references, two are pages on the web site of the manufacturer, one is the manufacturer's page on a site that provides company listings on behalf of businesses, and the other is a newspaper article which deals with misfuelling, but does not mention the Solodiesel Cap. Thus we have a total of zero independent sources. My own searches have produced numerous pages on the manufacturer's site, Wikipedia, FaceBook, YouTube, a forum post, sites advertising and/or selling the product, etc, but nothing that even begins to look like coverage in reliable independent sources. (The article was created by a single purpose account with no edits other than to this article, and it looks to me as though it was, as RexxS suggests, intended as an advertisement.) JamesBWatson (talk) 19:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per WP:NOTADVERTISING. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 12:32, 20 September 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. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Miss Model of the World winners[edit]

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

Beauty contest with insufficient evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Disagree. This pageant is perhaps not one of the more covered ones but still its notable. Several of the winners have articles here on Wikipedia and the pageant has an official website and the 2010 winner got some coverage, per sourcing.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per Wikipedia is not a directory, the article's inclusion on Wikipedia is appropriate, as the article has an organized focus and is not, per Wikipedia directory guidelines, like "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". The article completely passes all eight points of WP:NOTDIRECTORY guidelines. Furthermore, the article is appropriate as a Wikipedia article in list format. Northamerica1000 (talk) 22:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Here is a reliable source, further qualifying notability guidelines: Miss Model of The World: A Franco-African wins the coveted title from Afrik-news.com. Northamerica1000 (talk) 22:24, 6 September 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 - T P 15:51, 13 September 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, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 19:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Has been mentioned in many articles, mostly in pieces about the contestants. I would prefer to find some articles about the event itself. --Ryan.germany (talk) 13:46, 22 September 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. Ironholds (talk) 02:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EComXpo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't even exist anymore. Never met WP:CORP kept the second time on spurious claims. The sources contained are clearly for the most part not realiable or are primary sources like press releases. WP:CCC so lets delete this orphaned article of a non-notable corporation. Cerejota (talk) 10:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Doesn't even exist anymore." is never a valid argument. Once notable, always notable. Some of the references in the article are not independent, but there are enough references from reliable sources to pass notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Chicago Tribune coverage and this Washington Post article in the article serves to qualify notability. Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How does that constitute "significant" coverage?--Cerejota (talk) 01:36, 7 September 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 - T P 15:50, 13 September 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. Courcelles 23:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of English civil wars[edit]

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

This "list" actually acts more like a disambiguation page than a list. I thought of turning it into one, but the page already exists at English Civil War (disambiguation), making this unnecessary. The Evil IP address (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The list contains other civil wars that are not included in the page you provided. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 15:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the list describes more than just the English Civil War and complements existing lists such as List of wars involving England. (I don't intend this as an WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, more a reflection that the article similarly aids in quantifying conflict involving England). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per Wikipedia is not a directory, the article's inclusion on Wikipedia is appropriate, as the article has an organized focus and is not, per Wikipedia directory guidelines, like "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". The article completely passes all eight points of WP:NOTDIRECTORY guidelines. Furthermore, the article and is functional and appropriate as a Wikipedia article in list format. Northamerica1000 (talk) 00:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename The list is valid, but it would be better moved to "List of civil wars in England", which would avoid confusion with the mid-17th century wars and would have less suggestion of a dab page.--SabreBD (talk) 06:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I respectfully oppose that particular renaming as Revolt of 1173–1174#The_Revolt shows that significant parts of one of the wars took place outside of England. Perhaps there's a case for renaming as "List of British civil wars" and emcompassing conflicts in Scotland and Wales? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 07:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately there is no way of hermetically sealing the wars off. The 17th century wars spilled over into Ireland. Many conflicts also spill over into modern France.--SabreBD (talk) 07:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point and I certainly see the case for "English civil wars" having potential for confusion, especially as the "English Civil War" had three distinct components. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 14:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Northamerica. It matches all factors for keeping, and our core readership - students - would likely be seeking this formatted information. Bearian (talk) 21:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This doesn't hurt anyone and doesn't fall foul of policies and guidelines, it seems to me. I think renaming it is a good idea, though I'd love to see some expert on the English/England/British thing weigh in. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response - English civil wars is appropriate as the conflicts listed were between factions trying to control the Kingdom of England. My issue with renaming as Civil wars in England was that nowadays "England" refers solely to a geographical region, not a nation state (the United Kingdom is the nation state), so that title could be interpreted as referring only to conflicts within the boundaries of England (whereas they spilled out into other areas). As for British, the disambiguation page can explain better than I! ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems notable and verifiable. Dzlife (talk) 13:44, 16 September 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. Ironholds (talk) 02:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Gruenwald[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Peter Gruenwald

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

Gruenwald does not meet WP:CRIME, he is only known for his involvement in the Lufthansa heist. He falls into WP:ONEVENT the Lufthansa heist. There is information about Gruenwald and his involvement in the heist in the Lufthasa heist article. Vic49 (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Vic49 (talk) 17:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Vic49 (talk) 17:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per above and lack of reliable sources. Merge with Lufthansa heist. - DonCalo (talk) 17:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Explain?.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I already explained. He can be dealt with in the article on the Lufthansa heist. Read WP:CRIME: A person who is notable only for committing a crime should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there are any existing articles that do or could incorporate the available encyclopaedic material relating to that person. - DonCalo (talk) 23:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, not necessarily often a person from a larger "event" can have its own notability, like here. And should then be subject to its own separate article.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Like in this case, a separate article is justified.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Other than his involvement in the Lufthansa heist he has no notability, consequentle merge and delete. - DonCalo (talk) 14:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:CRIME--Gagg me with ah spoon (talk) 18:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How?--BabbaQ (talk) 22:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs sourcing but that is not a reason for deletion. when searching on Peter Gruenwald I get 867 000 hits on Google. Does meet WP:CRIME.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Those hits are not all about the same person. And when they are about this Peter Gruenwald, they are clones of the Wikepedia article. In other words, a very bad argument for keeping the article. - DonCalo (talk) 19:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BabbaQ, you need better reasoning, see WP:GOOGLEHITS. LibStar (talk) 03:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the same to you in this instance actually.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:PERP and WP:ONEVENT. take away this crime and he is not known for anything. simple. LibStar (talk) 03:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Take away the politics and Barack Obama is not known for anything, take away all her films and Julia Roberts isnt known for anything. Strange and/or weak reasoning for deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

these people are noted for multiple events, achievements. please nominate both Barack Obama and Julia Roberts and see if your reasoning is correct. if you do nominate both, I'll happily change my vote for this to keep. otherwise this is a slam dunk delete. regards LibStar (talk) 23:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doesn't meet WP:CRIME criteria. Keb25 (talk) 06:13, 11 September 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, Courcelles 15:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was never listed on a daily log. Please close seven days from this timestamp. Courcelles 15:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP he was an important mobster in his day and a lot has been written about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Necktor (talk • contribs) 19:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He was not a mobster but a pilot with a minor role in the heist. You obviously did not even read the article. - DonCalo (talk) 15:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I still say he does not meet WP:CRIME --Vic49 (talk) 21:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The vote above this comment was made by the nominator for deletion of the article. Voting twice is unallowed. Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Topic actually passes WP:ONEVENT, specifically, quoted from this policy guideline page, "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gruenwald only had a minor role in the heist and he can be dealt with in the article on the Lufthansa heist. Does not pass WP:ONEVENT. - DonCalo (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Common criminal who had a small involvement with a crime that has an article on WP already. --Gelobet sei (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Emma[edit]

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

Emma does not meet WP:CRIME. Vic49 (talk) 14:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Vic49 (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vic49 (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A lot of uncited information (presumably coming from one book, which is referenced) but no real proof (via multiple secondary sources) that the subject meets general notability guidelines. Info relating to the Rampers, shootout with the Gallos and death can be easily contained within the articles on Sammy Gravano and Gerard Pappa. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -does not meet WP:CRIME. --Cox wasan (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:CRIME. Unsourced information mostly about other gangsters. DonCalo (talk) 12:27, 18 September 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 Relisted as individual entries per below. Mike Ginn nominated for speedy G4. No prejudice against the recreation of Grant McFarland should he be found to meet our inclusion guidelines. Non-admin closure. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Szusterman[edit]

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

Actor, only one minor role is asserted in the article. This is part of a series of stubs submitted by Hunter Bradley (talk · contribs), some of which have been nominated for A7 speedy deletion after a BLP-PROD has been contested with the insertion of an IMDB link. One of those I just nominated for a speedy G4. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating

