< 8 April	10 April >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. B music ian 09:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NBC logos[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Little to nothing here is verifiable through reliable secondary sources. The article currently has multiple YouTube videos as sources, plus a Tripod fansite, neither being acceptable. Other sources in the article are all primary. As with PBS idents and American Broadcasting Company logos, no notability is proven to the logos themselves as no independent sources discuss the history, critical analysis, etc. of the logos. Only the encyclopedia source seems reputable, but to what extent does it discuss the logos? I say not much.

While the article was sent to AFD twice before, the first was kept entirely due to WP:ILIKEIT, WP:PRETTY, WP:ITSNOTABLE and whatever the hell "Why is it that some people refuse to see the historical aspect of logos?" is (I say "non sequitur"). AFD the second was no consensus, due in part to one user clamoring that sources do exist but utterly failing to prove it and/or fix it. I see no good sources as it stands, nor any proof of separate notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article could use some work, but the historical changes to the logo of an important company like this are notable in themselves. There's too much info to incorporate into the NBC page, so it makes sense to keep this page on its own. West Eddy (talk) 00:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of "work" do you think can be done? There are no sources discussing the logo in depth. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources include this book (pp. 82-3), this book (going through the snippet views can be fairly time-consuming but there's at least 350+ words about the NBC logo over multiple paragraphs), and this book (pp. 126-7). These results are good enough for me. Gongshow ^Talk 02:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of those look trivial to me. Just one or two sentence mentions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm seeing much more than 1-2 sentences on the subject in each of the previews I'm seeing. For example, I counted in the first book I listed 17 sentences in which the NBC logo is specifically discussed. Gongshow ^Talk 02:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took a stab at incorporating these sources into the article. Gongshow ^Talk 06:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A geeky subject, but it has sources, and obviously interests some people enough to write articles and books about it. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KeepMay be hard to find sources for the article, but it's sufficiently notable to warrant a page.

Keep It's quite easy to find sources for the article. Here's a few snippets: "NBC's original "snake" logo had been replaced by a succession of others, a process that reached its low point in an arranged marriage between the spiky, Modernist "N" logo of 1980 and the old peacock of 1956. ..."; "The NBC snake that took its place was dying. Now the big boys are going to come up with a different logo. So what do you do at NBC with a problem like this? Do you go to the artists in our graphics department and ask them to draw some ..."; "The casualness about the looks of things carries over to the NBC peacock and the snake sign of the NBC initials. Stanton, who is graphics-minded, would never have tolerated anything so ugly for CBS. ". Warden (talk) 17:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep Why is it that some people refuse to see the historical aspect of logos?

If you don't like the article quality, then you are always welcome to work on fixing it. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I ponder how and why TPH make some of these nominations.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The work by Gongshow has improved the article, but I'm still not sure if it's enough since major chunks are still unsourced. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly, as four of the five references I added are dated 2001 and earlier, I have not incorporated sources for the HD/green/holiday logo variations that NBC apparently has used in recent years. So are improvements still needed? Yes, of course (just as with almost any article, naturally). At AfD, the question is whether sources exist to demonstrate that the topic of "NBC logos" is notable. Based on the sources presented so far, which in most instances non-trivially discuss 43+ years of the logo's history (WP:GNG), that answer appears to be yes, as well. As for the unsourced chunks, it's quite likely that not every variation will have been discussed in great depth. Still, it may be possible to find evidence that they existed. For example, lookin' for a source that mentions the green logo? Voila. How about something for that A Hard Day's Night paragraph? Comin' right up. Or the part about NBC getting artists like Al Hirschfeld to do promotional variations? No prob. In other words, addressing these areas is a matter of general article improvement. Gongshow ^Talk 20:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This now has plenty of sources and it's a notable subject in the history of Graphic Design. Yes, it needs more sources, but most articles do. freshacconci talktalk 20:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I've added the following sources to the article:

Hibberd, James (January 27 2011). "NBC Universal's new logo dumps peacock". Entertainment Weekly. Retrieved April 10, 2012. ((cite web)): Check date values in: |date= (help); External link in |publisher= (help)
Allen, Chris (January 31, 2011). "NBC changes historic peacock logo in merger with Comcast". KSHB 41 News. Retrieved April 10, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)
Schneider, Michael (August 30, 2009). "Colorful new peacock for NBC". Variety Magazine. Retrieved April 11, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enzo Martinez[edit]

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

PROD contested by Rupert1904 (talk · contribs). Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just to clarify the nommination, Rupert1904 (talk · contribs) posted the following to the deleting admin's talk page to contest the deletion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I'd like some reason as to why you deleted the Enzo Martinez page. I see "your rules" for deleting an article and I think the Enzo page met them. It had plenty of sources for the content and was still in the process of growing and getting better. I hope you rethink this and know that I will be a constant editor of his page so that it adheres to Wikipedia standards. Thank you and please let me know because there are plenty of pages on European, South American, African, etc. footballers who have less content on their articles and no sources. Please reconsider. Rupert1904 (talk) 14:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. The coverage of this footballer is WP:ROUTINE, and he is yet to play in a fully pro league. As such, the article fails both relevant notability guidelines, namely WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – oh, the blessed WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS hilarity. Martinez fails WP:GNG due to lack of non-routine media coverage, and WP:NFOOTY. – Kosm1 fent 08:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY Mentoz86 (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Henry (artist)[edit]

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

The subject of the article is not notable. Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 13:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 13:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. DoctorKubla (talk) 19:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Could work, but needs a major expansion. Be peaceful. Be a Dalai Lama. (talk) 01:20, 28 March 2012 (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, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Local artist, local coverage. Makes this user-submitted list. Probably talented enough to warrant an article, but unable to support with Reliable Sources required for BLP. Dru of Id (talk) 20:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability has not been sufficiently asserted - one reference is simply not enough for an article, at this stage. It would need a major revamp and or expansion - which can be done in a userspace, not live as an article. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 09:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as ((db-a10)) (duplicate of the article Omalo). Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

אומלו[edit]

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

This is in a foreign text (I think it is Hebrew). I cannot tag it as CSD A2 due to the foreign glyphs and the fact that I do not know what language it is. Oddbodz (talk) 22:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is Hebrew, and appears to be about the Georgian town Omalo (although Google translates it as "O'Malley"). I have tagged it for speedy deletion based on WP:CSD#A10. ... discospinster _talk 22:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong | babble _ 16:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Visual Reading[edit]

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

I originally tagged this article with a 'bias tag'. However, upon further review, I've come to the conclusion that this article should be deleted (or, at least, drastically edited.) I find references to "visual reading" in the context of reading, but this is a general phrase that does not appear to have anything to do with the technique Hyo Sang Shin supposedly developed. The only thing I can find related to Shin + "visual reading" are links to the book he's selling. All of the research/references appear to be about general concepts of speed reading, not anything Shin developed. Finally, the claim that students are reading 1,000 wpm w/ good reading comprehension is almost certainly utter pseudoscience garbage. (Either that, or this guy deserves a noble prize, because this claim requires near super-human abilities.) JoelWhy (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joel,

It looks to me that you are clearly upset about my request to substantiate your attack on the article with any scientific evidence. If you are upset, it does not give you the right to pour your emotions and call other people's work "garbage". How much do you know about speed reading? Did you actually bother to read about "visual reading" method? If not, I suggest you do your homework first before pouring dirt over other people's heads. I am considering raising a complaint about your libelous remarks about the author of the book and the method. Please remove your libelous and unsubstantiated remarks if you do not want the issue to be escalated any further.

As I wrote before, I welcome any constructive critique of the article.

Kind regards, Natalia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.3.170 (talk) 22:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Escalate" the issue to whomever you like. The scientific evidence has found that speed reading classes cannot improve a person's reading abilities to 1,000+ WPM without massive sacrifices in comprehension. With the exception of a tiny number of people who have had "abnormal" brains, giving them a fairly amazing ability to read at tremendous speeds (e.g. Kim Peek), studies have demonstrated that the human brain appears to be incapable of reading at 1,000+ wpm without tremendous sacrifices to reading comprehension. This page is reselling repackaged pseudoscience and it should be deleted for that reason alone. But, to make it easier for the other editors, the most straightforward reason for deleting this page is that this concept is found in a singe book which lacks notability.JoelWhy (talk) 23:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just, M., Carpenter, P. The Psychology of Reading and Language Comprehension. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1987.

Noah, T. "The 1,000-Word Dash." Slate. Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC, 18 Feb. 2000. Web. 15 Oct. 2010. <http://www.slate.com/id/74766>

Rayner, K. "Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research." Psychological Bulletin. 1 Nov. 1998, Volume 124, Number 3: 372-422. JoelWhy (talk) 23:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joel, Being scientific means providing a well balanced point of view. Your point of few is obviously biased... The discussion on how speed and comprehension are connected is in no way conclusive. Science is full of inconclusive discussions and unanswered questions. The references you cite are in no way representative of all the research into reading and comprehension. Moreover, the two references you provide are more than 10 years old. Newsweek interactive is not a scientific journal. What makes you think that book lacks notability? The author's method is patented in South Korea, and the author is due to receive patents for his method in the United States and the United Kingdom. The book has this information. I hope you had a chance to look at the last pages of the book prior to making your judgement of lacking notability. Moreover, Shin's method has been tested for more than 7 years and the book contains case studies to support his method. I did complain about your comments and calling other people's work "garbage". Kind regards, Azbukva Azbukva (talk) 01:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The claims made by Shin are the same claims which have been made by a barrage of charlatans. All you have presented as evidence to support the claims that Shin has been able to provide his students with near-superhuman abilities is a book authored by the "researcher", patents, and anecdotes. This is not science. I call Shin's claims garbage and pseudoscience because that's precisely what they are. In any case, we're not getting anywhere here. I will wait to hear from other editors for their input.JoelWhy (talk) 02:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article is about a speed reading technique from a non-notable book; the article has been padded to look legitimate with extensive amounts of synthesis and promotional wording. I was unable to find any reliable secondary sources that discuss the book or the method (that is supposedly the article's subject) at all. Chillllls (talk) 03:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to add that Azbukva doesn't seem to understand what notability means in Wikipedia terms. When experienced editors talk about notability, we don't mean it in the way that it's most commonly used, i.e. an abstract, subjective quality; notability for Wikipedia is actually fairly specific, see WP:GNG. Non-notable isn't an insult to Shin or the book, it just means that it doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Chillllls (talk) 03:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. I would like to point out that Notability Guidelines which you referred me to clearly state the following:

For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort. If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or: Ask the article's creator or an expert on the subject[6] for advice on where to look for sources. Place a ((notability)) tag on the article to alert other editors. If the article is about a specialized field, use the ((expert-subject)) tag with a specific WikiProject to attract editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online.

Neither of the editors has approached me regarding this issue before placing "deletion" tag on the article. I can provide more evidence to support the notability criteria for Shin's method, including publications in other media sources. The deletion tag was placed on the article not for notability criteria... I believe the person who placed the tag thinks that Shin's method is pseudoscience garbage, and that is clearly an insult. What else can you call it? Constructive criticism?Azbukva (talk) 10:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I placed a deletion tag on the article because I found no evidence of notability. That's part of the job of new page patrolling. I placed the NPOV tag because the article is full of pseudoscientific claims, but NPOV is generally not a reason to delete an article. If you have evidence of notability, please update the article and editors (myself included) will support the article's inclusion. We will then edit the article to comply with NPOV. However, I see no reason to edit the article until first seeing that it's notable of inclusion.JoelWhy (talk) 12:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Azbukva, a few minor issues first: there is no need to post your message on both my talk page AND the AfD page. I've watchlisted the discussion, so I'll see when you post. Also, there is no need for you to include examples of the notability templates on this page. Most experienced editors are familiar with the notability templates and also the notability guidelines.

To the substance of your message: the templates that you list are for articles where the notability of the article's subject is unclear, i.e. if there is some coverage of the subject in reliable secondary sources but it's debatable whether the subject is discussed in a significant manner or if the subject of the article is discussed in secondary sources but it's debatable whether the sources are reliable. This is not the case here. The subject of the article is discussed in ZERO secondary sources, so its notability is not in question. It's simply non-notable. In such a case, it's not a violation of Wikipedia policies to nominate the article for deletion. It's actually the correct thing to do. When you place an article into the encyclopedia (article namespace), you're attesting that the subject of the article meets the guidelines for inclusion to the encyclopedia. It's likely, judging by your comments here, that you didn't even realize that there are notability guidelines. Wikipedia does not exist to provide a free method to promote a book, which is how the article appears currently.

Concerning Joelwhy's comment of "garbage," that was worded unnecessarily strongly. However, elements of the Shin's claims start to venture into the realm of pseudoscience because the current scientific consensus is that reading speeds in excess of 1000wpm are not possible without a significant reduction in comprehension. Please see WP:FRINGE about why such claims need to be supported by reliable secondary sources. This point is irrelevant because the article subject is non-notable in the first place.