Hector David Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Hector David, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Brittany Anne Pirtle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Erika Fong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Steven A. Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Jacinda Stevens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Grant McFarland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Felix Ryan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Mike Ginn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Bede Skinner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Steven Skyler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Najee De-Tiege (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 Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ah, the vageries of mass nominations. While appreciating the headache cause by a Power Rangers fan creating multiple stub articles, it would seem that not all are unsalvable. Of the mass, I found three that are notable per guideline and have potential for expansion and improvement. My rationales are listed one-by-one below. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jeff Szusterman. Doing more that just voice work, he appears to be pushing at WP:ENT [5] and seems to have decent enough coverage in New Zealand.[6] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hector David Jr. as minimal career[7] fails WP:ENT and lack of coverage fails WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Brittany Anne Pirtle as minimal career[8] fails WP:ENT (requires significant roles in multiple different productions) and lack of coverage fails WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Erika Fong as minimal career[9] fails WP:ENT (requires significant roles in multiple different productions) and lack of coverage fails WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Steven A. Davis. Doing more that just voice work, he appears to meet WP:ENT [10] with such as his lead role in This Is Not My Life, and seems to have decent enough coverage in New Zealand.[11] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Jacinda Stevens as minimal career[12] fails WP:ENT (requires significant roles in multiple different productions) and lack of coverage[13] fails WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (undelete) Grant McFarland as career appears to meet WP:ENT [14]] and the individual IS sourcable.[15] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Felix Ryan without prejudice per WP:NotJustYet. His role in 21 episodes of Power Rangers Samurai is the most significant role so far. This and his earlier collection of minor acting roles[16] do not push enough at WP:ENT. LAck of coverage fails WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mike Ginn without prejudice per WP:NotJustYet. He has had live-acting roles,[17] and his voice work in 20 episodes of Power Rangers R.P.M. and (so far) 1 episode of Power Rangers Samurai is pushing at WP:ENT. Its the curent lack of coverage that seals this one for me. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bede Skinner. While sourcable,[18] the short career[19] fails meeting WP:ENT. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Steven Skyler. Other than 11 voice artist episodes of Power Rangers Samurai, his live acting career has consisted of minor characters or descriptives. This fails WP:ENT. Lack of coverage for his work fails WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Najee De-Tiege. While sourcable,[20] his only acting role ever was his voice work in Power Rangers Samurai[21] Fails WP:ENT. Lack of coverage for anything else fails WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jeff Szusterman, delete the rest. Other than fan sites, I could only find these interviews for Hector David Jr [22] and for Mike Ginn [23], nothing impressive. I think that Szusterman is a borderline case, but there is a fairly good interview of him and his wife [24], and some reviews for 3 plays he's directed [25] [26] [27] [28] (also, the Drammy award mentioned on his website can be confirmed here). I think that Steven A. Davis and Grant McFarland are also close calls, based on their careers, but I didn't see any item significant enough to go for keep — frankie (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Steven A. Davis, per below — frankie (talk) 14:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toward Steven A. Davis, he may been seen to meet WP:FILMMAKER as his work The Fanimatrix has been the recipient of independent critical commentary and review in secondary sources.[29] I have added that information to the article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had missed that work, and together with the role in This Is Not My Life I think it is reasonable to expect further notability in the future, so I'll change my !vote — frankie (talk) 14:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyway way we could break this up into several AfDs so that we can evaluate them separately with more ease, as Schmidt has shown might be a good idea? Moogwrench (talk) 22:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User:Moogwrench, this is a nightmare to attempt to deal with it like this. I would prefer if we can break these up and discuss them separately. Trusilver 07:34, 14 September 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. Ironholds (talk) 02:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tomas M Fleischmann[edit]

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

Self-published/paid-to-publish author of questionable notability. Book published through AKA Publishing, a pay-to-publish outfit (see [30] and [31]. Google search on "Tomas Fleischmann" "Lolli's Apple" shows little significant coverage - one or two reviews, and a lot of social media sites and sales links. Award does not appear notable - 346 awards were given in one year. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 15:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as does not fulfill WP:AUTHOR (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.) or general notability guidelines. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tomas M Fleischmann is 1 of only 123 survivors out of 16,000 children who went through Terezin Concentration Camp during WWII. Tomas' story is true and even more amazing as his book Lolli's Apple is told as an innocent 6 year old boy. I find his story more than notable however if anything requires editing, I am happy to consider any suggestions.

Please see category C for consideration: C. Be aware that some pages should be improved rather than deleted

Users participating in AfD discussions are expected to be familiar with the policy of civility and the guidelines Wikietiquette and "do not bite the newbies". Droopyjaz (talk) 04:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)— Droopyjaz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

*Response to accusation of incivility and "biting newbies" (As message above was left on my talkpage and on this AFD, I will leave the same response in both places)

I have reviewed my statement in favour of deletion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomas M Fleischmann and do not find it to have broken any guidelines or protocol. I stated the facts neutrally as I saw them: that according to Wikipedia's guidelines (as quoted exactly and linked to in my statement) the article is a valid candidate for deletion. I did so without reference to any editor, without stating or inferring any prejudice towards the article's creator and without any assumptions of bad faith. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 08:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Who is this fellow deleting this Holocaust survivors profile? He is the keynote speaker of Courage to Care who have reached 250,000 school children in Australia promoting multiculturalism, anti-bullying and tolerance. He is NOT paid for this work as they are a MAJOR project of B'nai B'rith. He is also a regular speaker for free at the Jewish Museum of Sydney. He is also a leading member of the Holocaust Child Survivor Group in Australia...with Eva Engels and Litzi Lemberg. Tomas Fleischmann's page needs to be on Wikipedia for our community and for the future of our children. Let's edit it, get the facts right and keep it there for the community. What on earth is going on when profiles like this one are suggested for deletion? Unfortunately there were only 120 odd child survivors from 16,000 children in Terezin. Most of them are not even alive today to share their testimony and here is a fellow doing so perpetually. Leave it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharon001 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC) — Sharon001 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

*Response to accusation of Lolli's Apple being self-published" Tomas Fleischmann is not a self-published author. This can be verified through AKA Publishing who publishes both self-published and other notable works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.167.107 (talk) 00:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC) — 59.167.167.107 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Neither the man nor his book appear meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability - no matter how interesting a life he may have had, or how many school children he talks to. The book has been in print for more than a year but does not appear to have garnered any reviews or other significant coverage. Fleischmann himself, based on the media record, appears to be much less notable than a hockey player of the same name. The publisher appears to do a mix of regular and vanity publishing, so this might or might not be self-published. But in any case, the lack of significant coverage by independent reliable sources means that this article can't be kept. --MelanieN (talk) 03:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Response to notability", The existence of another person of the same name should not negate the other. Someone by the name of Elizabeth Windsor may write the most successful chain of stories ever told, she may be star of the latest movie blockbuster, she may be a victim of a notable crime but may not feature top of the pop online because the Queen of England has the same name. Are not BOTH notable? Honestly notability is survival against the odds, written work/s that are published not by self, third party quotations made independently, public appearances, public awareness of profile (such as being one of the most recognised Jewish personalities in Sydney or Australia). These are notable. But you would rather leave it to a hockey star that no one in Sydney or Australia has ever heard of? What a shame we share Wikipedia with American/Canadian English speaking countries. I say let's have an edition for the rest of the English speaking world and lose the domination that proliferates. We have NEVER heard of Tomas Fleischmann the apparent hockey player until now. He has been around forever. His team promoters make sure he's in every Google article...but although you say Wikipedia must not use self promotion tools you refer to the number of Google entries and search engine optimisation as a source of credibility for notability. I am sorry but your methods are inherently flawed. Simply check the quotes, check with the publishers about the self published aspect if needs be but get your facts straight. Before you wipe a Holocaust survivors profile off the face of Wikipedia you ought to check if your facts are straight and correct and spend a little more than a couple of minutes Googling. It's sooo hard getting items up for the first time. The system is so user unfriendly and here we have someone trying to get up some humanitarian information and you want to wipe the story off the file. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharon001 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The hockey player is not important; there are many examples in Wikipedia of articles about different people who have the same name. My point was that the Tomas Fleischmann we are discussing here does NOT seem to get any coverage - even less than a not-very-notable hockey player. And no matter how fine a human being Mr. Fleischmann may be, this is an international encyclopedia. There are clearly defined standards for inclusion here: basically that the person has gotten significant coverage by reliable, independent third parties (such as newspapers and books) Having published a book and giving talks are not enough, unless we can find independent third parties giving coverage to his book, or his talks. I can tell you feel strongly about this, and we are not trying to diminish the person's worth; we are just saying this is not the place to talk about him. --MelanieN (talk) 14:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Response to notability", Hey I just read an article...a long article written by a Sister in the Catholic Church about this guy. Surely she is 'reliable'? She is certainly independent and certainly the article was long enough.hmmm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharon001 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have such a reference, I suggest that you add it to the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is already listed, a long with a few other references. Droopyjaz (talk) 07:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deletion per WP:CSD#A10, blatant POV fork. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The nationality of the Macedonians[edit]

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

Disputed PROD. Original reason for proposed deletion: This appears to be an unreferenced content fork in relation to the article Macedonia naming dispute. Singularity42 (talk) 14:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: also unsourced original research: In the physical appereance Ancient Macedonians look more like Macedonians then they look like Greeks. More bickering over an Eastern Europe ethnic group. The rest of the world, that's not crying for you, is laughing at you. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per Smerdis of Tlön's WP:OR claim. Jingby (talk) 14:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obviously propaganda. --Philly boy92 (talk) 15:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A very poor articulation of a fringe racialist view supported by some circles in the Republic of Macedonia. Good enough only as an example of ethnic nationalism in this country. --King of Fluid (talk) 15:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The reasons have already been articulated above. Nothing to add. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 15:42, 13 September 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 - T P 15:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ideafixa[edit]

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

Non notable magazine. Xyz or die (talk) 13:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional delete (The guidelines relating to this are WP:WEB#Criteria) There are a good number of Google hits for this South American, Spanish-language webzine but many appear to be blog-like in nature.
If anyone (perhaps with a grasp of Spanish) can demonstrate any secondary sources to be reliable, I will naturally support a Keep. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a related book at Worldcat, but the magazine is not listed. If libraries don't take note of the magazine, we probably shouldn't either. Unscintillating (talk) 18:10, 18 September 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 - T P 15:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Little Book of Transcreation[edit]

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

No indications of notability, no significant coverage from independent sources. Google search on "Little Book of Transcreation" only shows 75 unique results. MikeWazowski (talk) 13:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found zero significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 22:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is a more general article on Transcreation, currently also at AfD; I think the subject probably deserves an article, but this book does not appear to meet the notability standard of WP:Notability (books). JohnCD (talk) 19:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted A1 (no context). Non-admin closure. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fraubanger[edit]

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

Disputed PROD. Original reason for deletion: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Singularity42 (talk) 13:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't an article in any respect. There's nothing to discuss here.