You claim that you can provide reliable secondary sources indicating the subject's notability. Please do so. All that you have done so far is sidestep valid criticism of the article as it is written. Complaining that people are maligning the subject of the article is not a valid reason to maintain the article's inclusion in Wikipedia. The only way for the article to survive the deletion discussion is if you prove that the article's subject is discussed in sources that are independent of the subject itself. Chillllls (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no significant independent coverage about this reading technique or the book that would establish that the topic meets Wikipedia'd inclusion guidelines. -- Whpq (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Speed reading. Doesn't seem notable enough for its own page but seems worth a section at the suggested target. TerriersFan (talk) 23:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - What do you think is worth merging? It "seems" like there is referenced material because a bunch of the addition of primary sources and general references on speed reading. -- Whpq (talk) 14:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, fails GNG, no reliable third party sources. The only verifiable stuff in this article is about speed reading in general, not this particular technique. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ ^talk 14:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. both. JohnCD (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Rexhepi[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 procedurally as the article had been previously deleted by PROD. The delete rationale remains valid nonetheless. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - both articles fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Note that I removed the PRODs on procedural grounds. Giant Snowman 17:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both as not meeting either WP:N or WP:NFOOTBALL. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete both per nom. Both fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. – Kosm1 fent 08:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG Mentoz86 (talk) 20:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No arguments for deletion besides nominator's. Nominator's argument is also something to be avoided. B music ian 09:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CUPE 3902[edit]

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

Nominating as non-notable organization. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Without even trying I found these two articles in the Toronto Star. Easily meets the General Notability Guidelines, a little WP:BEFORE may have been in order here.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As kelapstick said above Oddbodz (talk) 22:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously notable. Quickly found references here, here, here, etc. West Eddy (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (vandalism/hoax) by user:Malik Shabazz. NAC. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Hordaland[edit]

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

Looks like it might be a micronation. No sources on Hordaland available that I could find. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Maybe a micronation, maybe a hoax, maybe someone confused about aspects of Norse history, but not notable regardless. Hordaland is a county in southwestern Norway, and has no shortage of available sources. Prior to the unification of Norway by Harald Fairhair, there was a Kingdom of Hordaland in more or less the same area, and several other petty kingdoms nearby. But there has never been anything like a republic there. Not that this putative article gives much to go on; it probably escapes CSD A1 (no context) only by a narrow margin. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If it exists, it's non-notable. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 22:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unable to find any corroborating references. -- role^player 23:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably joke/hoax: Bergen isn't independent. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - this is a hoax, and should have been speedy deleted. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Superton the Game: Revival[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Can only find nine Google results (all Wikipedia) for the name. ... discospinster _talk 20:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search for just "Captain Superton" did bring back slightly more hits, but it only reaffirmed that this is not a notable game. If I'm not mistaken, this is just a game that someone made on their own time and released in the same format that you'll see people release their own homemade games on AddictingGames or the like. Not notable in the least, even if it ended up being secretly made by a big gaming house.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 20:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk). — Frankie (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources for this unreleased game. -- Whpq (talk) 16:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and related article Captain SuperTon - notability not shown by reliable sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonnotable remake of a nonnotable game; fails WP:GNG, I don't see any reliable, independent sources on this. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 18:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Discounting the numerous sockpuppets and SPAs, there is a clear consensus that this does not meet the notability requirement. JohnCD (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Protonism[edit]

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

This is a non-notable literary theory, as any Google Book, Google News, or JSTOR/MLA search easily verified. The only references are the author's book and a few newspaper articles from an Albanian newspaper, whose reliability on local news is probably without par, but whose authority in matters of literature and philosophy is not established. The External links section looks impressive, but look carefully--there are no reliable sources there, only blogs and other short, non-notable articles. Besides notability, the article seems a pretty clear attempt to publicize the author, whose own article was recently trimmed drastically to remove puffery. Drmies (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete eminently "not notable" philosophy propounded by a likely non-notable author. At length. Collect (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vehicle for the promotion of Gjekë Marinaj. Assuming that he himself meets notability standards (~~I'm uncertain, but a cursory examination suggests maybe so~~ about which I am increasingly doubtful), any discussion of his work belongs in his article -- although I'd stress that such a discussion should by no means be this lengthy; I think a claim could be made that this protonism article is unambiguous promotion (which need not be commercial). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do not Delete~~ Unknown theory? Wiki, Facebook, and Pragmatism were unknown at some point. It seems to me that this proposal is unconstructive and goes against what Wikipedia is all about. If this article is being considered for deletion, then we have to redefine the mission of Wikipedia. Very unfair proposal! Frank Williams, Boston — Preceding unsigned comment added by Festes (talk • contribs) 22:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do not Delete~~ I give up. This person is determined to destroy four great Wiki articles. He has already demolished http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gjek%C3%AB_Marinaj, made unfair changes to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanians and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian_American and now proposes Protonism page for deletion. Here are some of the IP addresses he/she used prior to utilizing the username, Drmies, and you be the judge: Drmies 37.17.252.233; 178.132.251.3; 37.17.252.202; 37.17.252.200; 178.132.251.3 It is obvious that he does not understand what Protonism theory adds to the humanities. Should one person have the power to demolish four wiki articles just because an Albanian-American is a very promising figure in literary theory? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnspring (talk • contribs) 23:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete. I am the author of the article and am not affiliated with Gjekë Marinaj in any way. The criticism of drmies is unfounded and unfair for the following reasons: 1) Protonism is a very new critical theory as of this writing, but it is already being discussed in academia across the world as I have been able to back up with research. Because it is a new theory, I draw largely upon Marinaj's book on Protonism because there are not yet other books written on it, only articles in scholarly journals. The footnotes are not redundant, and I will add specific page numbers in my references to prove it. All of my other sources can easily be found in respectable publications by following the URLs. Where the criticism of my references are concerned, I strongly suspect that my critic drmies does not read Albanian, because anyone who can would know that my references are sound. 2) My critic drmies denounced the article as "self-promotion" by attacking the credibality of Gjekë Marinaj, stating that he claims to have been awared a literary prize that does not exist. Nowhere does my article refer to Gjekë Marinaj as having been awarded a prize. Gjekë Marinaj was awarded the Albanian BookerMan prize, but his Wikipedia page was vandalized by someone who changed the name of the prize to the non-existant Man Booker. 3) Speaking of vandalism, if you look on the talk page, you will see criticism from a user whose name is given as IP address 76.227.109.191. Research has shown that this IP and my critic drmies are one and the same. He has hidden behind the folowing IP addresses before he used his drmies user ID: 37.17.252.233, 178.132.251.3, 37.17.252.202, 37.17.252.200, and 178.132.251.3. His behavior shows him to be, in all reality,a vandal determined to destroy an acceptable Wikipedia page. 3) Deleting this as non-notable does not make sense either, because Wikipedia itself started as a non-notable entity publishing the non-notable. If Wikipedia administration decideds to delete my article with it being as well-referenced as it is, then it will surely have to delete the majority of the articles on it's database as they are not nearly as well-referenced as mine is. 4) This article is only two weeks old as of this writing. I am still in the process of adding and refining my references (like adding specific page numbers as I mentioned above). It deserves a chance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.227.109.191 (talk • contribs) — 76.227.109.191 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please provide references to scholarly journals. You can include them in the article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, an inflated spam article, the gift that keeps on giving. I'll not comment on the spurious accusations as socking, only to point out that this is funny considering the results of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Festes. The IP may well be the author, and so are Festes and Johnspring, and a couple of others. Oh, I'm a literary critic by profession. I'll propose Protonism at the next Critical Studies reading group and we'll see how it flies. It might be the first time someone not associated with it talks about it. Drmies (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and WP:FRINGE. I found ZERO Google scholar or Gnews links. The only book references I found relate to protons in physics. Bearian (talk) 01:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do not Delete~~ I smell a rat here, and stand in solidarity with Festes, Johnspring, and the author of the article. It is a disgrace that we have to do this to protect the existence of a perfectly legitimate Wikipedia article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueink500 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt you "stand in solidarity" with Festes and Johnspring... Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as an admin walks by that SPI it'll be the end of the socking, and the closing admin will see what's going on with these votes, which is why I haven't bothered indenting them. Drmies (talk) 02:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Scottywong just brought the hammer down. Things will be quieter now. Drmies (talk) 03:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I agree this WP:FRINGE and WP:NEO concept fails under WP:GNG; that's not to say other fringe theories don't have their place. This one just isn't notable in any way. Here, I agree with Collect and Drmies. JFHJr (㊟) 02:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is promotional blather from somebody hoping to sell more books. Not notable. Binksternet (talk) 02:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do not Delete~~ I read the original version of the article about the author of "Protonism" some time ago, and the "Protonism" article recently. Reviewing the changes to the article on the author gives me pause. It seems important to recognize, 1) That a fact can reflect well on an author and still be objective; 2) Discussions of subjective motives can be valid in an article if objectively substantiated (as in that article's discussion of the author's well-document reasons for leaving his birth country, which is key to many people's understanding of his identity as a poet); 3) Material sourced from languages other than English may reasonably possess objective validity at least equivalent to that of an English-language source; 4) Emerging ideas deserve "open source" reference forums for the sake of the ideas themselves. Certain participants here have declared themselves interested in refining the material on this school of thought, whose merits and influence have been acknowledged on a national level in at least one nation, and plausibly others. Constructive refinement related to the ideas themselves would surely be welcome, as there seems to be leeway to approach a number of articles more sensitively, aiming for a standard of internationalism rather than cultural paternalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmanteith (talk • contribs) 03:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Cultural paternalism? Hmm. Drmies (talk) 03:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I have traveled with Marinaj in the Balkans. He is obviously one of the most important literary figures not just in Albania but the surrounding nations. His theory of criticism is known to his many followers and is an influential factor in the region's attempt to overcome old political and ethnic feuds through a literary meeting of the minds. Frederick Turner — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.162.167 (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – "I like it" aside, I'll point out there's an article about Frederick Turner (poet), and that authors there have a considerable overlap with Protonism and Gjekë Marinaj as well as a predilection for socking. I don't think the above vote is well reasoned or very detached. JFHJr (㊟) 05:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this advertised at WikiProject Chemistry. I'm a bit confused. I definitiely believe in protons, and can't imagine how anyone might not, but I don't understand the article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete Protonism in this part of the world is a most talked-about topic. The feeling of most people is that, if we were to follow a method that Protonism discourages and give scathing critiques based on our personal tastes and biased opinions, we could hinder the progress of literature today. Focusing on the bad in literary critique is a way to discourage the up-and-coming writers and potentially keep them from pushing forward and going on to create better works. Just as with sports, music, and many other skills, writing is developed through hours of practice, continually finding better ways to frame ideas into words. In contemporary America, much of the practice gets published, whether on blogs, in e-books, or in countless free journals, magazines, and newspapers. We need to be gentle toward writers and give critique that will build them up as they learn what works. Encouraging up-and-coming writers through focusing on the positive aspects of their writing is the best way to develop them to their full potential. I would be very disappointed if you decide to delete this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benico (talk • contribs) 22:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "A most talked-about topic"--prove it please. We are not here to promote someone's literary theories. Drmies (talk) 03:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Gjekë Marinaj

Dear all,

Many thanks for your good discussions. It’s a pleasure to make your acquaintance, and to get a chance to thank each and every one of you for your kind services toward Protonism. I find your criticism carefully considered and meant to be helpful. In addition, I greatly appreciate the invitation by some of my supporters to take part in this ongoing discussion.

Unfortunately, you are catching me at a particularly crazy time, and I recently made a vow to myself to decline all such participations for the foreseeable future, in order to concentrate myself on a very demanding dissertation project which I plan to defend this coming summer. I really regret losing this chance to share my thoughts on the matter, but I trust you’ll understand and forgive me.

On another note, I would like to ask a favor of you: please be considerate when giving me credit for works that I haven’t done and praise that I do not deserve. The first is destructive and the second is unhelpful.

Thanks again for your kind invitation to participate, and my regrets for not being able to take part this time. I hope there might be another chance for us to be in touch sometime in the future. Meanwhile, here’s wishing all of you the very best with your own work.

Please contact me if you need help or have questions.