BTW the comment "below" (in the main ADF page display) is doubly misplaced. It's not about this article and is on the general AFD page not the page for this article. North8000 (talk) 13:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. No content. --Xyz or die (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 18:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sebeca Zahra Hussain[edit]

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

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources (in English, or Arabic as سيبيكة زهرة حسين) which provide coverage of this figure in order to evidence notability under WP:GNG. Language issues may be in play, it appears an Arabic wikipedia entry on her was deleted as having been written primarily in English, so that doesn't directly demonstrate a lack of notability. joe decker ^{talk to me} 13:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unable to find any coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 15:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The claim of importance is highly qualified and quite weak. Pburka (talk) 18:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Come help us at Wikipedia:Unreferenced BLP Rescue.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: at some point this AfD was removed from a daily log. I am relisting it now under today's log. Hut 8.5 13:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced BLP.--Xyz or die (talk) 13:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:48, 18 September 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 - T P 15:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Damien Thorn[edit]

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

Almost entirely unsourced article that fails fails WP:GNG and is barely more than plot details from each of the films. Only source included is related to entomology of the name "Damien". Sottolacqua (talk) 12:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Did you try to find sources outside of Wikipedia about the character? Per WP:BEFORE, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD," meaning the topic should not be judged by the current state of the article. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing remotely useful comes up in the first four pages of a Google search. There's nothing to fix—the article is regurgitation of content from other WP articles, and the article subject doesn't meet WP:GNG. Sottolacqua (talk) 16:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about Google News Search or Google Books Search? In the latter, one source discusses the character as one of the "Deformed and Destructive Beings" (the title of the book), and this source follows Damien's Jungian development throughout the films. Yet another analyzes his character as the film's events happen around him. We should not have a lot of in-universe information in the article and should trim it, but there seems to be sufficient coverage for a stand-alone article. What do you think? Erik (talk | contribs) 16:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your first source is barely more than a minor plot synopsis of the character from the film. The few lines are more geared toward Gregory Peck and his characterization of Robert Thorn. Sottolacqua (talk) 16:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the character appears to meet the general notability guideline. I included two references, and the Iaccino reference in particular has an abundance of coverage about the character throughout the films (though not the remake, having been published before it). Additional results in Google Books Search are available to be used. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Erik's analysis and improvements. As they can be fixed through regular editing, issues shown as addressable are rarely cause for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per reliable sources added to the article, which establish notability of the topic. Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It appears that the nominator didn't follow the guidelines listed in WP:BEFORE for source searching prior to nominating this article for deletion, which nullifies the basis of nomination for deletion. Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nomination's basis is upon content within the article, rather than a search for reliable sources. There's no mention in the nomination regarding stated prerequisite searches required per WP:BEFORE policies being undertaken by the nominator prior to nomination. Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:27, 14 September 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 - T P 15:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bear (color)[edit]

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

dictionary definition, non-notable, tautological microstub. "Bear is a color that is a representation of the average color of the fur of the common North American black bear" and a third of those words are redundant. bobrayner (talk) 09:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable word for a colour. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 10:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Compare the quote from the article on the black bear's colouring: Despite their name, black bears show a great deal of color variation. The article's lead description contradicts known fact. Is this article not a hoax? Even if not, it still refers to a term that is unproven to be anything other than rare and archaic. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable, poorly-sourced dictionary definition of a color.--Slon02 (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oh, my, another non-notable color; I thought we had killed most of these. The use of the word "bear" as a color is virtually nonexistent. It's not even clear what color "bear" is supposed to be a shade of: brown? black? gray? The graphic shows a dozen shades of gray, but "bear" is not one of them. --MelanieN (talk) 03:26, 20 September 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 - T P 15:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Teuchters Cricket Club[edit]

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

Previously PRODed the article, however this was removed. The club is non-notable as it plays in Division 8 of a regional Scottish league. Fails WP:CLUB and WP:CRIN. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 08:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 10:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Like it's Irish cousins this falls well short of WP:CLUB and/or WP:GNG. Mt king ^(edits) 11:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CRIN by not being one of "those clubs which have competed in the Minor Counties Championship or are included in the List of English cricket clubs do meet the notability requirements. The essence of the latter group is that the clubs belong to one of the Bradford Cricket League, the Lancashire League, the Central Lancashire League or one of the ECB Premier Leagues." ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to be a clear failure to meet WP:CRIN and WP:CLUB. - Sitush (talk) 22:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CLUB. LibStar (talk) 02:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 20:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of ethnolinguistic groups with populations[edit]

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

The list is intrinsically misleading and WP:SYNTH. There has been a long discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics and no overall solution has been found. Many of the entries are simply not what they purport to be, and the ethnic groups which do really exist are fitted into an hierarchy which doesn't exist in reality. Many real-world ethnic groups are either omitted or severely distorted due to the structure of the list. This is not the usual AfD which hinges on notability; rather, this list is intrinsically inaccurate and non-neutral. bobrayner (talk) 08:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The purported reason for the list is as an index for ethnolinguistic groups, organized by language family. However, many of the groups are not ethnolinguistic, most ethnolinguistic groups are not included, and dozens of the groups aren't real ethnicities, but language families masquerading as ethnicity. I suppose it could be fixed up, but why not just direct people to Category:Ethnic groups? We could make a subcat 'ethnolinguistic groups' and have that subcat'd by language family. Also, we could link all ethnolinguistic groups from the language infobox in the appropriate language article, something I started but never got very far with. (And almost none of which is replicated by this index.) — kwami (talk) 08:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned before, only the groups at the bottom of the hierarchy are ethnic groups. The other groupings at higher levels of the hierarchy are not ethnic groups but these groupings are there simply to make it easier for the user to use them to more easily find the ethnic group they are looking for. Keraunos (talk) 04:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would they do this. Ethnicity is actually rarely judged by the language one speaks.Curb Chain (talk) 10:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 11:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per bobrayner and kwami. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This list requires two additional megasections besides ethnic groups based on language families (which would the first megasection). These two additional megasections would be a section listing ethnic groups based on race (such as the Coloureds of South Africa) and a section listing ethnic groups based on religion. The article would require these two additional sections in order to complete a comprehensive listing of all major world ethnic groups, and I don't have time to do the necessary research right now. Keraunos (talk) 04:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless; even if it was made, ethnicity is much more than language, that to categorize ethnicity by language is simply illogical it is like irrational.Curb Chain (talk) 10:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see the point of this article. Ethnic groups encompass identity, society, culture, history, language, politics, economics, and and sometimes religion other traits. Language can be used by unrelated ethnic groups. I don't know why these 2 unrealted concepts are synthesized into one.Curb Chain (talk) 10:32, 20 September 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. There are obvious WP:COI issues in play here, but that is a reason to edit the article, not to delete it. There was also off-site canvassing, but that does not necessarily invalidate the positions of those canvassed. On the whole I would say consensus is (weakly) leaning towards keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Schwartz (technologist)[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)).

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't look to be passing WP:GNG There is not enough significant coverage in multiple independent sources to justify stand alone encyclopedia article on this person. Those who said "notable keep" in prior nomination did not backup how the person is notable after four years Cantaloupe2 (talk) 07:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wp:notability. Based on text of article, ability to establish such appears unlikely. North8000 (talk) 13:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do the research. The page was originally created by User:Rustybrick. Seach the internet for Rusty Brick and Barry. He owns the company. WP:promotion. WP:POV

Comment Yes, this goes way back. Anyway, Here are some sources for notability, if you need it... Interviewed by Brian Williams on Prime Time NBC, see here. Article about myself in Journal News, see here. I've been quoted hundreds of times by places like WSJ, NY Times, Forbes, and so many more. Here are some links to those, but I stopped keeping track. I cover SEO and search news, I am a publisher. I am one of the most cited journalists in the search space. I've spoken around the world, including Search Marketing Expo, PubCon, La Red Innova and so on. I also run conferences, here is an article for a very large Israel paper on a conference I ran there, there are others but they are in Hebrew. But you guys can do your independent research. I am pretty sure you don't want to hear from me on this. But wanted to just add some of these links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rustybrick (talk • contribs) 22:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this is another attempt to increase traffic to your website. All but one source you provided are to your OWN website, which is setup to sell yourself, no surprise. Citation should be as close to the source as possible and this looks like an attempt by the subject to protect their own presence on wiki. Verification on MSN failed. The video was about space exploration. It did not mention you. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 01:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't the links nofollowed. I do not care about the links. Maybe NBC moved the video, here is a copy of it on YouTube. And here is a citation in a book, one of many. Should I stop providing sources and let others? What is protocol? Rustybrick (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
More books, Art of SEO, Killer Facebook Ads, Google AdWords, etc. Leading paper in Spain, over here. Rustybrick (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I do not believe getting cited in eachother's book counts, which is apparently happening commonly in the world of "SEO specialists". You could publish a book and briefly mention the author that mentioned you as a gratitude and it still doesn't establish your notability. The links are no follow, but it still brings visits, just not tracked back to wikipedia.Cantaloupe2 (talk) 08:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It just seems like you dislike me for some reason. Did you spend any time at all looking to see my contributions to the search industry, not just "SEO" but to Google, Yahoo, Bing, etc. This seems more personal to me than anything else, maybe I am just taking this the wrong way. But there are very few people in the search industry, specifically journalists, that have given as much time, content and information to the industry. Please just spend time researching my background, contributions, mentions and so on, instead of assuming this is about getting traffic, because I can prove it is not about the traffic. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I'm looking for same level of coverage as well known to the public figures who usually have coverage about them and justifiably so. In prior deletions, consensus was that snippets of mentions is not a "significant coverage". The media approaches those who work in the field all the time. If they're doing issues on earthquake, they may ask a professor at a nearby school for a comment and may get mentioned as "Dr. Jane Doe of department of geology at State University said" but that is a trivial mention. As per WP:GNG WP:BASIC coverage should not be trivial. If we didn't have these limitations, wiki will become flooded with people wanting their own stand alone article. You may be a snippet in another article, but the amount and reliability of information I can locate on you does not warrant stand alone article on you. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Does not seem to clearly meet the general notability guideline. There are sources, but most of them don't really seem to be about the subject directly and substantially. Steven Walling • talk 22:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

followup that is what I was seeing. When I went through the sources he linked as well as those I verified independently, there was substantial coverage of the subject. Bloggers, SEO consultants and such emphasize on their presence on websites, but as you probably seen their presence is particularly polished on primary source blogs.