Sincerely,

Gjekë Marinaj

[Contact info removed]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.246.247 (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was tempted to recomment merging to Gjekë Marinaj, but after searching for sources I decided he probably wasn't notable. (I nominated that article for AfD while I was there - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gjekë Marinaj.) I see that there are a number of mentions of Protonism on these news sites,[1][2] but searching for sources about the sites themselves didn't turn up anything of note, so I am assuming that they do not count as reliable sources for our purposes. As others have noted, searches for Protonism don't get any hits from any of the likely places, so I have to conclude that this theory isn't notable. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 19:43, 13 April 2012

Strong Keep I am a student at the University of Westminster. Yesterday, my literature professor explained the concept of “Protonism.” Today I decided to conduct some additional research on it. Now I see that you are considering it for deletion. Wow! How can anyone propose this when the approach of Protonism seems to be one of the best ways to ensure high-quality literature in the decades to come. Because literature serves so many roles in society, there are a wide range of pieces that will appeal to individuals, and it is not the place of the literary critic to say that a piece of literature is bad just because the critic is not part of the intended audience. Instead, critics should identify what resonates with universal ideals, which supports the role of literature in shaping individuals…. We can definitely learn from this literary theory. Deleting it is like denying us access to valuable knowledge. This is a new low for you Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elvisoflondon (talk • contribs) (another one) Collect (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence of notability please. Drmies (talk) 03:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Elvisoflondon - maybe you could ask your literature professor what sources he used to get his information on protonism from? We have a lot of random articles uploaded to Wikipedia every day, so we need some kind of evidence that the things contained in them are actually important in some way. We do this by looking for reliable sources on the topic at hand. Have a look at our notability guidelines for the details. The bottom line is, if you find the sources, the article gets kept. If your professor is talking about protonism, then he must have got his sources from somewhere. Just leave a note here of where we can get hold of the sources, and someone will investigate it. Bear in mind that this discussion will probably only be open until April 16th though. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 11:12, 14 April 2012 (U
  - Two sources for Mr. Stradivarius: My literature professor is a lady. Glad to hear that if I find the sources “the article gets kept.” There are two sources. The first reading is placed on Course Reserve and I will not have access to it until Wednesday, the 18th. However, I was able to locate the bibliographical part of it: Dibrani, Shefqet. 11 minuta para ores '00'. Prishtinë : 2011. Pg. 18-19. Translated from Albanian into English by Irena Papingji.

The second is a handout copy from a journal called “Pena International”:

Walker, Kristen M. “Protonism: The Role of Positive Literary Critiques in Contemporary American Writing" Pena International. Spring 2012. p. 23-26.

This is how the article starts:

Protonism: The Role of Positive Literary Critiques in Contemporary American Writing

By Kristen M. Walker

Literary criticism is deeply ingrained in the American people, with many individuals skimming book jackets, looking up book reviews online, and asking friends and colleagues for recommendations before reading a particular piece of literature. (Rest of text removed for being a probable copyright violation.)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Elvisoflondon (talk • contribs) 07:05, 15 April 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

About your literature professor - my bad. About the Walker source - I'm afraid we can't use anything from Pena International, as Marinaj is its editor, as well as being the founder and president of The Society of Albanian-American Writers who publish it. The Dibrani source is a little more likely, and I managed to find some of its text in Albanian on shkoder.net. I have been relying on Google Translate for this, but it seems like the text included in that pdf file only touches on protonism briefly, and is really about a different subject altogether, the Democratic League of Kosovo. Maybe protonism is covered further on in the book? More importantly, though, I am struggling to find any record of this book in any major book catalogues, and it doesn't seem to have an ISBN number, which makes me think it might be self-published. Self-published sources, unfortunately, cannot provide evidence of notability. Do you have any information on who the publisher might be? I can't find any under the name "Prishtinë". Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Definately WP:FRINGE and WP:NEO and concept fails WP:GNG; its not notable in any way. Google News search gives zero hits for "Protonism" or "Gjeke Marinaj" Here, I agree with Collect, Drmies, JFHJr and others. 87.236.90.41 (talk) 22:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete. Skeptic as I was about this Protonism theory, I decided to read the Albanian version of the book Protonizmi: Nga Teoria në Praktikë (Protonism: Theory into Practice). I must confess; I find some of its key points to be of immense help to the people of the Balkans. Here in Eastern Europe, unlike in most western countries where for generations, tolerance and fairness toward other cultures have been well expressed and promoted, we have encouraged constant nationalism and hatred against our neighbors. The bloody results need not words. This book is the only book I know that strongly dejects hatred and promotes embracing the good element in every work of literature regardless of the nationality or religion of the author. As an Albanian, I have been hoping for a long time that a call for peace and understanding would spark somewhere. I am glad it did. Should you delete this article? Well, since by profession I am only a scientist and know nothing about the English Wikipedia politics and procedures, I will leave it to your discretion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acokaj (talk • contribs) 08:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC) (yet another "single edit editor" Collect (talk) 12:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Quarantine Protonism? It would be a mistake. Protonism continues the long chain of philosophical debates that began in ancient history. The questions of truth and virtue, ethics and restitution posed by Marinaj are not a hazard to the radical beliefs on human behavior and freedom. In contrary, Marinaj illustrates how the world's greatest literary minds can join forces to stop human conflict in its embryonic stages. He urges us to start interpreting the complexities of human existence from a positive vantage point. He makes the ideas of literary theory trilling, zealous, appealing, and gratifying. Read his book. Dr. Charles, UCLA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.50.76 (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC) (yet another one!) Collect (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Call for snow on this deletion - the "do not deletes" are quacking loudly. Collect (talk) 12:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added this most recent one to the SPI. I hope admins will look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Festes soon (hint hint) and then at this and the other AfD. It's just too obvious--it's silly at this point, even pathetic. One wonders if someone is up for tenure or something. Thanks Collect. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A pitiful showing by the !keeps, for sure. A sockdrawerful. Binksternet (talk) 04:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Stinky socks too. You'd think they'd make more of an effort to look different. Drmies (talk) 14:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Did they set the record yet? Collect (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

William Kurk[edit]

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

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

PROD removed by IP. Concern was: Appears to fail the notability criteria for musicians; article created almost entirely by Expewikiwriter (since banned for apparent promotional editing). Stuartyeates (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BASIC and WP:BAND--lacks non-trivial mentions in multiple, independent sources. Notability is not inherited from your lineage or with whom you have worked. The awards appear to be regional and minor. He should wait until he becomes notable enough that someone independently writes an article about him. Valfontis (talk) 17:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | talk _ 18:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Valfontis has this right. Delete. 86.** IP (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with others - checked factiva too and there is nothing about this William Kurk. SmartSE (talk) 21:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - a significant touring band musician for a large number of notable acts, but no good sources and no individual notability from his own recording activities. I agree with Valfontis' last sentence above. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ ^talk 09:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It didn't occur to me to search for sources under his real name, William Kirk Leathers, Jr. Since we don't know when he adopted his stage name, I've addded a search link above. Valfontis (talk) 13:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dark rock[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. It's far too a general term to be worthy of an article. We have no reliable sources discussing this subgenre in detail, simply a handful of bands claiming it as a label as they don't won't to be tarred with anything else (we had exactly the same discussion at dark metal, which is repeatedly deleted). Without significant, thrid-party coverage discussing this as a separate subgenre, i.e. not interviews with bands describing themselves as such, this lacks even the faintest shred of notability. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no evidence that there is a true definition of a genre here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article was blanked before nomination. Dark Rock is much discussed in Germany and Finland, please check German sources. Zillo magazine has had any number of discussions of dark rock. Unfortunately, I have no online source for them at the current time. The Steve 20:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as nom, page wasn't blanked. Unsourced content was removed, specifically including content that would have to be removed were the page to be saved from AfD. Redlinked bands will go, as will content from bands describing their music as "dark rock" if the subgenre itself is not established. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment as nom. try googling "dark rock". Try distinguishing between what is being claimed as a legitimate subgenre and a the generic term for "rock" that is also somewhat "dark". This for instance. Why have the editors not sought to include the Velvet Underground and Joy Division? They are both certainly "dark" and "rock". Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It may use the term "dark rock", but it doesn't specify on what constitutes dark rock. The phrase itself is in use in various sources, but none give definition as to what makes it "dark". Therefore, it is not a de facto genre. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not an established sub-genre. Essentially a non-notable neologism. Carrite (talk)

Comment Hey, The Encyclopedia of Heavy Metal says its a genre, it must be true. ;) The Steve 05:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can we have a direct quote from it then please? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 08:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I added the direct quote to the Dark Rock article yesterday, as you requested on the talk page. Here it is: "Their more recent work minimizes their connection to metal and has at times become almost straight goth - the band members nowadays refer to their music simply as dark rock. Still, the influence they had on other bands in their original genre was profound enough for them to retain a sizable portion of their fan base."

Comment That's interesting. This has been deleted before, without anyone mentioning it. I can't see the previous version, but the ref to Nick Holmes once describing Paradise Lost as dark rock suggests that the two versions of the article may be substantially similar. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 09:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dark Rock at Zillo music magazine. Dark Rock at Sonic Seducer. Dark Rock at Orkus (Tagline: Das Magazin für Dark Rock - Electro - Gothic - Dark Metal & more). Ok, the tagline causes the Orkus search to fail :( The Steve 05:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment None of those discusses the genre in detail, per WP:GNG. We need substantial coverage on the genre itself, otherwise (much like "melodic black metal" or "brutal death metal") it is not clear that the word "dark" is not simply being used as a descriptor of music that is considered "dark". 11:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I have added sources discussing the specific genre of dark rock (Note: not in-depth sources) to the page, and, for Blackmetalbaz, I have included the relevant quotes ("Die finnische Band um den charismatischen Sänger Ville Valo haben sich seit 1995 dem interessanten Genre "Dark Rock" verschrieben."). From these, I think it is clear that dark rock is widely considered a genre, especially in Germany. The Steve 01:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | chat _ 18:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - whether something is a genre or just called 'dark rock' is not a matter for AfD; it can be sorted out through normal editing processes. Plenty of good sources exist per WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 11:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is notable and I am sure Thesteve can improve the article. --217/83 19:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yasht101 11:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaur Hour[edit]

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

Nothing indicating it's notable. JoelWhy (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per About.com, Blogcritics, Midwest Book Review, and Kidsreads. SL93 (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Also, JoelWhy, please refer to WP:JNN and WP:BEFORE before nominating an article for deletion that is less than half an hour old. 192.251.134.5 (talk) 13:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, sorry about that. I somehow missed the page had just been created.JoelWhy (talk) 13:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:UGLY, while lacking now, with the sources found the article can be cleaned up. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There are only a few reliable sources I could find but those should be enough to establish notability. But the article needs to be cleaned up and expanded, and more sources should be found. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

C8H3NO[edit]

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

This page would only work as a molecular formula disambiguation page, but there are currently no Wikipedia articles on chemicals with the chemically unlikely molecular formula C8H3NO, so this page is unneeded. The text contains no information that cannot be derived from the chemical formula itself (and the "scientific name" given is nonsense). ChemNerd (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails to establish notability, not a named compound, and copies the text wholesale from its source. Noir (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. May have been synthesized at some point (as 1-isocyanatohepta-1,3,5-triyne). However, no one has ever appeared to care, and there's sub-minimal references available. Note that the two "references" given in the article are both molecular weight calculators that will do their thing given any formula, regardless of whether it's a notable molecule ... or even a nonexistent one. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, there has never been a CAS number assigned to 1-isocyanatohepta-1,3,5-triyne, so no one has cared about this stuff since before 1957, if anyone ever did. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Extremely non-notable. Doesn't appear to refer to any chemical with any applications or scientific interest. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chantelle Chuah[edit]

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

Subject is notable only for one verifiable event. Coverage of individual is minimal and not well documented in reliable sources. Does not meet criteria - WP:N WP:BASIC.Differ (talk) 11:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:25, 3 April 2012 (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, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fairly obvious attempt at self-promotion. Entry was created by user Chantelle1984. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.40.204.245 (talk) 02:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Failed beauty contest participant who is now trying to start up a chocolate business. Once had a lifestyle section article written about her. Other refs I found are trivial, non-WP:RS, or (mostly) both. Fails WP:GNG. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 11:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing notable and it reads like a promo. West Eddy (talk) 23:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arjun Coomaraswamy[edit]

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

I'm not seeing notability here. He appears to be just one of a seemingly neverending procession of "up and comers". --Bongwarrior (talk) 16:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No evidence of notability here whatsoever. -- WikHead (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The main body text has been reverted due to a copyvio. -- Whpq (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. He did get coverage here, and that was the material that was copied into the article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Antinori[edit]

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

Non-notable local Florida attorney. The extensive references provided are scans of articles posted on the subject's own website - in many cases, the links are incorrect and result in 404 errors. However, in the references that can be found, Antinori is found to be a run of the mill defense attorney and later state's attorney with little to claim of notability. In later life, he appears to have become something of a gadfly seeking support for his proposal to amend to US Constitution. This article appears to be part of the campaign to give that proposal legitimacy. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Strong case that article's subject is not notable. -- Lord Roem (talk) 03:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, no evidence of notability.TheLongTone (talk) 11:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 01:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transcension Hypothesis[edit]