Keep Being routinely interviewed as the expert on something by reliable sources can amount to notability as a recognized expert or authority. Obviously we are rather skeptical about this in borderline cases, but I don't think this is borderline. I accept also that we should be especially skeptical about articles about themselves by experts in internet marketing, but I think he passes none the less. The decisive factor for me is the editorship of Search engine watch. DGG ( talk ) 01:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- reply and that page is a publication designed specifically for search engine marketers. That publication has got a page on how to spam on Wikipedia by How Small Businesses Can Get a Link from WikipediaYou get a general idea of the market it supports and it makes the WP:COI pretty obvious that advise it gives about Wikipedia editing isn't without commercial motive behind it, such as clever, concealed placement of WP:REFSPAM. So we've seen self statement of "routinely interviewed by experts" a whole bunch of links within his *own* website, but not multiple, unrelated, WP:RS with significant coverage. Have you seen otherwise??? Would you find editorial from Kate Kaye from industry advocating publication ClickZ to clear WP:V, and WP:POV? Even on technology issues, I don't see these small publishers to be on the same level as Reuters, TechCrunch, wiredCantaloupe2 (talk) 09:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - ClickZ didn't return a significant presence on Hoovers search. On ClickZ page, it looks like it is owned by the same company as Search engine watch, so it looks like the two are not two unique independent sources. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 10:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have not been with Search Engine Watch for years and even so, what does that article have to do with my writings. I cover search news, not how to spam, and do black hat SEO. I cover news on search, nothing to do with abuse. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Keep As someone who works in the filed of Internet marketing, I've gotten to know and appreciate Barry Schwartz's presence at conferences where he covers them for Search Engine Watch. Over 19,000 people subscribe to his Twitter feed where publishes daily insights into the happenings within the industry. I know that Barry has been interviewed for his opinions & insight on the search industry by leading national US based TV networks. I will do my best to hunt down links to these interviews. Unfortunately, like many TV news interviews, they're not retained on broadcasters site even if they were ever posted there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kology (talk • contribs) 12:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC) [reply]

This is nuts! It's Barry Schwartz for crying out loud. There are people on wikipedia who are in much smaller niche's and industries than that of search engines and the internet. Anyone in internet marketing, and especially SEO knows exactly who Barry Schwartz is, he's basically a celebrity. On that, how come there's no wiki pages for Rand Fishkin and Dave Naylor?

Not only is Wikipedia missing an entire niche/industry worth of notable figures, but they're thinking of deleting what little it has?!

SteveOllington (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)— SteveOllington (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Preceding comment was copied from the talk page — frankie (talk) 13:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems that Cantaloup2 wants to delete all of Wikipedia's content about SEO. Cantaloup2 as you can see above makes outrageous, biased and false statements, speaking from ignorance. Already Aaron Wall and Brett Tabke were deleted, which were not good decisions because Aaron is also an Internet celebrity and operator of SEObook, and extremely popular website, and Brett Tabke operates PubCon, and possibly the largest webmaster conference. Rand Fishkin used to exist but Rand himself asked for it to be deleted. We should have bios for all the most famous webmasters. Jehochman ^Talk 15:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Whalen and Bruce Clay were also deleted. Bad stuff. We should probably bring all these articles to deletion review for a more thorough discussion. Jehochman ^Talk 17:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Much as I disagree with Barry's politics, he is certainly a notable individual. Not an Aaron Wall, but still notable enough to warrant an entry (phnarr!). In any other field Barry's level of notoriety would not be an issue, the same should be true of those who work in digital. No reason to delete and frankly this appears to be overzealous, self-promoting, slightly ridiculous editing. • — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Manley (talk • contribs) 16:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He has made some appearances in the media, but I still don't see the significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources that we should have to write an article. Furthermore, I don't see anything exceptionally special about him to warrant an IAR pass from the guidelines. If we have an article on searchengineland he could be mentioned there, but I'm not seeing the need for a full-blown biography on him. Them From Space 19:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This AfD is being canvassed offwiki: [32] [33] Them From Space 19:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry, didn't realize that was a no-no. User:Rustybrick. —Preceding undated comment added 23:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

It does make it pretty visible that you're trying to get your SEO buddies who identify themselves as expert to create an undue influence, which could potentially clash with WP:POV. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 03:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, my (non-Wikipedian) friend Jim Hedger (viz. some of his work, for what it's worth) who is both a journalist who has covered SEO and a pretty strong SEO expert himself, assures me that he'd count Barry Schwartz as one of the notable figures in the field. So, in this area where I'm not expert myself, I lean toward keep. - Jmabel | Talk 23:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

followup ok? I've NEVER heard of isedb.com. Is this a website most people skilled in the arts of internet publishing would know? How is this much different from asking a friend who is an editor of a city community college campus paper and saying he assures you that so and so student is "well known" in the community? What is your ground for the statement Jim Hedger is an expert? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 03:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying Jim is necessarily an expert at the level of meriting an article himself (he may be close, but I wouldn't pass judgment on this on a colleague). I'm a solid computer professional myself: MS in Computer Science, have run some pretty large dev groups, etc. Jim, whom I've known for over 20 years, is one of the two people in my acquaintance I consider most expert on SEO. If he assures me (as he does of Schwartz) that someone is one of the leading figures in the SEO field, I tend to presume he knows what he's talking about.

I was not saying at all that isedb.com was notable, or even citeable. I provided the link as a reasonable sample of Jim's recent writing on SEO, so that people who don't know him could tell that I'm not just getting my opinion from a random acquaintance, but from someone who actually knows the field. SEO is a field where I do not have independent expertise.

Canteloupe2: a lot of your complaint seems to be "I don't know about this guy so he's not notable." Is this a field you know well enough that you would expect to know the notable names in the field? - Jmabel | Talk 15:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Broader remark: It seems to me that we need a clear set of criteria on what constitutes notability in this particular area. Right now we have only half a dozen people in Category:Search engine optimization consultants, including Schwartz, which suggests to me that the bar is being set awfully high. - Jmabel | Talk 00:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

reply How well known is the field in the interest of the general public? There are highly specialized attorneys, such as those with expertise in birth injury who maybe well known in the highly specialized field of law concerning medical malpractice, or among insurance companies. There are also notable professors well known within the HIGHLY specific field. What convincing argument do you editors have to offer that justifies the inclusion of "SEO experts" but not biography page for every person that may as well be considered "well known within the specialty field"? Ask an editor in charge of journals for that very specific field and he/she will likely say "that person is an expert and well known in the field of(( whatever )) ". Cantaloupe2 (talk) 02:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very. If you own a business website, you pay attention to this stuff and have heard of these famous names. Just because you've never heard of it doesn't mean other people are unfamiliar with the topic. Wikipedia is meant include all verifiable knowledge, not just: pop culture, Simpsons episodes, every crap musician who ever had a recording contract, and a complete catalog of Pokemon characters. Jehochman ^Talk 04:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very well known to the general public according to what sources? You happen to be involved in related business, I am not. Knowledge among people in your specialty does not mean general knowledge(or lack of) among the general public. Wikipedia guidelines specifically say it is not for including every verifiable being on the face of earth. Notability is to established through reliable references, not personal experience. Wikipedia doesn't extend inclusion to every verifiable local bands. It doesn't include every person who's presence and occupation can be verified. Many of SEO " " experts " " don't pass the Wikipedia inclusion criteria for having stand alone articles about them. The owner of a local sub shop doesn't usually meet notability criteria and getting other people to blog/tweet/mention/talk over a plethora of different websites do not make it so. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 06:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you arguing that search engine optimization isn't a noable topic? You are being very tedious and obtuse. Please go do something productive. You are commenting excessively here, drowning out the opinions of other editors. Jehochman ^Talk 11:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You make excessive personal attacks by making every accusation you can think of for edits you don't like. Your accusation of "slander" on a tag you disagree with for one and rebelling about other articles for another. I encourage others to post their opinion. Don't tell me what to do. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 12:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:POINT. You are systematically attempting to delete every article about famous SEO practitioners, regardless of their notability. Whatever personal issue you have, please don't bring it into Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 12:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It really does sound to me as though this is personal, if not some issue Canteloupe2 has with Barry Schwartz, then with SEOs and internet marketing in general.

I had heard of Schwartz before I even got into this industry. He's a writer, speaker, video blogger, industry expert, and a respected voice, whether one or two users respect what he's talking about or not.

Authors in specific genres aren't always well known outside of their audience and many certainly aren't household names, yet that industry seems to have credibility with Wikipedia. I've never heard of Juan Carlos Navarro, some Spanish basketball player on your front page, but I understand why he's there, for those who are into sports.

You're listing shoe designers, soil scientists, bullfighters, and strippers - yep, strippers. But for some reason, when it comes to people who have been successful and are influential in business, it becomes taboo.

Can't believe you're removing Barry Schwartz, and seriously, Bruce Clay and Jill Whalen?? Also second that Rand Fishkin and Dave Naylor should be included. Look outside of your own bubble, there's a great big world out there and these people are very well known and respected by many. If not you, that's fine, but this isn't a personal website.

Worrrd (talk) 12:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)— Worrrd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Hello and welcome. I see that this is your very first contribution here. I am not sure who you're addressing by "you". Wikipedia is not a traditional publication that the publisher's editor makes inclusion/exclusion decision. Please refer to WP:GNG, WP:V and WP:RS. It is not a directory of any people and inclusion is based on notability and the criteria is explained there. Some shoe designers are notable. Perhaps you've located some that aren't and they're subject to scrutiny of deletion nomination should anyone object to their notability. If you have further questions about notability, please ask questions on WP:N/N, noticeboard for notability. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 12:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Hey guys, this is my first time editing on Wikipedia, so sorry if I mess something up...I hope my errors are worth my contribution. I've outlined 3 reasons why I don't think Barry should be listed.

I'm speaking as someone who's been in the Internet Marketing / SEO industry for coming up on 3 years now, and I don't think I'd put Barry in Wikipedia.

Here's why:

Strike 1 - WP:SOAP / WP:POV / WP:COI

To me this debate all comes back to intention on the part of Barry, and if it were just me in charge of Wikipedia then Strike 1 and 2 would be the only argument needed.

Look at the facts - He created the page about himself, promoting himself and his website. This obviously doesn't jive with policies here on Wikipedia, I mean it's not even a debate in that regard. To say anything else is naive, especially since his page was originally much more promotional in nature.

To me anyone in the SEO industry warrants special rules / consideration, and I think intention should be a big factor as to whether or not the page remains in Wikipedia. Unlike the "random authors", "B list celebrities", and "Soil scientists" cited as narrow-niche examples in the above debate, SEO consultants make it their job to manipulate links and online exposure to their benefit.

Sure, there are a lot of "random authors" on Wikipedia, but how many of them created their own pages with the intent of marketing themselves? To me that's the difference between Barry and someone else with similar notoriety in a different niche - Barry obviously created the page out of self promotion. More on WP:GNG in Strike 3.

Strike 2 - WP:COI / WP:CANVASS

He canvassed this debate to his followers, which means that any positive support is potentially influenced his way by his blog and Google+, which he still hasn't removed after being reminded of the rules. Sorry guys, but to me it seems that if he really cared to be in Wikipedia because he felt he deserved it (not self promotion), then he would have at least taken down the offending posts AFTER the fact...I mean it's not hard to take something down.

As it stands now I feel inclined to simply disregard every single glowing "OMG HOW CAN YOU NOT INCLUDE HIM?!?!?! WE NEED MORE SEO CONSULTANTS!!!" response, because chances are they're trying to stick up for their buddy Barry, not improve the integrity of Wikipedia. Even if they're not, well, sorry Barry, I guess you should've taken down the offending posts on your blog so I could trust the positive opinions.

Strike 3 - WP:GNG / WP:NOTDIR

Yes, there are lots of random authors on Wikipedia as has been said. Yes there are lots of random athletes and celebrities as well. Why? (A) Because 90% of folks have at least a passing interest in books, sports or celebrities, and (B) they've done something noteworthy and publicly recognized in areas of GENERAL interest (which SEO does not fall into). When I look at just about any other extremely narrow field, such as Endocrinologists for example, the only names I see are people who are considered to be PIONEERS in the industry. There are not many currently practicing Endocrinologists listed (and none who created their own Wikipedia page).

Well wait a minute, don't Endocrinologists treat diabetes? And isn't Diabetes one of the fastest growing epidemics in the world? Well yea, I guess it is, so why aren't there more endocrinologists listed in Wikipedia? Because (A) no one in the general populace even remotely cares, and (B) Wikipedia isn't a directory of every noteworthy figure in every industry ever.

I think it was already established earlier in the debate that the snippet-references cited by Barry himself aren't substantial enough to warrant notability in the form of media attention, so to me it comes down to this question:

Has Barry done anything to qualify as a PIONEER in the field of SEO? To me the answer would be no. And by his own volition he is merely a search engine journalist, not an actual SEO consultant, and how many current journalists do we have listed in Wikipedia?

Don't get me wrong, he's a great journalist who's been around the block a few times and definitely knows his stuff, in fact I've stopped by SEwatch a few times myself, but in the SEO industry it seems like there are a hundred "Barry Shwartzes", and next year there are going to be a hundred more. If you include Barry, then within the SEO industry alone there are probably at least 50+ more similarly noteworthy/influential folks who should be included, some of which have already been deleted.

And remember, WP:GNG is the 3rd strike for de-listing Barry, not the first, so keep that in mind when you're deciding how lenient to be with it.

Anyways, just my 2 cents.

Hope this helps. Stepman77 (talk) 16:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)stepman77[reply]

reply I think you're right on the ball with what you presented in "strike 3". If every verifiable person with secondary source quotation or mention was to be allowed a stand alone article, the integrity of Wikipedia would be compromised. Now that I think about it, some kid who's been listed in the local paper would be equally undeserving/deserving of his own article. ~~I suspect WP:meatpuppet is happening when Mr. Schwartz canvassed about this deletion in a suspected attempt to manipulate consensus process.~~ In the AfD, it has been reported by another editor that he is canvassing outside Wiki regarding this AfD. I think that it is an attempt to gain influence for the purpose of WP:meat Cantaloupe2 (talk) 20:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1) Barry is not some kids who's been listed in the local paper. Please stop making insulting comparisons. 2) You have presented no evidence of meat puppetry whatsoever. Either show the evidence or strike your false and defamatory statement against a living person or else I will ask an uninvolved administrator to block your account to prevent further inappropriate posts. Jehochman ^Talk 22:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1.) No, but I feel that the they can be compared in my opinion. Disagreement with comparison does not equate insulting. 2.) See my words. "I suspect" I never stated that "it has been established" or "is". Opinion or suspicion is not defamation. It is an expression of opinion. When I left you a COI tag, you got all emotional and said it was harassment. Yet, you leave a warning on my page when you disagree with something. I feel influenced by your position of authority. I think that you're trying to suppress my opinions by telling me to suppress or you'll file a complaint. I do not feel that I am in violation of policy by voicing my opinion. An uninvolved administrator is welcome to leave me a message if their interpretation of rules differ. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 05:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The consensus agrees on the fact he exists and what he does.

He passes verifiability with little or no question on companies he's associated with.
It is true he's got a sentence or two coverage. In the USA Today article, it was just a sentence that said he was surprised.
A stand alone article like this page is not warranted in my opinion.

This is not about dislike for SEO specialists.I would have same reservations about stand alone individual articles on prosecutors in every local courts,page about every independently owned business like Anne's Coffee on Main St and the like. The shop could have been covered a few times in local paper(s) or a lot of tweets from its internet fans, but that doesn't warrant its own wiki article Cantaloupe2 (talk) 07:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As much as I hate the autobiographical articles, I have to vote keep in this case. Similar to the reason that DGG gave, being interviewed and quoted in numerous articles as an expert in your field builds notability.--Ryan.germany (talk) 11:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: to me, one intuitive criterion on whether a person deserves a standalone article is: are there a significant number of people likely to look him/her up? If the answer to that is 'yes', then we should certainly have an article. Independent of the merits of this particular case, I tend to think that journalists in almost any field are likely to be looked up. While I discourage people starting articles on themselves, that's not a reason for deletion. It does mean that the content deserves close scrutiny, and it may call for a rewrite if the article seems promotional or otherwise biased, but with respect to notability it is a neutral. - Jmabel | Talk 15:21, 22 September 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 - T P 15:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Couzens[edit]

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

There does not appear to be any good references for actual notability in the extremely promotional article. The editor has contributed a number of such articles, and has been warned. I found one of the articles at CSD, and discovered a number of entirely unacceptable articles, and others that has unacceptable promotional sections. I've edited the ones that actually were notable, and am nominating the others for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 07:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:BIO or GNG -Drdisque (talk) 16:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. There are references in the article. The Indiatimes "article" is actually an excerpt from a press release. The Middleburg Eccentric is a local community newspaper/magazine published monthly. AskMissA is of unclear reliability. The New York Time is an engagement announcement. Taken together, that's insufficient to meet the inclusion guidelines. -- Whpq (talk) 17:47, 14 September 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 - T P 15:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Baker[edit]

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

The references are entirely promotional, or links to where her photograph has appeared as an advertising model. I do not think there is any real notability DGG ( talk ) 06:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the references qualify as significant coverage in an independent reliable source, so the article fails WP:GNG. —C.Fred (talk) 13:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources aside from this news item which doesn't establish notability for her as a model. -- Whpq (talk) 17:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - other than the Improper Bostonian and Patriot Ledger cited, none of the magazines cited are general-readership periodicals. Smells like spam. Bearian (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. Any content worth merging may be pulled from the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Bongino[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Mt king ^(edits) 05:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States Senate election in Maryland, 2012 where all candidates for this office can receive balanced coverage written from the neutral point of view. Bongino fails WP:POLITICIAN but his candidacy ought to be covered fairly in the article about the race. If he wins, of course an article about him will then be entirely appropriate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I started this article because he is notable as first Senatorial candidate to have come from the Secret Service, possible first Republican Senator in MD since 1987. Does not yet fail WP:POLITICIAN because he is:

Has not held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and is not a member or former member of a national, state or provincial legislature. He has not been elected, but not yet sworn in.
He is not a major local political figures, and received only moderate coverage. He is also not a mayor of a city of regional importance or a member of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city.
He meets notability requirements for the reasons I listed above, but does not meet the "significant press coverage" exception in item 2 of WP:POLITICIAN that would otherwise disqualify. User:mattfrye 14:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - in the past outcomes of AfD, we have never kept articles of candidates for political office, other than for head of government, or unless they were previously or independently notable for their careers outside of politics (for example, Donald Trump). See also WP:CRYSTAL for people who are not yet ready for inclusion. The redirect to the election article has also been a common way to avoid POV fork and Biography issues. Bearian (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ (Rebuttal to previous Delete comment) - While I appreciate the precedent of not keeping articles of candidates, this is a tricky case for a few reasons.

The "signficant media coverage" section of WP:POLITICIAN conflicts with that of WP:GNG. The candidate cannot receive significant enough coverage to comply with WP:GNG and still pass WP:POLITICIAN. I see the intent of the Trump example. However, I don't think it's an effective example because he created coverage that would have caused a candidate page/section for him to fail WP:POLITICIAN. Still, the lengthy section on his political activity remains.
WP:CRYSTAL does not apply because this article does not engage in speculation or provide unverifiable information. There is no extrapolation, speculation, or future history except that the Senate race will occur, which is not in doubt.
WP:FORK does not apply because this is not a separate article on the same subject as the Senate rate article, which only mentions Bongino by name. It is definitely not a POV fork because it does not attempt to avoid neutral point of view guidelines or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts.
The article passes WP:BLP because:
1. It presents a neutral point of view.
2. It presents verifiable information.
3. It does not contain original research.
4. Again, this article neither attacks nor praises Bongino. It simply states the facts.

MattFrye (talk) 14:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - It is really pretty simple: People can achieve undisputed notability for other unrelated accomplishments, and later become political candidates. We keep such biographies and include a section about their political candidacies. In addition to Donald Trump, other examples that come to mind include Ronald Reagan, Ross Perot, Jesse Ventura and Arnold Schwarzenegger. If Wikipedia had been around during the candidacies of the first three, we would have handled the matter as with Trump or Schwarzenegger. Secret Service agents are not usually notable, and Dan Bongino's only claim to notability is as a political candidate. His media coverage is routine and exactly like that generated by every serious unelected candidate for office with a competent staff sending out press releases. Routine coverage generated by press releases doesn't establish notability for anyone.