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

Contested PROD. I can't find any reliable sources on this subject that are independent of John M. Smart's paper, so I don't think that this hypothesis passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Transcension already gets a (generous, in my opinion) one-line mention at Fermi Paradox#They tend to experience a technological singularity. As far as I can tell, Smart's work hasn't gotten the third party attention needed for any further coverage here per WP:UNDUE. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I didn't see that. I'll withdraw my nomination and redirect it there now. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 01:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Katniss vs Peeta[edit]

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

I don't think we need the book's subplots to have their own Wiki page. Plus, this wiki page is a train wreck. JoelWhy (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: no indication of notability (as independent from the book as a whole) per nom. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plot-only summary of a work of fiction with no indication of how this subject is independently notable. I might have suggested a redirect to The Hunger Games trilogy but it seems like a stretch to think that this title is a plausible search term. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not encyclopedic, as written it is original research. --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brooklyn Salsa Company[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:CORP as far as I can tell - while there has been some coverage in reliable sources, they are either brief mentions, or in local news, neither of which are sufficient to demonstrate notability. Note that a lot of content has been removed recently, for various reasons, and that the original author was a paid editor. SmartSE (talk) 14:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 17:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I could see them becoming more notable in future, but as it stands, I just don't think they have the coverage, though they're starting to approach notability. Delete. 86.** IP (talk) 01:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:NOT, WP:MILL, and WP:ARTSPAM. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and delete the spammy bits Seems notable enough per NYT mentions [3], [4], CBSNews [5] etc. The ad stuff gotta go. Collect (talk) 12:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As you say yourself, those are only mentions - i.e. not significant coverage as CORP requires. SmartSE (talk) 17:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was boldly redirected to Mirror#Decoration. Nominator and article creator are more or less in agreement that the primary page for the topic is sufficient. Tone was also a concern here; consider discussing avenues for expansion at Talk:Mirror. Non-admin action. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decorative mirrors[edit]

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

Probably should merge this page into the general Mirror page. Even if we don't, this page's tone is entirely inappropriate. JoelWhy (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Says nothing not in existing article. An essay stating the obvious.TheLongTone (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

American Broadcasting Company logos[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

First AFD was kept due to WP:ITSNOTABLE arguments and nothing else. Second nomination had the article's creator clamoring that sources were available, but outright failing to prove it. Nowhere has it been proven that multiple independent sources have given the logo any attention. The three sources in the article dedicate no more than one or two sentences each, failing the significant part of the whole reliable sources thing. I have looked and cannot find any sources which significantly and independently discuss the logo's history in depth. The fact that Paul Rand designed the circle logo can be moved to ABC's article, but the rest is unsourced, indiscriminate fancruft. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 13:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The previous AFDs also had some of the lamest arguments I've ever seen. "Why is it that some people refuse to see the historical aspect of logos?" is not a reason, nor is "Finding refs and citations for these slogans is something that can be fixed." If you know where sources are, PROVE IT, don't just say they exist. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 13:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Usually I'm against these sorts of articles, but as it stands now there are refs to the NY Times? Are those insufficient? Tarc (talk) 16:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - They're trivial as I said, giving only one sentence of information on the logo. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm sorry but please review this and let me know if you really think an entire NYT article about the logo and its history is trivial. Jclemens (talk) 04:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The acid test for article splits like this is whether there is critical commentary on the thin-sliced aspect which has been spun out here. What I see here is a changelog (and thinly veiled copyrighted image gallery) with no attempt at showing artistic/marketing considerations behind changes and no critical assessment. "So what?" is a good question to ask in cases like this and I don't think the article answers that. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is just "ABC had a bunch of other logos before Paul Rand's design stuck forever, and some gloss was added in 2007", but in overly detailed terms where other things like image campaigns and sounders were noted in detail only obsessives care about (which I admit I added alot to, but expected to be finessed over the years, which has not happened at all). Certainly only the most important information about the design belongs in the main article. With the launch of Logopedia getting in all the detail anyone would ever want to know about a ball with three letters in it, this article just isn't as needed as it would've been years ago (though there are some big issues over there like fair use and sourcing that have to be dealt with like they have been here, something I'm not about to deal with myself). Nate • (chatter) 04:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has references, and there are entire books on the logo's designer Paul Rand: Stephen Heller, Paul Rand, Phaidon, 2000; Derek Birdsall, et al, Paul Rand: Modernist Designer, Center for Art and Visual Culture, UMBC, 2003; Michael Kroeger, Paul Rand: Conversations With Students, Princeton Architectural Press 2008. Clearly sources are available, but they're printed not online. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Another ludicrous TPH nomination like the NBC one. Sources are easy to find such as Television and New Media; Graphic Design, Referenced; Graphic Design: A New History. Warden (talk) 17:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Clearly ABC is a notable organization, this is simply an organizational issue, not an AfD issue.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERITED. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEREARESOMEOTHERINITIALS.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources illustrated by Colonel Warden, above. Even if there is no desire to keep this encyclopedic material as a standalone article, it could easily be merged in at least two places, the company or an article on TV network logos, so per WP:ATD there is no policy-based reason to delete the material. Jclemens (talk) 04:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge I'm sure there's somewhere we can stick this information, whether it be here or on ABC's page. Canuck^{89 (talk to me)} 07:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are sources covering this just fine, as others have pointed out and linked to. Dream Focus 11:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe sufficient sources on this topic exist, from the NY Times piece cited in the articleto the sources identified by Warden to others like this. Gongshow ^Talk 20:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Colonel Warden et al, above. There's enough sourcing here to justify an article. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe that the sources are sufficient enough to support an article on this and the other logos. Tarc (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Boldly redirected since nom also !voted for it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Out Out[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

There is nothing to disambiguate here. Only the Frost poem is known by this title, and the source of the phrase is clearly discussed and linked to in that article. The Poe use is not really ambiguous with respect to this phrase except, perhaps, as a partial match. ShelfSkewed Talk 13:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Out, Out—, the only thing that has "Out Out" as an exact match. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 13:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Out, Out—, the only article using this title. If pointers to the other uses are considered useful, they can be handled with a hatnote.--ShelfSkewed Talk 13:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. ShelfSkewed Talk 14:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Matt Finish. ‑Scottywong | comment _ 16:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Finnish[edit]

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

Short-lived band - no references, no evidence of notability AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find no independent references that establish the notability of the band. WWGB (talk) 00:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Matt Moffitt#pre- Matt Finish as he was the most notable member of the band. Likely confusion (I was confused!) between Matt Finnish and Matt Finish should be explained. The-Pope (talk) 01:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Matt Moffitt or Matt Finish - interesting within the context of that individual and band, but not notable in its own right. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to Matt Finish – both bands were formed by Moffitt and Alcorn in Sydney, their genres were different but the commonality of their names, membership and origin makes Matt Finnish an antecedent for the latter. Suitable content has be moved to that article to reduce confusion between the two.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Athabasca University#Research. A redirect is cheap, even if not likely to be very useful. WP:UNIGUIDE#Faculties and academic colleges does not support Me-123567-Me's argument. JohnCD (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Athabasca University Research Centre[edit]

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

Notability has not been established. While the university is notable, we can't list every university department or program. Page could be redirected to the university page. West Eddy (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable as a university centre. Me-123567-Me (talk) 12:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note, Me-123567-Me claims an association with the university. Possible conflict of interest. West Eddy (talk) 17:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing particularly notable here. Thisshould be mentioned in the article on the college, but it doesn't even need a redirect, as the name is not distinctive. DGG ( talk ) 17:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Athabasca University#Research. I see no indication this research centre is independently notable. -- Whpq (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete. In considering all the comments in this AfD it is apparent that there is no consensus as to whether the positions she has held make her notable or not. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joy Romero[edit]

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

I can't find anything to indicate notability. Simply working in the oil industry, even in a good position, does not make someone notable. It's unclear what affiliation she actually has with Athabasca University, but even being the chair is not a notable position outside of the university. West Eddy (talk) 12:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Former Governing Council chair of Athabasca University. Me-123567-Me (talk) 12:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that above claims an association with Athabasca University. There may be COI. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Keep We certainly keep Presidents of colleges and universities, but we do not yet really have an established policy on members of the board of directors/governing boards/etc. By comparison with major companies, I'd certainly think the chairman of such a board notable. But in general, people are appointed to such boards because of their prominence otherwise, and would be notable in any case, and in her case a senior VP for technology of of a major technology based company is notable quite aprart from the chairmanship. DGG ( talk ) 19:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I changed her status within Athabasca University from "current" to "former", the current directory doesn't show her, but the archive summary shows her a lot.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only source cited gives but a passing reference. Former chair of governing council of a minor institution does not make WP:Prof#6 or any part of WP:Prof. Sources are negligible. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete When I did a reference search, I found the single reference shown, but nothing substantial, other than a few quotes by her about the oil sands project.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She was also named to the Order of Athabasca University [6], was president of Boeing Canada Operations [7]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.184.76 (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hapkikwan[edit]

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

Non-notable despite the hype Peter Rehse (talk) 12:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't find significant coverage of this in independent sources. It also doesn't seem to pass WP:MANOTE. Astudent0 (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources show this art is notable. Mdtemp (talk) 15:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yasht101 11:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dub FX[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was resored at request after an the last AfD closed as no quorum, and was soft deleted. I do believe the original rationale stands, so this could be seen as a relisting of the original debate. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of coverage showing up on Google News from several different countries, e.g. [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. --Michig (talk) 12:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. And some more Google News sources: MusicRadar [18], Russia Today [19], România Liberă [20], Polskie Radio [21], fr:Maville.com [22], de:Derwesten.de [23]. Passes WP:BAND #1 and WP:GNG easily. And he's plastered all over the blogosphere, and has 4 million listens per Last.fm and 50 million+ views on Youtube--this video alone has 13 million plus views and 100,000 ratings and 20,000 comments. Especially for an independent artist, this suggests a notable audience. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Keep per provided sources. Cavarrone (talk) 22:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Michig and Hobbes Goodyear above. Obviously passes WP:MUSIC 1, and the sheer breadth and depth of coverage makes me confused as to how the previous AfD closed with a claim the GNG hadn't been met. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ ^talk 15:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G7 page blanked by author JohnCD (talk) 17:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Practical Training Cell, IIT Bombay[edit]

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

No Proofs Sandeep (talk) 11:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of WP:Notability. Just seems to be a colleges placement department. No independent sources. noq (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but we can give some time to the article that's what i think --Sandeep (talk) 05:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a line or two can pe placed in the article IIT Bombay, if later on enough references come out(which i doubt) so that a separate article can be written , then it can be created, as of now we can safely delete it-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 14:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This would seem to be the office of the college that helps to place students in corporate internships as a part of their educational experience. As such, it seems highly unlikely that it would ever become notable to meet Wikipedia’s (very low) standards of notability. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 17:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as the content has been extracted from [24] -- Whpq (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Akuoma[edit]

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

Non notable film with no references. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 08:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no sources. The article sounds like an advertisement. SL93 (talk) 23:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot find any sources which substantiate the claims in the article. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think it qualifies for WP:CSD#G11. Certainly fails general notability. QU ^TalkQu 10:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for being premature and failing WP:NF. And an aside to User:QuiteUnusual, the article is not so "exclusively promotional" to merit a WP:G11. If or when this film gets coverage, we might welcome it back. I would have sugested userfication to its author, but as the director is Vining Ogu and the article was created by User:Viningogu I have a distinct worry over WP:COI... so I have left him a caution. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree it isn't a G11 now, but I think it was when I first looked at it. Not relevant now anyway - QU ^TalkQu 08:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I went and cleaned it up some before coming here to opine a delete. Good practice, if nothing else. When a rank newcomer creates an article, they quite often make errors in formatting and style, so I try not to use a first impression to judge a tone or style that could be easily fixed through a little editing. But yes... a moot point as it fails WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 22:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Newton (entertainer)[edit]

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

Non-notable daughter of television parents. Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:NOTINHERITED. WWGB (talk) 08:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 08:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 08:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nomination, especially considering this is a BLP. The article hardly makes a claim of notability. Nick-D (talk) 08:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:BIO and as per WP:NOTINHERITED .LibStar (talk) 12:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. She does get quite a few mentions in the media, including some tabloid-y articles where she is the main subject. Not saying the article should be kept, but it might be worth redirecting to Matt Welsh#Personal life where there is some referenced information about her. Jenks24 (talk) 04:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. Would not get any coverage at all if she didn't have famous parents. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Thomas Lourdes (novel series). The discussion was not very conclusive, but while the books seem notable the author, under his nom-de-plume, is not, and redirection to the article about the books will enable a searcher to reach what relevant information we have. JohnCD (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Brokaw[edit]