WP:CRYSTAL applies to the current version of the article because it says "If Bongino is successful, his election would mark the first Republican elected to the US Senate from Maryland since 1987." Assuming that's true, then it applies to every Republican candidate in this race, not just Bongino. The article violates the neutral point of view because it includes the campaign logo, making it resemble campaign literature.

There is an entirely appropriate place to cover Bongino's candidacy and the article already exists at United States Senate election in Maryland, 2012. That's what long-established consensus says should be done it this case, and there is no reason to open the floodgates to thousands of promotional articles about unelected candidates. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting case here and I'm glad I stumbled upon this discussion, but I think the information in the article could be moved to United States Senate election in Maryland, 2012 and this article made a Redirect for now. Perhaps a stronger case for his lasting notability will emerge before long. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Delete My error, he's just a candidate in the primary. I carelessly thought the article meant he was the Reupublican candidate: I agree primary candidates except for the presidential election are not generally notable. since essentially anybody can try to run. But I continue to think that the nominee of a major party in a two party system for national office is notable. This is certainly true for senators in the US--with only 100 of them, each candidate is nationally important. I do not see thousands--there would be 34 every two years, and about half would be notable from prior positions. 8 a year is not opening the floodgates. DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC) Revised, DGG ( talk ) 15:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States Senate election in Maryland, 2012 - I agree with DGG that he will be notable if he becomes the Republican nominee. In the meantime, I think he's received enough coverage and appears to be a strong enough candidate (based only on my review of the current field of Republican candidates for Maryland Senator) to warrant a redirect to United States Senate election in Maryland, 2012. Veganator ( talk ) 15:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ABC News gives him significant coverage, and a major newspaper in Maryland [34] gives him a very long and detailed article, plus video footage of an interview with him. Passes WP:GNG so the rest is irrelevant. Do you think they give articles that long to just anyone? Dream Focus 18:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Focus, can you please furnish evidence that the website SouthernMaryland Online, which ran this story, is a "major newspaper in Maryland"? Thank you. As for the articles cited, I think that they constitute entirely routine coverage of a local political candidate. If articles like this establish notability for freestanding biographies of unelected candidates, then we ought to scrap our notability guideline WP:POLITICIAN. The problem is, that guideline enjoys widespread support and is routinely used as a reason to redirect such campaign biographies to neutral articles about the race. I oppose any dilution of that consensus. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It says "Serving Calvert, Charles & St. Mary's Counties for 5,647 Days". Been around for over 15 years, and covers several counties, so yes, its a major newspaper, not just some small town thing with low circulation. And the GNG are all important, the secondary guidelines just covering things that are important but might not have coverage that's easy to find: such as, someone who won a noble prize, or a scientist who never did interviews but whose works are notable enough to be taught in every textbook on that subject there is. As for WP:Politician see the top part that explains it WP:BASIC. He passes that requirement easily. The section after that for additional criteria is just for those that don't automatically meet that. "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included;" Dream Focus 17:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "ABC News" source you provide is not from ABC News at all. Instead it is from the ABC affiliate station in Baltimore, which is not even owned by the American Broadcasting Company. It a local TV news interview of the sort routinely given to local candidates, and is not national network coverage. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://abcnews.go.com/ is the national and http://www.abc2news.com/ are from the various affiliates, both using the same company symbol, and having the same standards. Dream Focus 17:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this person and his career are not sufficiently notable to merit inclusion. It appears that he is recieving very ordinary, and possibly one time press coverage. This person has recieved notice only from this one time run for an office. Also there is an NPOV issue mixed with speculation WP:CRYSTAL. Speculation as to what might happen does not equate with notability. Especially in this case since it applies to all the Republican candiates. Also, in any case, being a "first" at something does not equate with notability - and this person has not yet even achieved the distinction of being "first". Also, this person has not established any kind of career that is worthy of note. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States Senate election in Maryland, 2012. Of course, if he wins the election, it will be a different story. But right now, he fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. SheepNotGoats (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This situation comes up frequently, and some people argue for a redirect to the election, even for the most trivial would-be candidates. I personally favor a "delete" rather than a "redirect" for an article about a would-be politician who is running in a primary and unlikely to achieve even the nomination, much less get elected. (According to the one detailed article about him, from the Washington Post, he faces an "uphill battle" for the nomination, it is "likely" that other Republicans will enter the fray, and in any case the Republican nominee is unlikely to win because Maryland has been "anything but competitive" in recent elections.) His only news coverage is related to his campaign, so he fails WP:GNG. And as an unelected, un-nominated wannabe politician he fails WP:POLITICIAN as well. --MelanieN (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States Senate election in Maryland, 2012 As for non political articles, I did find a Baltimore Sun article stating Mr. Bongino as one of the lead investigators in car rental scheme investigation. --Ryan.germany (talk) 10:38, 22 September 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avinash Pandey (Indian Media)[edit]

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

A Vice-President of Ad Sales at a company that owns three TV news channels in India. Sources in article are either from his company or PR releases. Unable to find any significant, reliable sources about him, but he does have a common name. Bgwhite (talk) 05:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 05:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment appears to be largely autobiographical or WP:COI. PamD 12:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Blatant vanity and résumé. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable. Sources are mainly press releases. Nothing to suggest notability. --Ryan.germany (talk) 10:11, 22 September 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. Cúchullain ^t/c 19:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tanisha Thomas[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This individual does not appear (after good faith media searches) to meet the notability guidelines (certainly none of the references cited demonstrate notability). ^Bongo_matic 03:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Even after two years (of being on Wikipedia) the article still lacks third party coverage to verify notability. —Mike Allen 03:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — —Mike Allen 03:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 6 September 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, Courcelles 03:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has now been the host of a show, in addition to her various other appearances.Brianyoumans (talk) 05:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite a relevant guideline. Thank you. ^Bongo_matic 02:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be WP:BIO, "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" and also "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." She has appeared in one season each of three different programs - Bad Girls Club, Celebrity Fit Club, and Love Games: Bad Girls Need Love Too. And judging from the number of blogs interviewing her, talking about her, etc., she seems to have a significant number of fans. Personally, I think I would demand at least $100/hour to make me watch this drivel, but obviously people DO watch it.Brianyoumans (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not even make it to the "D" list.--Cox wasan (talk) 21:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) *Weak delete - she's not an A-lister, but she's certainly on her way up. It might not yet be her time. Bearian (talk) 19:28, 21 September 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 - T P 15:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Californians for Population Stabilization[edit]

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

Wikipedia:ORG: Non-notable organization. It's produced some advertisements, but there are scant substantive and noteworthy third-party reports about the organisation itself JFHJr (㊟) 03:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google Books search demonstrates the notability of this group. If the Google News Archive search was still available, I am sure that many news sources could be found, given their role in the California Proposition 187 (1994) campaign. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The first book results are mainly listings. Others are footnotes and passing mention, which don't garner notability. Listings might be appropriate within articles or as articles themselves, but list members aren't necessarily notable. JFHJr (㊟) 06:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Although I concede that many of the Google Books results fall into the passing mention or directory listing category that you describe, JHFJr, not all of them do, by any means. Taken as a representative sample, this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this show a pattern of coverage demonstrating that this group is notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm very thankful for the great reply and substantial improvement. I'd be happy to withdraw my nomination. JFHJr (㊟) 06:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks wp:notable. North8000 (talk) 14:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per sources researched by User:Cullen328, particularly this information: "Unwelcome strangers: American identity and the turn against immigration", By David M. Reimers. Also, nominator stated he or she would be "happy" to withdraw the nomination. Northamerica1000 (talk) 02:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - thanks to the involved editors for the major improvements to the article. Will Beback talk 00:50, 20 September 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 - T P 15:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Smithfield, Hong Kong[edit]

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

Lack of notability. The street is a typical Hong Kong street, mostly residential with a few shops. There's little to write about it so the article is padded out with unsourced material and OR about the street name and the district. The references are all government reports concerning it, i.e. primary sources, + some OR by an editor. No reliable secondary sources, certainly nothing that establishes notability. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 03:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have reworked the article. Please have a look at it and you might reassess your opinion about it. It still can be improved, with the removal of original research. Besides, it would be quite a stretch to consider the documents titled "Official Report of Hong Kong Legislative Council Proceedings", used to document historical facts, as unreliable or biased in this context. olivier (talk) 11:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say they are unreliable but they are not reliable secondary sources. Government documents are primary sources. They do not establish notability, and are used to so much together with observations 'in situ' by an editor they make almost all the article original research. Your reworking has done little to address this.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My reworking did probably more for the good of Wikipedia than your 2 seconds AfD'ing of the article. The street is one of the main streets of Kennedy Town and its history gives a valuable insight into the history of the area. I have added a list of features in the street and the history section is now readable. I have also added external references, including one from a scholarly source. The original research is now segregated into separate paragraphs, and not mixed with the information extracted from the government archives (1901 to 1986). The article still needs improvement and digging a bit more should yield more secondary source references (the search is made more difficult because of the London namesake). Still, I believe that it would not justify a deletion. olivier (talk) 12:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver, I don't think you understand. The core question is wheterh or not the article has established that the SUBJECT meets the criteria set in WP:notability And, the main requirement there is showing secondary sources which have given the subject in-depth coverage. North8000 (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do very much understand and I would even say that you can tag 80% of the Wikipedia articles by following this rule strictly. Now I am also saying that it is not because these references are not there yet, that they do not exist, especially in Chinese language literature.olivier (talk) 14:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are certainly plenty of secondary sources to write an very full article and that is what has been done (great work, Oliver). Government sources are considered usable sources per WP:NOTABILITY. They would only be "primary" if the article topic was the Hong Kong government. --Oakshade (talk) 23:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is the Hong Kong Government in that the bulk of the references are some branch of government writing about its activities. Three other references are observations by 'the author', i.e. an editor. Maybe four are secondary sources. Two don't mention the street at all, the other two mention it incidentally or only mention its name. --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about a street, not a government. If the street published the Smithfield, Hong Kong, the Autobiography, that would be the primary source. Anyways, you're missing the point, Government sources are considered reliable sources per WP:NOTABILITY.--Oakshade (talk) 00:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