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

Author of three books published by TOR/Forge. No references available. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 08:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm finding some book reviews from reliable sources for this guy, so if there's not enough for any one specific book entry or for an author page, it might be worthwhile to create an entry for the book series as a whole and redirect this to the series page. (I say series as all three books he's published have been part of an ongoing series.)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional. Wow... I think that there's a HUGE COI going on here. In my trawlings to find sources for the article, I discover the publisher's page for the author... which links to the Wikipedia page. I look through the original editor's edits to discover that they've done a lot of edits for authors published by MacMillan, all of whom are linked to Wikipedia articles about them. I have a very strong suspicion that the contributing editor works directly for the publisher or was hired to write articles for MacMillan's authors. See the editing history of Muledeer7[25]and this page [26] and this one[27] for an example of what I'm talking about.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To have an article about the pseudonym with nothing about the real person behind it, means there would have to be significant coverage of him simply and solely as author of these books. That does not appear to be the case. A redirect to an article on his real name might be possible -- is there any indication of who he really is? Cusop Dingle (talk) 11:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems notable enough, and we do have articles on pseudonyms (see Franklin W. Dixon for an example). Hit #22 on NYT Best Seller list of paperback fiction on Sept. 5, 2010. Collect (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anyone suggesting that we can not or do not have articles on pseudonyms, but I did say that it is harder to establish notability for one. Do you have examples of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to support the claim of notability? Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other than such stuff as having books reviewed in such minor sources as the New York Times, Seattle P-I, Publishers Weekly and Library Journal, being listed on the NYT Best Seller List of Paperbacks, etc.? Seems to hit WP notability standards at this point, and a bunch of lesser authors get mentioned in articles on WP. And I am glad you agree that just because it is a "pen name" does not affect notability. Collect (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm wondering though, is that since 99.9% of the sources out there concern the books, wouldn't it be better to just create an article on the book series and then redirect the author's name to that? I'm willing to start on it if there's a consensus on this. Why have an article about an author (which lacks any real meat) when it's going to predominantly talk about the book series, when we can just have an article about the book series and have a redirect from the author's name?Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. OK. Here's what I've found. The novelist's real name is Michael Cordy and to be honest, his article is a complete and utter mess. It's unsourced and not very encyclopedically written. Even if it was, it suffers from the same issues that we have with the article for the pseudonym: a lack of sources that actually discuss the author. What I'm suggesting is that since I've gone ahead and created a page for the novel series at Thomas Lourdes (novel series), we redirect both the pseudonym of Brokaw and the true name of the author (Cordy) to the novel series page. The author doesn't seem to have any notability outside of the series itself, as evidenced by the fact that neither name has any reliable sources that are actually about them. Everything I've found seems to focus on the books themselves, generally being reviews for the books. I just don't see where we need articles on the author and what little information we do have can be placed inside the general article for the series.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Thomas Lourdes (novel series). There's nothing to show that this pseudonym (or the author's real name) has any notability outside of the book series. It also doesn't help that the biography for "Charles Brokaw" is complete and utter fiction, as Cordy is actually an Englishman (who still lives in the UK) that'd previously worked in marketing and quit to become a novelist. There's absolutely no reason for an article to exist for either of the author's name. I also highly, highly, HIGHLY recommend that an admin watch the person who has been adding these articles. Given that the publisher pages are directing people to the Wikipedia entries, it's painfully obvious that MacMillan is using Wikipedia as free advertising for their authors. So far there's a solution for this author (redirecting to an article about the series), but it worries me that they could be mass producing articles for publicity purposes, which really needs to be looked into. This isn't some random small advertising company adding a few pages for a low key company, but a big publisher deliberately doing it in plain sight.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was rather erm.... "abruptly" told that Cordy was not Brokaw (but that's another story), but the fact still remains that Brokaw has no notability outside of his series. I hold firm that this should be a redirect to the series page.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. There is no value in a "re-direct" ... where is the evidence that the author uses a nom de plume? Either the author is the one who is recorded inside the novels where the copywrite notice is printed, and is therefore accountable, in which case an article in his name is possible with reservations, or he is unidentifiable and should be deleted.

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 22:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, that's not how WP:AUTHOR works. You have to have articles about the author to show that they have notability outside of their works. You can show that a book is notable or that a series is notable, but that notability is not automatically inherited or transferred (WP:NOTINHERITED) to the author. It's actually pretty common to have a redirect from the author's name to their work. Most authors won't be notable outside of their works, to be honest. For example, E. L. James has written the bestselling book Fifty Shades of Grey. It's on the NYT bestselling lists, but that notability doesn't mean that he merits an article of his own. All that this means is that it's more likely for articles to be written about him by reliable sources, which would allow him his own article. Even the authors of the bestselling Beautiful Creatures novel don't have their own articles at this point in time, despite them having a series that has sold almost as well as the Twilight series and having a Hollywood blockbuster being created of their work. Now this means that it might be more likely for them to have an article later on, but having notable works doesn't mean that the authors themselves are notable outside of said work.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete! In my posting above, I make no mention of retaining his article. On the contrary, I think the article should be deleted. Regarding articles featuring a writer's pseudonym as the article title, look at James Rollins – an author, James Paul Czajkowski, writing under two pseudonyms, as both James Rollins and James Clemens. Really, I should like you to address the nom de plume aspect, though, which you seem to be unable to verify. Where is the evidence that it is not his real name? Have you actually had physical contact with any of his three novels and looked inside?

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 13:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Oh, as far as to how I know that the Brokaw name is a pseudonym, the publisher's website actually mentions this on his author page [28]. It's on most of the sources out there about him as well, so it's not actually a secret that it's a pseudonym.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as it appears that the article is probably a copyright violation. Nick-D (talk) 07:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citizenship Advancement Training[edit]

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

This appears to be transcribed from a document of some sort, and appears to be a procedural briefing accordingly. We are not the place for this. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost certainly a Copyvio and certainly non-encyclopaedic content. AllyD (talk) 08:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unencyclopedic and likely copyvio. WWGB (talk) 09:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Likely copyvio. SL93 (talk) 23:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

North Gloucester Giants[edit]

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

Completely fails WP:GNG and is the very reason for WP:NOT. Just another "garage band"-type article to advertise a minor organization with little impact. Wer900 ^talk_{essay on the definition of consensus} 02:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with propopser. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 04:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Just to note that they appear to be a garage football team, rather than a band. Cusop Dingle (talk) 06:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely unreferenced and fails WP:NFOOTBALL. B music ian 09:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 10:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beamdog[edit]

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

Listing per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 March 21. I abstain. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 21:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unable to find any detailed coverage of the main topic. ^Bongo_matic 13:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: though I didn't find much, deletion seems to be impractical, as Beamdog will attract more attention with the new game releases. Though, my vote is for service, not for the company behind it. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added 3 references, all from the sources seemingly qualifying for WP:IRS criteria. In my opinion, the article now satisfies WP:NWEB. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - extended coverage in the interview, plus the other sources, allow for enough descriptive content to be written. Diego (talk) 19:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to be correct, web returns results with google search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syscamel (talk • contribs) 04:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC) — Syscamel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SW— ^babble 03:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 04:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revels - Cultural Fest of MIT[edit]

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

Possible hoax, and if not that it doesn't appear to be notable. I initially proposed a merge into Traditions and student activities at MIT but comments there seem to indicate it doesn't appear notable, and I can't find anything really on it. Shadowjams (talk) 02:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closer: ~~I have synced/merged the contents of this aricle with Manipal_Institute_of_Technology#Revels~~ Lentower (talk) 14:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Muhandes has since moved the contents the other way. Lentower (talk) 07:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

linking to Traditions and student activities at MIT would be inappropriate, because this festival is apparently a function at the Manipal Institute of Technology, in India, not the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Guy who reads a lot (talk)

Agreed. I removed the ((Merge templates. Lentower (talk) 14:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. or Merge Article shows no notability. Now has a few citations. A bare stub. ~~Comments on Talk:Traditions and student activities at MIT shows reasonable web searches finds no mention of this event.~~ Lentower (talk) 13:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A webpage that appears to be related to this festival has been linked to in the article. It's a primary source. Not every festival at every college is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. I assume, in good faith, that the article's creator is a new editor, who doesn't understand WP's policies. Lentower (talk) 14:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Though it's good that sources have been found, a few sources don't establish notability. It be best for Wikipedia and it's readers to merge this article into Manipal_Institute_of_Technology#Revels. Lentower (talk) 16:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Rewrite. There are 20,000 hits on google for the terms (Revels Cultural Fest of MIT), so it seems notable. Anybody from Manipal Institute of Technology here who can comment? The article originally ascribed this to Massachusetts Institute of Technology, but googling suggests that this is an error, so I edited the article; it now reads Manipal Institute of Technology, which is correct. The home page for the festival is http://www.revels.in/ (The Manipal Institute of Technology Wikipedia article, for what it's worth, does mention Revels). Might be nice to retitle the article to make it more clear which MIT it is. Perhaps "Revels - Cultural Fest of Manipal Institute of Technology." Guy who reads a lot (talk) 22:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a bizarre mistake to make, but if that's true then I'd suggest the same as I did when I thought it was Massachusetts, which is to merge it into that article. Individual events at schools generally aren't notable... but they're prime candidates to be merged into student life articles, or in the case of MassIT... had a page dedicated to them. Counting Google hits is a poor poor way to evaluate notability. There are not 20,000 pages about this obscure intra-college event. Shadowjams (talk) 04:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to merging this article into Manipal_Institute_of_Technology#Revels. Merging can be reasonable, with non-notable topics. Someone could add the ((Merge templates to this pair of articles to start that discussion. Lentower (talk) 14:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is a culfest, and general practice at WP:INEI is that culfests are not inherently notable, i.e. they require coverage per WP:GNG. However, I found quite a bit of coverage when I looked for it: 2012 edition: [29], 2009 edition: [30] [31], 2010 edition: [32] [33], 2011 edition: [34], 2007 edition: [35] [36], 2004 edition: [37]. I'm pretty sure it is enough for WP:GNG. --Muhandes (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the article to its proper name Revels (culfest) and rewrote it with some sources. --Muhandes (talk) 08:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 01:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 04:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: added Template:WikiProject India to Talk:Revels - Cultural Fest of MIT to bring this discussion to more editors. Lentower (talk) 12:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lentower (talk) 12:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scripted Magazine[edit]

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

Magazine published by and for a grammar school. Article basically consists of a listing of the two issues published up till now and fascinating tidbits of information like the surface of the school (61,606m2). Article PRODded because of a lack of independent sources, dePRODded without stated reason. In the absence of any evidence of notability: Delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Kudos to the students for putting out the magazine, but there is no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 01:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 04:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gonna have to agree with Whpq on this. Delete for lack of notability. Unfortunately. Especially because I like that cover art as exists on the article. Good luck to the students getting this out there. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No independent references. Not notable. Wikipelli ^Talk 11:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Like most student run things, non-notable. SL93 (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As above, the magazine is not notable - the only result of it in a Google search was the magazine's website. Oddbodz (talk) 22:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong | prattle _ 17:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dwan Hurt[edit]

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

non notable per WP:ONEEVENT, there are 50 guys like this a year, it's not Miss America or something like that Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I declined the CSD (seventeen months ago!) because there was an assertion of notability; I expected this AFD far sooner. It's an achievement, to be sure...but not notable enough for a Wikipedia entry. Frank | talk 13:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added additional sources to the article from Los Angeles Times and Spokane Chronicle about his college basketball career and earlier coaching title. Combined with previous sources in the article, WP:GNG is satisfied with significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. There is lots of paid content in Google News that I'm confident has material for this bio.—Bagumba (talk) 00:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep - seems to be notable enough for inclusion per added sources by Bagumba.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 01:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I see there are more sources, but I still don't see that notability is established. Just because a person's name appears in print does not make him notable. Frank | talk 22:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 04:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Seems to have enough coverage to allow for inclusion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JoelWhy (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong | confabulate _ 17:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Judaea Coin Archive[edit]

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

Non notable website, fails WP:N and WP:WEB. No reliable independent sources in the article, and no such sources found through web searches. Very few web hits anyway, no matter if I look for "Judaean Coins Archive", "Judean Coins Archive", "Judea Coin Archive" or "Judaea Coin Archive": excluding Wikipedia and its mirrors, and the website itself, less than 50 sites even mention this[38]. The only books noticing this site are books that simply copy Wikipedia articles, not actual written books. Fram (talk) 11:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 27 March 2012 (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, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence that the "archive" is notable at all. Cursory search didn't show any significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 04:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see zero RS coverage of this site. Fails WP:WEB. Alexa info doesn't help. Likely promotion. BusterD (talk) 11:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Andrew Landeryou. Page history is still accessible, so feel free to merge anything worthwhile. ‑Scottywong | chat _ 17:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vexnews[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Vexnews

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

I have idly checked this page numerous times over the last few years after running into the website VexNews online, which is little more then a blog for political attacks from the far right. From what I can see of the editing pattern here it looks like the original users that created this and the related articles was the actual owner of the site VexNews, who was promptly banned for disruptive and COI edits. Since then, any attempt to make constructive changes to these articles, which has been few, due to the limited significance of the article, have been met with an eventual IP edit that reverts to the same content the original 'owner' submitted. I think the safest option now is simply to delete this and deny this owner the notoriety he clearly desires. Senor Freebie (talk) 09:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I too have been watching the article for a while, and I agree with your conclusions on the editing history of the article. --Inas66 (talk) 05:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 27 March 2012 (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, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's mentioned a lot in the Australian press, but usually as a source for stories or in more general pieces about the low standard of political debate. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge anything sourcable to Andrew Landeryou. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 04:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect & Merge any sourced content to Andrew Landeryou. Nothing notable enough for its own pagespace; apparent promotion. Fails WP:WEB. Target article not particularly notable either and also apparent long-time COI promotion. BusterD (talk) 12:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong | spout _ 17:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jaladhi Bapparaya[edit]

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

I'm unable to find any coverage in reliable sources, or any indication that the subject might pass the general notability guideline. The article has been deleted via proposed deletion twice, and then recreated without improvement. -- Lear's Fool 07:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 27 March 2012 (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, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 04:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:V. SL93 (talk) 23:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No luck finding sources here, attempted the usual Google searches plus a search at Highbeam. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 04:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Food Not Bombs. ‑Scottywong | gossip _ 17:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

C.T. Lawrence Butler[edit]

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

Nothing indicating notability. A lot of the references are from the website of the company that Butler started, and as for the other references I don't think "Hippie Chick Diaries" and "Planet Waves Daily Astrology" really count as reliable sources. Maybe the content can be merged to the Food Not Bombs page... if that meets notability criteria. As for this page, it fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO MisterRichValentine ^(talk) 01:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 26 March 2012 (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, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Food Not Bombs. The Boston Phoenix article cited[39] is a reliable source, but we need more references to prove his notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 04:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. I'm seeing RS mentions here and here, but don't see sufficient coverage to warrant a BLP. BusterD (talk) 12:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No prejudice against re-creating the article with sourced, non-OR content. ‑Scottywong | speak _ 17:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Islomania[edit]

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

neologism, synth, OR, the thinnest of threads thrown together to make a piecemeal trace of an article. Weeded it a bit, but there's really nothing there Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and substantially rewrite. It's an interesting concept, and one which seems to have some encyclopedic merit, but pretty much everything aside from the lead is pure original research. There's no need to ascribe the term to everyone who's ever lived on an island or written about an island or wanted to go to an island. DoctorKubla (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As already remarked by DoctorKubla, almost everything after the lead section is OR/ESSAY, and should be deleted. After that, not much more than a dictionary definition remains of what is essentially a neologism that has not really caught on. If the final verdict is that the article is kept, here is an RS that apparently discusses the concept: John Vinocur (March 17, 1985). "So you want to get away?". The New York Times Magazine. (I haven't looked behind the paywall.) --Lambiam 21:07, 26 March 2012 (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, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 04:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. The topic might well be encyclopaedic but no-one seems to have written anything about it yet. Cusop Dingle (talk) 06:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 08:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thresher & Glenny[edit]

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

This article was speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G11 (spam), then undeleted and sent to AfD per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 March 16. Please see there for possible reasons for deletion; this is a procedural nomination. Sandstein 16:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a priori, this seems a very reasonable subject for an article, and the current material certainly seems far from 'unambiguous advertising'. The firm's age (founded 1683) could be enough to establish notability on its own, and the detailed timeline is certainly of interest also, though it must have come from the company itself. The claim to have invented the Trench coat with citation from The Times could also be enough to guarantee the article's future. And the anecdote about Nelson buying silk stockings would definitely make the running in any DYK list. Quite a few other claims are currently unsourced, but these are for normal editing, not AfD attention. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not a stub, seems notable to me ! WikiFolks (talk) 18:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Could do with more reliable recent references, but the older references are reliable, and it's more than just advertising. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 04:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of references to the firm in other records, and therefore a good chance that people will want to look this firm up, which seems to me a good reason for inclusion in an encyclopedia. They are central to a much cited trademarks case, and references in, for example, a biography of John Gunther will lose their significance unless the reader understands that they were a very high class outfitter. WP does not have a policy against inclusion of articles about commercial concerns, for fear that might be seen as advertising - if it did then all music on current release and all bands associated with it would be excluded. --AJHingston (talk) 08:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Maps in a Mirror. Consensus to delete, but it seems to be a valid redirect, so I'm going to boldly redirect it. Page history is still accessible, so feel free to merge content. ‑Scottywong | babble _ 17:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Freeway Games[edit]

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

Not notable. The article makes no assertion of notability, and the subject is is a not-notable story by a notable author. (I put a tag questioning the notability on the article a year ago, and there has been no edits to suggest that the story is notable in that time.) Guy who reads a lot (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to an article on the collection of short stories per WP:ATD. Jclemens (talk) 03:07, 28 March 2012 (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, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 04:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and I do not think that Card is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. Cusop Dingle (talk) 06:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was waiting for some wonderful twist, to the story. Boring, and agree with Cusop Dingle's points. Merging is fine with me. But I don't want to write it, I saw the author's infobox. :- ) DCS 02:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong | gossip _ 17:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing the Timelid[edit]

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

Not notable. The article makes no assertion of notability, and the subject is is a not-notable story by a notable author. (I put a tag questioning the notability on the article a year ago, and there has been no edits to suggest that the story is notable in that time.) Guy who reads a lot (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This AfD seems to be one of a series of PRODs and AfDs in which the nominator is trying to replace a previously-existing unsatisfactory situation with another which, to me, also seems unsatisfactory though probably more in line with Wikipedia's current usual consensus. The previously-existing situation arose several years back through the activity of an enthusiastic editor (who, by the way, is still active but has not apparently been informed of this discussion - shouldn't he be?) improving Wikipedia's coverage of Orson Scott Card's work. However, in the process of doing so and apparently because of the complex bibliographical history of Card's short stories, he created separate articles on (and a linking navbox for) a very large proportion of the stories - some definitely indepently notable but others probably not. In this case, I have found some independent mentions - in the case of a less notable author, enough probably to argue for a selective merge (of the bibliographic information and one-line plot summary) but not for a separate article. The problem here, though, is where that merge should be to - a (tabulated?) list of Card's short stories, preferably, in one of the articles on the collections in which the story appears (but which?), in Orson Scott Card bibliography (which currently lists the collections but not the individual short stories), or in a (currently non-existent) separate article on Card's short stories? If the article existed, I think I would probably prefer the last option. PWilkinson (talk) 10:36, 30 March 2012 (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, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 04:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and I do not think that Card is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. Cusop Dingle (talk) 06:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete poorly sourced and fails WP:NBOOK. LibStar (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong | confer _ 18:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bendigo and District Cricket Association[edit]

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

Seems to me to be a non-notable localised league/association. A google search only brings up localised sources, nothing too widespread, quite difficult to establish WP:N. It fails WP:CRIN from my interpretation, as it is not of Grade standard. My main concern is notability, I am struggling to see how this league is particularly notable and how it can be demonstrated by reliable sources. If someone wants to give it a try, good luck!!! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jenks24 (talk) 02:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Jenks24 (talk) 02:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not sure WP:CRIN really covers leagues. I agree the teams in the BDCA probably won't be notable, but I reckon the league is. To begin, a lot more reference can be found when the and is excluded, i.e. searching for "Bendigo District Cricket Association". Looking at gnews, most of the coverage is from the Bendigo Advertiser, but there's also mentions in national-level sources such as the ABC. Looking at trove nla, you can see a lot of references in major Melbourne newspaper, The Argus. Going to CricketArchive, you can see that teams representing the league have played against some pretty high quality opposition, including Marylebone Cricket Club, Victoria, Tasmania, and many touring English sides of the late 1800s (e.g. HH Stephenson's XI, G Parr's XI, etc.). The association has been around since the 1850s and IMO its notability comes more from the prominence the league had c. 100 years ago than the quality of cricket that's played there today. The real clincher for me, though, is that there has been a book published about the league, Bendigo district cricket 1853–1990. Taking all this together, I believe the association meets WP:N. Jenks24 (talk) 02:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks significant coverage, the refs provided just show routine coverage, there is nothing I can find that addresses the subject directly and in detail. Mtking^(edits) 08:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the book? Surely that can't be brushed off as routine? Jenks24 (talk) 08:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exactly what I said, "the refs provided just show routine coverage", the link to a library catalogue does not help, all other things being equal, I would suspect that the book was either written by a member of, or someone with a close connection to the Association or was published or funded by them, in which case it would fail the independent test. Mtking^(edits) 11:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, I can't really refute vague comments that the book might not be independent. Onto the newspaper articles. Take this article as an example – it's in The Argus, one Melbourne's leading newspapers at the time, and describes how Australian Test captain Warwick Armstrong is going to play for the Bendigo District side against the touring English side that was contesting the Ashes. How is that not significant? Jenks24 (talk) 07:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - It is about Warwick Armstrong and what he is doing (WP:NOTINHERITED), and at less than 40 words is not very detailed, and would also come under the heading of WP:ROUTINE coverage of an event (the meeting). Mt king ^(edits) 08:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        It is about Armstrong and the BDCA. Anyway, I think we will have to agree to disagree. I think a league that plays against touring England/MCC teams, has Australian Test captains play for it, and regularly has each week's play reported in Melbourne's The Argus (150 km from Bendigo), is notable, but I guess you don't and that's fine. We will have to wait for others to comment. Jenks24 (talk) 08:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the sources identified by User:Jenks24 are good enough for me. I do note that there's not a great deal of modern-day coverage of this league, however notability does not fade with the passing of time. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 04:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:CRIN. This is not a primary sub-state (grade level) competition, players are not selected from this competition to play for their state. WWGB (talk) 14:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As noted above, WP:CRIN does not cover leagues. Also, looking at CricketArchive it appears that many Bendigo players went on to state careers (or played for Bendigo the same season they were playing for Victoria). Also, while it is true that nowadays only grade cricket players will be selected for state sides, I see no evidence that that was the case 100 years ago. Jenks24 (talk) 14:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, per arguments below, meets WP:GNG Samir 16:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Cordray[edit]

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

I deprodded because I think it needs a full AfD to find any hidden sources, however the article is written in peacock-ish terms. Google search reveals promotional material, and almost all sources in the article itself are either near verbatim copies of the article text, or have almost no bearing on the article's claims itself. This appears to be largely promotional, and of dubious notability. Shadowjams (talk) 03:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: There's a duplicate article, now a redirect at Kenny cordray that should be deleted in the case this is. Shadowjams (talk) 03:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree entirely, this is all factual information. Regardless of your elitist prick ideas, there is an entire community of musicians here ready to ram this down your throats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelco83 (talk • contribs) 03:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Regardless of whether it's factual or not, the article has to show how he is notable by Wikipedia's criteria. Please see WP:N, WP:BIO, and WP:MUSIC for guidelines. It seems that you have been notified of this several times at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kenny Cordray. ... discospinster _talk 03:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, such as 2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelco83 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Which single or album was this? The article mentions "Francine" by ZZ Top but there is no source verifying its charting. ... discospinster _talk 03:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the article, it clearly states the information and is cross refrenced from ZZ Top's own wiki site.

1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.[note 1] Meets this criteria with the recently published album It Takes Everything, and Francine on ZZ Top's album Rio Grande Mud.

6. Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles. Played with Jaco Pastorious, and Jerry Lee Lewis.

Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E for further clarifications) Francine by ZZ Top, Livin On on the Sugar Hill compliation album. Live Performance on Midnight Special with Jerry Lee Lewis and Wayne Cochran and the C.C. Riders.

11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio or music television network. ZZ Top Francine US, Jazz legends BBC UK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelco83 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A few points of contention with User:Kelco83's argument-

You seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding the first criterion, which refers to coverage. Are there independent, reliable sources that cover this musician? Things like newspapers, magazine articles, ect.
"Francine" was co-authored by Cordray for another artist. I'm not sure if that counts as "his" single for the purposes of criterion 2.
Cordray has performed with several notable musicians and ensembles, but as far as I can tell these have been temporary and informal associations. Criterion 6 is only relevant if Cordray has been a member of two or more notable ensembles.
My response to the criterion 11 claim is the same as my response to criterion 2. "Francine" is ZZ Top's single, which Cordray co-authored.