where does it indicate that government proceedings are reliable secondary sources? I don't know that Hong Kong government proceedings have ever been discussed, but a discussion on Hansard here indicates that it a primary source. The problem with such sources are twofold. First such proceedings are not checked, leading to problems like we see in the first paragraph where two contradictory measurements are used as sources for the length of the street. Second it would be surprising if a street was not mentioned a score times in 110 years of government proceedings, but such mentions do not establish notability. Where is the Significant coverage of the street required by the GNG?--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here. And it appears that Hansard reports are indeed extremely reliable sources, in that case more so than secondary sources. For the purposes of notability, secondary sources are preferred so we don't rely on self-aggrandizing or advertisement publications by the topic like press-releases, rather than coverage by secondary sources to demonstrate notability. As for this topic, the source has made no publications. The Hong Kong government is not the street. --Oakshade (talk) 19:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

that says 'reports by government agencies', not everything written by government, and some things written by government are very unreliable. But it is not reliability that is the problem; it's that as records of proceedings like Hansard they are primary sources. The general notability guideline (to which that is the footnote) says ' "Sources",[2] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources'. But coverage in secondary sources here is minimal: two don't even mention the street.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're hung up on this strange notion that this article should be deleted because many of the sources are from the Hong Kong government and those sources are primary sources. If this article was the Government of Hong Kong, then yes, sources by the Government of Hong Kong would be primary sources. But this article is not about the Government of Hong Kong. It's about a street. The Government of Hong Kong sources are secondary to the street. This isn't rocket science. --Oakshade (talk) 20:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To quote from WP:PSTS: "Primary sources are very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved, offering an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on.". And these are political decisions, to e.g. rename the street, move the slaughterhouse, in the words of those who made the decisions.
But that is not my main concern. My main concern is the lack of notability of the street, independent of e.g. the district. Where is the significant coverage of the street, required for notability?

Please keep WP:NOTLAW in mind and the fact the Wikipedia:Notability (streets, roads, and highways) was a failed proposal. olivier (talk) 21:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm not going by that, and as far as I know there's no particular guideline for streets; "significant coverage" is the first thing in the general notability guideline, which applies when there is no specific guideline on notability.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To also quote from WP:PSTS: "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." Let's not cherry pick sentences from policies to invent a meaning that doesn't fit the policy. That quote, even if it was relevant, refers to an "event." This street is not an "event." It's a street. Again, this isn't rocket science. An for notability, there is no banning of coverage that is "political." --Oakshade (talk) 19:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While JohnBlackburne was keeping everyone busy with wikilawyering, I have added material and solid references to the article. Willing to keep pushing the AfD seems quite artificial at this point. olivier (talk) 19:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think I am cherry picking: even if I were to copy and paste the whole paragraph the words "significant coverage" are highlighted as the first thing in the paragraph, itself the first of five that make up the general notability guideline. Nor am I wikilawyering: these are the same concerns I had when I proposed this article for deletion and they still haven't been addressed. Where is the significant coverage of the street? All I can see in the references is trivial mentions or no mention at all of the street.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you were to copy and paste all of WP:PSTS, which is what you were copying and pasting from, then the true meaning of it instead if your invented meaning would been shown. In your last response you seem to be referring to WP:GNG, not WP:PSTS. You're under the false impression that "significant coverage" needs to be a huge amount of content from one source. It doesn't. You can have a rather small amount of coverage from multiple sources and cumulatively that is significant coverage. WP:GNG even states: "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources." In this case the number of sources giving coverage to this topic, most beyond the scope of "passing mention," is huge.--Oakshade (talk) 20:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point 3 of the definition of wikilawyering: "Asserting that the technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express". olivier (talk) 08:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The underlying principle is notability. A topic is notable if it has "gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time". For a road that definitely does not include the proceedings of the bureaucrats whose job it is to take care of the road. Again, where is the significant secondary coverage required for notability?--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 10:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You stated in the AfD: "The street is a typical Hong Kong street, mostly residential with a few shops. There's little to write about it." This statement that was based on your personal opinion, at a time when the article was in need of improvement, is obviously inaccurate and we haven't even tapped into the Chinese sources yet. The article is now an obvious Keep. Could be improved but Keep. Remember that there is no deadline, and once it is clear that enough can be found in the future to make this a great article, this is enough to stop arguing about the viability of the article. Contrarily to you, I have done a substantial effort to dig into sources and even considered alternatives, like merging the content. By looking for sources, I have found a massive amount of them that can be added in the future. So if you want to keep arguing until this article makes it to GA, you can, but you that should be done in the framework of a constructive GA process, not disruptively in this AfD. olivier (talk) 08:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep a uniquely named street, with information supported by reliable sources. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have moved the paragraphs containing original research to the talk page. Also added remarks for expansion potential. olivier (talk) 13:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even discounting all government proceedings, the remaining citations are adequate to establish notability. Der yck C. 07:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems to me that the only issue is whether it is encyclopaedic. Upon reading the article, I am enlightened by the facts about this little quarter of Hong Kong; the information is further backed up by reliable sources, so it passes muster, IMHO. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article on the quarter is here: Kennedy Town. This is not even the main street of the district, which is Belcher's Street. See my comments above about sources.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Will you also find a discussion from 2010, where people were insulting and threatening each other inconclusively (as was the case in the Hansard discussion you mentioned to support your point), to justify that only the main street of an area (which in your opinion is Belcher's Street in the case of Kennedy town) should be in Wikipedia? olivier (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Hong Kong streets tend to have thousands of people living along them, and are thus much more prominent and of interest to readers than they are in many other places. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I'm not clear what your point is [Oliver]. My point was that there is already an article about the district. This street should be included if it is notable in its own right. And population does not establish notability, otherwise all streets in Hong Kong should have an article – this street isn't that densely populated as it is uninhabited for much of its length.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify the point I made, and to which you just responded:
- Kennedy Town as an area, has its own article. That's not a reason for its streets not to have their own article, as you implied. One way to deal with minor streets is to merge the limited content of their article into the article of the area. You did not point in that direction, rather only requesting the article to be deleted. ie. the content to be erased. Such a situation was dealt with in the case of Mong Kok, where several streets are described by a paragraph and don't have their own article. The material contained in the Smithfield article is too large to fit in a paragraph or two, and simply erasing it would be a loss of valuable information.
- You stated that Belcher's Street is "the" main street of Kennedy Town. That's your opinion. The street's article only states that it is "a" main street in Kennedy Town. Arguably, Catchick Street or Kennedy Town New Praya could bear the title. Even Smithfield is a reasonable candidate for being "the" main street of Kennedy Town, since it contains the Smithfield Municipal Services Building and will be the site of Kennedy Town Station.
- You pointed to the discussion here, which took place last year, about the British Hansard to justify that the Hong Kong government archives are primary sources. There was no consensus in this discussion, and it was sufficiently heated for users to resort to "uncivil accusations". So again, drawing conclusions from this discussion is based on your point of view. Besides, the sources given in the Smithfield articles are essentially matter-of-fact archives, only remotely comparable to the Hansard.
- If your goal is to make a point about the reliability of government archives, and whether they should be viewed as primary or secondary sources, that's not the appropriate place to debate it. You should bring the topic to the discussion pages about sources. The Hansard discussion that you pointed to clearly indicates that there is no consensus. olivier (talk) 10:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article has too much detailed information to merge into Kennedy Town because I feel it will give a biased weight towards this street where as others within the area are equally important. Looking at the content and multiple sources (and yes ... I do think the refs are reliable too) listed I am satisfied that this should be kept.--Michaela den (talk) 13:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There's secondary source relating to Smithfield area: The Making of Hong Kong: From Vertical to Volumetric by Barrie Shelton, Justyna Karakiewicz, Thomas Kvan, p142. STSC (talk) 02:32, 18 September 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 - T P 15:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dorian Brooks[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORT and appears to fail WP:GNG after a good faith search. He was on the active roster for the Super Bowl, but was listed as inactive and has since left the team and for all intents and purposes, is retired. The PROD was contested by the creator. Giants27(T|C) 02:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Giants27(T|C) 02:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Giants27(T|C) 02:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as does not meet WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:NCOLLATH for his collegiate career. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:NCOLLATH, having never played a notable professional game or won significant award in college. There was already a precedent in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrian Battles that offensive linemen on practice squads of Super Bowl teams are not inherently notable, and Battles was on the winning team and had some WP:BLP1E coverage, unlike Brooks. The WP:ROUTINE coverage could be synthesized to create a well-sourced bio (there are alot of Ghits), but there's no hiding the lack of WP:IMPACT in his story for a standalone article. —Bagumba (talk) 23:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:ATH. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:24, 15 September 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 - T P 15:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Frome[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NSPORT as he has never played in a professional game and alslo appears to fail WP:GNG, after a good faith search. Giants27(T|C) 02:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Giants27(T|C) 02:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Giants27(T|C) 02:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of NFL career and collegiate playing days not meeting WP:NCOLLATH. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete according to this article he is a regular civilian with no particular notability. He does not pass WP:ATHLETE.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K-1 World Grand Prix 2003 Preliminary Brazil[edit]

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

also nominating:

K-1 World Grand Prix 2003 Preliminary Scandinavia
K-1 World Grand Prix 2003 in Saitama
K-1 Beast II 2003
K-1 Holland Grand Prix 2003
K-1 World Grand Prix 2003 in Paris

another sprawling series of non notable fighting results. no longstanding notability as per WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 01:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All of these articles are just routine sports coverage. I found nothing that shows they're notable. Astudent0 (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, as per nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:44, 10 September 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 - T P 01:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as per nom and Astudent0. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:07, 19 September 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 - T P 15:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Septem (album)[edit]