That said I'm still extremely reluctant to make the call of non-notable. Call it a feeling. "Feelings" have no place in an AfD debate, though, so I'm gonna go comb through Google results and maybe attempt a reason-based "keep" !vote later. Angrysockhop ^{(talk to me)} 04:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Francine is as much Cordray's as it is ZZ Top's, if you wan't to argue whose song it is, perhaps you should wiki up the information. ;) Also, this is some really nitpicky stuff. Kenny Cordray is a guitar legend who didn't always take the lime light. To deny this would be out of pure spite. He's more than notable, especially compared to some of the other "artists" that have a page. I still don't understand why there is so much resistence to this when I'm merely filling out information when Kenny Cordray has already been refrenced by ZZ Top themselves. Go to itunes and preview any song he's got, he's not a joke, he's the real deal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelco83 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or at least wait a bit. I found a few pings on older newspaper articles, but those aren't available without subscription. Give me a few days and I'll comb through the newspaper archives at my college library, maybe I'll find something. I don't know where Cordray is based but I know ZZ Top is from Houston. I happen to live there also, so maybe a bit of meatspace investigation will turn up something. Angrysockhop ^{(talk to me)} 05:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would recommend User:Kelco83 to voluntarily limit edits on the Kenny Cordray article because of suspected conflict of interest issues (User:Kelco83 self-identified as "Kelly Cordray" on user page). Angrysockhop ^{(talk to me)} 05:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to contest being restricted from edits as the rule says you cannot make an article about yourself, blood relation should be free to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelco83 (talk • contribs) 06:21, 25 March 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

There's no rule against editing your own article, or your dad's... but WP:COI is a useful guide. Shadowjams (talk) 07:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was a recommendation, not an order, and I have neither the authority nor desire to restrict you from editing whatever topic you like. I'm just saying that as a blood relative, you need to pay extra attention to principles like Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. And use better sources. You're writing things you already know are true, but you're backing up your statements with poor sources, so other readers have no reason to believe you. I'm sorry, but you can't cite a Wikipedia article with another Wikipedia article. Angrysockhop ^{(talk to me)} 10:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would understand your point, but in comparison to other articles, this is pretty dry stuff. If you want to challenge my sources as credible, thats fine, but I have hit on more than 1 criteria for notability. Instead of a recommendation of deletion, why isn't the article flagged for needing more information. I just wanted to get this started, I don't want to write the whole thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelco83 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Establishment of notability can't be separated from the quality of the sources. It doesn't matter how many criteria an article claims to hit if there aren't the sources to establish that the claims are true. — Paul A (talk) 04:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the nitpicking thing we're talking about now. Lets nit pick this statement. Which sources do not back up the claims?

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I'm finding a plethora of old Houston Chronicle articles on microfilm that cover Cordray. The article needs a lot of editing, but now that I have quality sources to work with I'm confident I can bring Kenny Cordray up to par. It looks like he was mostly a local phenomenon, but local doesn't mean non-notable (especially when the local area is also the 4th largest city in America). His coverage in the Chron archives is extensive, and his impact on the Houston-area music scene is substantial. Angrysockhop ^{(talk to me)} 01:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you could give some citations so others can check up on your microfilm expeditions. And even substantial local coverage doesn't mean notability. Shadowjams (talk) 06:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It would really depend on the nature of the coverage. In particular, the coverage may establish inclusion per WP:MUSICBIO point 7 as prominent representative of a local music scene. I'll also note that Cordray may qualify per WP:COMPOSER point 1. He is verifiably as one of three songwriters for the "Francene" which charted on the Billboard Hot 100. --- Whpq (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We put up a USA today article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.246.89 (talk) 12:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC) Are ya'll done with this farce? There is more than enough to keep Kenny Cordray on wikipedia.org. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.246.89 (talk) 12:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC) The article pages that were uploaded have been deleted, used an alternative source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.246.89 (talk) 00:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there is an attempt to find old non-google-fingertips sources going on, some of these appear to be articles dedicated to the subject in mainstream media publications, which would lean in favor of keep.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 18:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. Relisted to let User:Angrysockhop apply offline sources so notability can be properly evaluated. BusterD (talk) 18:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 04:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks like the sources are legitimate. And Kelco, even with the anonymous login, please remove the incivility from yourself before coming in here. As flustering as this is, it does not matter what the article is, it needs to pretty much meet the same criteria - and yes, we WILL nitpick about that, because that nitpicking is what separates the wheat from the chaff. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was not flustered over this, but I will flame someone using "peacockish" to describe my writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.155.116 (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you won't, and I again point to WP:CIVIL. DO NOT do this, under ANY circumstances. Read that link. End of discussion. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I'll slap your clowns with libel accusations, keep your dogs on a leash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.155.116 (talk) 02:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - ISP level block by user:Jimfbleak for that above response and generally ignoring WP:CIVIL. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no lawyer, but its easy to see that it was one of wikipedias editors that broke this so called civility. Who is running this outfit, clearly this group of editors are way out of line. It looks like Kelco was provoked and was defending himself. I'm sure whoever is in charge would loath to see the actionable position he's been put in by you guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.249.194.129 (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported you for your legal threat, as such is absolutely against the rules. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - OK, we've gotten off track here. The article's been fixed, and will likely be kept. That said, AFD is not the place to discuss whether somebody was treated badly, that's what dispute resolution is for. If you think you were mistreated, Kelco, you are best off communicating grievances there. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the amended article with the Chronicle citations establishes notability per WP:MUSIC. Even without the references, I'd agree notability based on WP:COMPOSER 1 - despite Kelco83's appalling incivility, something she mentioned earlier in the AfC process should definitely be added to the article: Cordray co-wrote ZZ Top's first chart hit - notable enough for me. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ ^talk 11:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kelco - HE, not she. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.148.238.9 (talk) 19:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Was just providing some balance, since the IP above had assumed Kelco was a man. Normally I'd use a gender-neutral pronoun. Of course, we're all guessing, since all these IPs definitely aren't Kelco or their friends continuing to contribute to the AfD after being banned for making a legal threat. Definitely not. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ ^talk 09:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 un-struck (?) articles. ‑Scottywong | gossip _ 18:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ROK Air Force FC[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nominating multiple articles on clubs from the same semi-professional football/soccer league. A single article from this league was nominated first as a test case: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korea First Bank FC. The same arguments from that AfD apply here: non-notable club, fails WP:NFOOTY/WP:FOOTYN, etc. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 15:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Cloudz 679 08:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - for E-Land Puma FC. This article was afd'd and kept earlier this month. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E-Land Puma FC. The keep arguements there still apply. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there are others which have also played in that cup competition; one reason I don't like bundled AfDs. This could get messy. Giant Snowman 09:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you can think of a better way to do it, I'll be happy to oblige. Any time someone makes a dozen noms on the same topic, they get trouted for failing to bundle—any time someone bundles, they get trouted for bundling. Other than dragging this out by nominating one per week, I don't see a good answer. I'm OK with this getting re-listed as needed to give enough time to evaluate all the articles. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 12:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I'll strike E-Land Puma FC, effectively withdrawing that nom. None of the other articles claim that the subject FC played in the FC cup, which was the sole claim to notability for E-Land Puma. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 13:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, damned if you do and damned if you don't. I'll have a proper look tonight to see if we can strike any more off. Giant Snowman 13:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notable teams to remove from this bundled nomination Managed to cross reference the claimed years of existence with the RSSSF cup results. Will drip-feed it out.
- Korea Housing & Commercial Bank FC played in the cup in 1997 and reached the quarter finals.[40] Cloudz 679 17:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Industrial Bank of Korea FC played in the 1997 cup too, losing in the second round, same reference. Cloudz 679 17:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RSSSF doesn't seem to have national cup results before 1996. None of the other teams are claimed to have played after 1994. I checked back to 1983 and then couldn't find any earlier South Korean results. This would suggest RSSSF cannot assert notability for these other ten teams. Cloudz 679 17:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all apart from Korea Housing & Commercial Bank FC and Industrial Bank of Korea FC, who have appeared in the national cup; I cannot evidence notability for the others currently. Giant Snowman 18:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So Stricken... thanks to both you and Cloudz for the research. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 18:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all (excluding the three pages which have been stricken) after a thorough search attempting to establish notability failed on ten counts. Cloudz 679 18:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SW— ^babble 20:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 04:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Not sure that further relistings will be useful... 2 subject matter experts have researched the list, identified those which are notable, and endorse deletion of the rest. Consensus seems clear... Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 21:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit Combat[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

non-notable Peter Rehse (talk) 04:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.Peter Rehse (talk) 04:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to hedge on Speedy Delete G4 (repost). Will be tagged momentarily. This was deleted over four years ago, and I am unable to tell if the article is a substantial duplicate thereof. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have declined the G4 speedy, as this is a considerably fuller article than the one deleted four years ago, which was only three lines. Best to let this AfD run. JohnCD (talk) 19:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the speedy was declined; it's not substantially the same. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has no reliable independent sources to support any claims of notability. The tags show there are a lot of issues with this article, but the lack of notability and reliable sources is enough to support deletion. Astudent0 (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The long-term reliance on primary sources is troublesome. Does not appear to meet Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial arts#Arts and styles notability guidelines. jmcw (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is based almost completely on primary sources. I did not find reliable and independent sources that show this art passes WP:MANOTE or WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 04:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Bowser (character). ‑Scottywong | spout _ 18:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth W. James[edit]

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

Non-notable video-game voice actor. No major field contributions. MBisanz ^talk 04:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I can't tell make a call on notability yet, but "no major field contribution" may be a little extreme considering he's voiced Bowser in 10+ Mario games. Voice acting for a big, well-known company like Nintendo is no small feat. Sergecross73 msg me 20:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bowser (character) - Sources from IMDB, TMK (the latter being a RS as per WP:VG/S); the facts are not into question, although notability is the concern here. He is the long-standing voice actor of one of the most recognized antagonists in video game history (the antagonist of the biggest franchise ever, Mario), which seems to qualify as a "major field contribution"; although since that seems to be his unique contribution to the field, I would say he is not independently notable enough for his own article. No prejudice towards recreating if other past work is unveiled or future work adds to the notability. Salvidrim! 02:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I personally think that as this article's subject is clearly the person and not the character he voices, that would be kind of unnecessary. Androids101 (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment reply - I meant merging the relevant information, which is that the character Bowser has been voiced since 2007 by Kenneth W. James, an American voice actor who voiced the character in eleven Mario games so far. Salvidrim! 21:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This article shouldn't really stay. It has no references and with it no indication of notability, and besides, all it has is a list of games which he has voiced in, which is discouraged per WP:GAMECRUFT. Also, I do not think that it should be merged to Bowser (character), as this article's subject is clearly meant to be about the person, and not the character. Androids101 (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If we're just talking about him as a person, WP:GAMECRUFT wouldn't apply, as that is meant towards video games, not people. It's okay to put voice actor stuff in some articles, like ones related to televsion, actors, etc, just not video games, per WP:VG. Sergecross73 msg me 14:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Non-notable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge—I agree that merging into Bowser seems to be the most appropriate action here. James seems to have little independent notability. Surely the character is notable, and the actor is relevant to the character, but unless he has done other notable works, he seems to be inheriting the notability of this one (albeit significant) accomplishment. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 18:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zen Ki Bo[edit]

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

Non-notable Peter Rehse (talk) 03:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions.Peter Rehse (talk) 03:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Delete Ads in local business directories and non-independent sources do not support claims of notability. Subject does not pass WP:MANOTE. Astudent0 (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no indication that this style passes WP:MANOTE. The article has no independent sources that show notability. Papaursa (talk) 04:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Loiter Squad[edit]

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

Insufficient notability and verifiable reliable sources. Contested PROD. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient notability, yet it airs on a top-rated cable network? Just because you haven't heard of something doesn't mean it isn't notable.--76.106.255.89 (talk) 04:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

unfortantly this is a tv show its on adult swim which is part of the cartoon network after 9pm pst lineup, however it only continues showing racial terms as if its funny or appropriate, its a black version of jackass meets sketch comedy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.8.251.26 (talk) 06:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the evidence shown here is more than enough for this to be removed from the afd list.Gyopi NG (talk) 04:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lots of reliable sources out there stating that this TV show exists. Have a search on Google News. Coolug (talk) 09:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Entertainment Weekly, Hollywood Reporter, Rolling Stone, Pitchfork, and more. The nominator should have searched for sources first. SL93 (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of sources exist, such as the ones identified above by SL93, and others like [41][42][43][44][45]. Gongshow ^Talk 21:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge Communications[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. While the first article is more about the founding couple and their exploits, the PBS interview does have something in it that points to more of it. Weak on account of that detail, however. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If they did in fact ship the first commercial router, that's enough for notability DGG ( talk ) 06:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability adequately demonstrated by refs. --Kvng (talk) 14:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong | express _ 18:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Volko Audio[edit]