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

Article for an unreleased album. Fails to establish notability and I can't find rs to provide notability. FiachraByrne (talk) 02:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - per sourcing. --BabbaQ (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 6 September 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 - T P 00:56, 13 September 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 - T P 15:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Jimi Hendrix[edit]

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

Article claims that the album might not have even been released and only has a single citation. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is accurate; the citation is from one of the primary biographies of Hendrix. It is unclear how many of these records were actually sold before Track pulled them all from stores, and while I've never seen one in person I have seen at least one for sale (which doesn't mean it came from a store). Also, this record DOES exist and this article should persist for that reason alone.... —Alex —Preceding undated comment added 04:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

No It shouldn't. Existence is not notability. No one is claiming that this is a hoax, but that it's not a notable music article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 6 September 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 - T P 00:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If you don't know whether or not exists, you probably don't know enough verifiable info to build an article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 06:12, 13 September 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rejhan Poturović[edit]

(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 by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 22:33, 13 September 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 - T P 15:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Jeschke Deliz[edit]

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

Notability. The only contributor, either by ip or name, appears to be the subject matter. The article is a BLP, and at this stage would have to be fundamentally rewritten if it were found to be notable, to be something other than a vanity piece. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Blatant vanity. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:02, 19 September 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. Wifione ^Message 19:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K-1 World MAX 2008 World Championship Tournament Final 16[edit]

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

also nominating:

another series of non notable results that fail WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 05:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 07:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All of the additional articles are routine sports coverage of non-notable events. The primary article (on the MAX final 16) is on a more significant event, but the article needs better sources (at the very least). Astudent0 (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per nom and Astudent0. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:59, 19 September 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 - T P 15:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guillotine (compilation album)[edit]

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

Non-notable sampler, PROD denied. I can't find anything special on Google and the current article is unsourced. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For the reasons already in the article - early example of reggae on a new wave compilation, Branson's debut, to say nothing of the unusual size (10") copied by other nw wave products later. No, it didn't sell well and is currently unavailable, and there is little online for this reason, but IMHO it would be another example of recentism to throw out the article. Ringbark (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response Do you have any sources? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response There are numerous, but by reason of the age of the product, not online. The sleeve of the product itself shows the Branson article, for example. Ringbark (talk) 21:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NALBUMS. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:54, 19 September 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 - T P 15:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maidashi ryokuchi[edit]

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

Unremarkable and non-notable neighbourhood park, which is one of roughly 400 in the city of Fukuoka alone. A Google search in Japanese turns up 99 hits, of which roughly a third are Wiki-related or similar mirrors. If I had thought the article had even a glimmer of notability, I would have cleaned it up and sourced it myself, but no amount of intricate detailed about park benches and street lamps can make up for the total lack of notability - as described in WP:AMOUNT. The previous PROD was overturned, but unfortunately, no one has yet been able to offer any sources to demonstrate notability. --DAJF (talk) 06:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exhibit A: A view of the park on Google Maps - gives a pretty good indication of how "significant" this park is in comparison with the many other parks in the local area. --DAJF (talk) 10:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

note:The map is inappropriate, because it indicate only a part of the ryokuchi (park).--Hot cake syrup (talk) 10:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —DAJF (talk) 06:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Most of commenters confirm keep, See Talk:Maidashi ryokuchi. Let's not beat a dead horse.--Hot cake syrup (talk) 09:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; does not appear to be notable. Listing every green space is hardly encyclopædic. bobrayner (talk) 08:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep If this green strip on Google Maps is the park, I find it kind of interesting. I can't judge if the coverage is significant, though. Moscowconnection (talk) 17:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, its the green strip visible in that aerial view. Unfortunately, just being "kind of interesting" is not really a valid reason for justifying an article (see WP:INTERESTING), and the coverage available (including the sources provided in this article) consist of passing mentions in lists of parks in Fukuoka city and a personal web page that also mentions in passing how the strip of greenery known as Maidashi Ryokuchi happened to be the site of a former railway line. That's it, and I have searched the web for more, as I too would have liked to keep an article about a Japanese park on Wikipedia if I felt it had any merits. --DAJF (talk) 01:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel in sense of embarrassment for this proportion of for deletion/Maidashi ryokuchi. Because in 30 August 2011 DAJF labeled for deletion [35], and a week after, the label was peeled away [36] by Athaenara. Since most of commentator agree for Keep and discussion of community arrived at a conclusion. Despite that in 9 September this item was reclaimed by DAJF again. What's this all about? --Hot cake syrup (talk) 07:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not sure what's different, but I get ~4000 hits for "馬出緑地" and 1880 for the full name "第8号馬出緑地". It's a fairly unusual example of a rail trail in Japan, and it already survived an AFD on ja-wp: [37]. I generally lean on the deletionist side, but in this case all I can ask is: would it genuinely improve Wikipedia to nuke this bit of local history? Jpatokal (talk) 07:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you omit hits containing "wiki", you get 95, of which many are still wiki-based or Mapion hits. Any "local history" can easily be added to the Maidashi article instead, which still needs a lot of work. --DAJF (talk) 08:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are we on different Googles or something? The link you give above gives me 3990 hits, which goes down to 3250 if I add in "-wiki -ウィキ". Jpatokal (talk) 10:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In the Google 546,000 was hits for 馬出緑地 at 13 September [38], Maidashi ryokuchi is thought too little about.--Hot cake syrup (talk) 09:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When doing a Google search, you need to enclose the phrase in double quotes, otherwise you just end up getting hundreds of thousands of hits for pages containing "馬", "出", "緑", and "地". See Jpatokal's comment and mine immediately above. --DAJF (talk) 09:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see, but by this exact wording or phrase 「馬出緑地」 hits 8,550　(in Japanese Google)[39], this number is large, isn't it?--Hot cake syrup (talk) 09:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This artical needs references yes, but it is not too short an artical, maybe it could be expanded upon. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:39, 15 September 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 - T P 23:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bert Oliva[edit]

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

This article doesn't have reliable sources independent of the subject, and so does not meet the general notability guideline or the notability guideline for people. Extensive talk page discussions with Mr. Oliva's supporters on the article talk page have turned up many attempts at sourcing, but they are mostly trivial mentions or primary sources. The only exception is an article about Oliva's advertising agency in the Pinecrest Tribune, which is an alternative weekly / 'community news' publication. I do not believe the Tribune article rises to the level of a reliable biographical source. MrOllie (talk) 16:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG. There may be a cache of non-English references on there on them, but if there is it's well hidden... Stuartyeates (talk) 23:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Almost a résumé anyway. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:21, 13 September 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. I think the additional sources are sufficient to show notability ; some editing is needed for conciseness, & I've begun it. DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Group 90[edit]

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

Ad-like, bad tone, sources I found were all tangential. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – There are book and journal references in the article that establish notability. Of particular significance: nuSense: An exhibition of drawings and paintings of the nude by members of Group 90. Singapore: Procomp Prinset Singapore. ISBN 981-047812-7. Northamerica1000 (talk) 21:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article gives references, but I'm unable to find them. With the book, nuSense: An exhibition of drawings and paintings of the nude by members of Group 90, I'm unable to find it via the ISBN number. It says it is printed by "Procomp Prinset Singapore", but the company doesn't deal with books and is a general printing company. Articles lists references by Wai Hon, but Wai Hon is a founding member of the group, so even if I was able to find them, the refs are not independent. I can find refs that say Group 90 was an informal gathering, they organized exhibitions and certain artists belonged to the group. But in the end, unable to find reliable, significant references. Bgwhite (talk) 20:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Bgwhite. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Straits Times, a leading newspaper in Singapore, provides two sources. Plus some others. The topic seems fairly substantial. BigJim707 (talk) 03:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has done exhibitions at notable galleries. WP:ARTIST 4b has been met. Dream Focus 03:51, 13 September 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mistress Matisse[edit]

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

WP:AUTO, WP:N, WP:SPIP Belchfire (talk) 22:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At least at first glance, the reasons given for deletion do not seem to apply. The previous AfD discussion in 2007 concluded that the subject was notable and, looking at the article history, I see absolutely no indication that any of the editors either are or have any close connection with the article subject. Consensus can change, of course, especially where (as here) BLP applies - but on present evidence, I'd have to say keep PWilkinson (talk) 18:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Keep. ~~Not even close.~~ See below. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm a high-bar-for-porn-related-articles guy. I've got nothing against porn, mind you, but encyclopedias should be about encyclopedic things. Garage band cruft, TV show cruft, that hurts nobody. Porn cruft undermines WP's educational mission by potentially making it the object of scorn and access restriction by the right. You want vapid pseudo-bios of stupid no-name porn stars because it's a particular hobby of yours? This is not the place. That's where I'm coming from, and that said, I think this is a keeper as a sex columnist. Footnotes 2 and 4 showing appear to be legit significant third party sources of the sort we look for in assessing notability at AfD. 120,000 Google hits for the exact phrases "Mistress Matisse" indicates an iceberg big enough to produce another notability snocone or two. File next to Dan Savage. Carrite (talk) 02:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 02:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take your word for it, although I only get 77,000 Google hits. I really fail to see the usefulness of the article, though. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I too question the rationale given in the nominator's statement. Please quote which guidelines this article violates, and how. Failing that, I have to vote Keep as the subject seems to meet WP:GNG. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 00:09, 14 September 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 Cherlise. v/r - T P 00:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Love U Right[edit]

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

fails WP:NSONGS. No charts. No cover versions by multiple artists. No awards. Sourced to YouTube, artist's private fansite, and similar dreck. —Kww(talk) 13:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dont believe this article should be deleted i found it useful — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raterr101 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raterr101 is the article creator.—Kww(talk) 22:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails the notability guidelines (WP:NSONGS). I have had to delete a couple of elements from the article (lengthy quote in breach of Fair Use and a cited lyrics website that quite frankly is neither reputable nor safe and possibly breaches copyright law by reprinting lyrics). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 00:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cherlise. Non-notable songs, per WP:NSONGS, "should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song." No album article exists, and redirecting this single to the artist seems perfectly reasonable. If it charts or receives significant coverage in reliable sources, then I'll support an individual article at that time. Gongshow ^Talk 22:07, 14 September 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.