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

The article was speedily deleted per WP:CSD#A7.Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 March 30 decided to send it to AfD instead, which is hereby done. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. Sandstein 21:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotion by an internet-based company. No sign of nearly meeting WP:CORP. No sign of any *independent* sources. No mainspace incoming links. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added some independent sources. (Asaglam (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I am dubious as to the independence of the added sources. They read like product release notes, and look to be more like sponsored if not paid advertising. More subtly, they do not review the subject, but announce it, and thus they are not secondary sources. Assuming that you can find some independed coverage of this subject, to improve the article, it would help to explain what a "virtual instrument" is (as this is supposedly the first, and indeed, maybe that is a better article to attept to write first, and to discuss the subject in terms of other subjects already in the encyclopedia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kvr Audio is a reliable, known, notable and independent site in the professional audio sector which contains almost all the firms and products in the pro-audio field. It can be considered as a secondary source because it generalizes the information about products to the whole audience. Your opinion about the virtual instrument article is right. It is a good idea to improve that article more in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asaglam (talk • contribs) 08:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CORP. While I did vote at DRV to give this article a second look, on close inspection it clearly doesn't pass our guidelines. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please tell me if this article doesn't pass your guidelines, how did this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Instruments) pass? (Asaglam (talk) 07:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFF. And that's hardly a good comparison anyway. Native instruments is large, well-known, with numerous products which themselves are notable enough for articles and, most importantly, reliable sourcing isn't an issue for NI. What you're asking is essentially like "Why does Coca-Cola get an article and my kids' lemonade stand doesn't?" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about the size of the companies but I wanted to ask you because Native Instruments didn't invent anything. For example Steinberg invented some industry standards. From this point of view Volko Audio created a first thing in an industry and they deserve to be in here. (Asaglam (talk) 11:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Improved the article: I have added some new secondary sources and information to the article. I think this version will change your opinion. (Asaglam (talk) 11:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Keep The added sources are sufficient to reasonably show notability. ( It is always possible to question whether sources such as these are truly independent; what seems to happen here in practice, if one thinks the subject notable, or more generally if one wishes to keep the articles, one decides they are, if not , one decides otherwise; our criteria may sound objective, but they are not--it is a matter of interpretation. And in matters of interpretation, people interpret as they wish to; it is possible to make any amount of argument, but what really happens is that one decides holistically first, and then finds the arguments. In many cases where I've argued for delete, I could have almost equally well have argued for keep if that's the conclusion I had wanted to come to. )— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 18:06, 6 April 2012‎

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 03:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep probably meets WP:NCORP:[46][47]. -- Trevj (talk) 11:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Current sources are about products and contain only passing mentions of the corp. The links provided by trevj do not provide any depth of coverage of Volko Audio and they are not reliable sources. Nothing satisfying WP:CORPDEPTH, especially when you consider the source's audience. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—The KVR sources are product release announcements, not indicative of notability. But the two foreign-language reviews are in published magazines, in depth, and meet the WP:GNG: non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable sources. Niche sources are still sources and the fact that they are "industry" or highly targeted doesn't reduce their weight, as long as they are independent, which these both seem to be. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 18:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 551st_Electronic_Systems_Wing. There is a 50/50 split on whether to delete or merge, so a redirect seems indicated; if there is anything worthwhile to be merged, that can still occur Black Kite (talk) 10:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1965 EC-121H Warning Star crash[edit]

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

Very sad but not notable per WP:AIRCRASH Military crashes are very common....William 11:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 11:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ...William 11:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ...William 11:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 11:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge all information to 551st Airborne Early Warning and Control Wing. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 551st Electronic Systems Wing (which is where the link above redirects to). Merging prohibits deletion as attribution must be maintained. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing of particular value to merge. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no valuable information to merge and there is hardly any content to the article and notability is questionable at best.Andrew Kurish (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I agree with Bushranger that this as well as the other 2 related articles should be merged. 138.162.8.58 (talk) 19:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 551st Electronic Systems Wing per above - on its own this crash is not really noteworthy but as a pattern of crashes it is more notable. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Merge group of crashes. - Frankie1969 (talk) 00:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Does not appear to have clear consensus whether to merge or delete the article. Relisting to clarify consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 03:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted per WP:CSD#G4 by Deskana (talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 09:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Devorah Frost[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable, local wrestler, extensive in-universe and lacking independent coverage. MBisanz ^talk 03:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I see now this is a G4. Can someone independent do the speedy? Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 03:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong | prattle _ 18:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting Immunization and Health Care in Aceh, Indonesia[edit]

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

No notability shown, creator seems to be an SPA Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Creater is an economics honors major from the National University of Singapore. You can view my profile here: facebook.com/junialum. This article was added on a neutral basis purely for academic reasons and do not contravene any guideline on Wikipedia. If parts of the entry needs to be changed or edited for clarification, please inform me (author). This article has provided significant coverage on this issue with a comprehensive case study. Sources are reliable with independent references. There is no question of self-publicity, advertising, etc. I do not in any way belong to any persons or organizations mentioned in this article. The article itself cites problems and is not a positively biased write up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junialum (talk • contribs) 06:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It must pass our general notability guidelines at the very least. You should also read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout for your next article. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The one pointer that could be a reliable source from PR Newswire, however remote, is more about Project HOPE than anything, not so much about the subject of this article. The merits of the article must be held up independently of that. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it does not satisfy the requirement for notability, which requires significant coverage by independent reliable sources; all but one of the sources here are from Project HOPE itself. With that said, let me explain to the author of the article that we respect your credentials and we agree that this project is a worthy cause. But not every WP:WORTHYCAUSE can have an article here; we have to have standards to keep the encyclopedia from being flooded. There are, of course, other online venues and websites where you could post this entire essay and it would be welcome. As for Wikipedia, I would suggest that a summary of this information could be added to some other article, perhaps Nagan Raya Regency which is very much in need of expansion. I was going to suggest putting it in Project HOPE, but that article does not appear to include details about individual projects. --MelanieN (talk) 15:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—non-notable good cause. All references (including the press release) are self published sources. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 18:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Boing! said Zebedee as "(G6: AFD requests removal after a move; this was originally a redirect)". Non-admin closure — Frankie (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Organizations influenced by the Muslim Brotherhood[edit]

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

Misnamed material moved to differently named article. This article no longer referenced. (Quick delete). Nominated by originator. Student7 (talk) 01:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Delete Article is now a blank. I do have a problem with the whole concept, since just about everything influences everything else in some way. Kitfoxxe (talk) 03:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G6 (Housekeeping). Will be tagged momentarily. In the future, given the nature of this article, this should have been posted in WP:RFD. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as moot. Carrite (talk) 15:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Fraticelli[edit]

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

Article was deproded by article creator without addressing the underlying concern of lack of significant reliable source coverage to establish notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regards/ Article I think should not removed. The person is notable in Puerto Rico. I included newspapers articles from the top two newspaper here, also the link for the movie "Pedro" (MTV) and other links that shows part of his acting career. There are tons of interviews on TV programs but in youtube, so is imposible that way.... thanks Mroxidizer1 (talk) 20:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- More sources added Mroxidizer1 (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep and allow continued improvements. Though certainly not worldwide, we can accept that notability to Puerto Rico is notable enough for Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:53, 3 April 2012 (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) 00:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Schmidt. -- Lord Roem (talk) 00:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sourcing is minimal at the moment, but I think it is just enough for the article to be kept. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 01:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Schmidt and Mr. Stradivarius above; needs lots more information and sources for both his involvement in Nino Planeta and his acting roles, but the kernel is there and the subject appears on the face of it to meet both the GNG and WP:MUSIC. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ ^talk 11:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Almenas[edit]

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

I propose this page for deletion for the following reasons: 1. This individual is not internationally known. 2. Lack of hits to the page justifies its futility as a proper Wikipedia article. Oblivionzero (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)— Oblivionzero (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 March 25. Snotbot t • c » 17:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find RS's on Google search, news and books. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 17:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hesitant Keep. There are a lot of Spanish sources, which will take time to go through (I don't speak Spanish) and ensure they are reliable and establish notability, but I think with some work it can pass WP:GNG. ~dee^(talk?) 11:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this page should be kept. So, if I want to make my sister its own Wikipedia article telling her life so far, it's okay? This is Wikipedia, not Facebook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oblivionzero (talk • contribs) 00:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC) — Oblivionzero (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment The SPA nominator's rationale has nothing to do with our policies and guidelines. WP does not require that a subject should be "internationally known" (that is a very vague concept in itself), nor the Google Hits could be considered a reason to keep or delete an article. Cavarrone (talk) 12:53, 28 March 2012 (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) 01:40, 1 April 2012 (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 00:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't speak Spanish either, but if Oblivionzero was talking about the Google News results, then none of them looked like they covered him in any detail. I couldn't find any significant coverage of him in reliable sources, and I can't see any reason he would pass any of the other clauses in WP:MUSICBIO. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 00:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article doesn't assert notability, regardless of how many times that name shows up in Google News; per the article, this appears to be an obscure musician whose only claim to fame is finishing fifth in a Panamanian unsigned bands competition. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ ^talk 11:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/Withdrawn. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 22:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aranmula palace[edit]

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

Article page is a near duplicate of Aranmula Kottaram the only 2 differences is that this one has capital letters for no apparent reason and the other has an additional external link. May be considered WP:CSD#A10 but both articles are pre-2011 creation date. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aranmula Kottaram. For next time, you can just be bold and redirect things like this. It was obviously a mistake by a new user who didn't know their way around the MediaWiki software, so no real need for debate. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 01:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. Thanks. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aranmula Kottaram. Salih (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is a clear case of redirect and I've boldly redirected the article to Aranmula Kottaram. Salih (talk) 17:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination per Bold redirect completed above. Next time, I'll just be bold myself. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 18:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Woods[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This page has been nominated once. At the time, I opposed it. However, I think he has a clear notability problem. He only got 8% of the vote and I have heard little from him since he lost the election Casprings (talk) 04:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I think I was wrong before and this is something that should be deleted. He hasn't been heard from since he lost in a democratic primary, winning a very small amount of the vote. He seems to have returned to be a private citizen. As such, this should be taken down. He is not Wikipedia:N Casprings (talk) 04:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm striking out the word "delete" since your delete !vote is assumed as nominator - and you can only "!vote" once. --MelanieN (talk) 03:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ (Changing to Keep, see below) Certainly not qualified under WP:POLITICIAN. I tried to find notability for him under WP:BIO, and I added a reference to the article which says his campaign received "national attention", [48] but I couldn't find much other evidence of that national attention. Probably not enough coverage to qualify. --MelanieN (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2012 (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) 00:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 04:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think he qualifies under WP:BASIC. He has received coverage in the Washinton Post,[49] and the claim of him attracting "national attention" seems to stem from the New York Times.[50] With this and the numerous mentions in local and special interest publications, I think there is enough coverage for us to keep the article. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Keep based on the additional sources found by Mr. Stradivarius. Nice work! I have added them to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I really don't get the standard. It is suppose to be persistence of media coverage. Yet Sandra Fluke was delete and this is a keep? I just don't get it. Casprings (talk) 22:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Allison Allain[edit]

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

Autobiography of person lacking coverage in independent reliable sources. The award for her band is not major and her band is not notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:46, 2 April 2012 (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) 14:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I apologize for creating this page, I was bored and I love writing in wiki format. Please do not take the Choke the Word Page down because I messed up. AnomicAli (talk) 15:14, 2 April 2012 (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, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable cellist and game designer. The author of the article seems to agree. Sionk (talk) 11:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly non-notable. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ ^talk 09:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Viz (comic). ‑Scottywong | gab _ 18:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Farmer Palmer[edit]

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

Not notable, unsourced since forever, redirect undone for no reason. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Viz (comic) - I can't find any sources about this particular comic character, never mind anything reliable. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep/Merge to Viz (comic). Not one of the most notable Viz strips (compared to say The Fat Slags or Roger Mellie), but has become a stereotype for a certain type of farmer that has been referred to in several news stories, etc., e.g. [51], [52], [53], [54]. --Michig (talk) 07:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Michig and my other comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finbarr Saunders

This is a long-running strip. Indeed not as well known as Sid the Sexist, but widely enough cited that the two catchphrases "Get orf my land" and "Him were worrying my sheep" have entered the popular vocabulary, as a shorthand for just this type of farmer. Comics do tend to make their effect visible by catchphrase, even more so than by character. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:37, 3 April 2012 (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, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Viz comic strips. I can't find any sources that cover this character in any detail. If such sources can be found, then I could be persuaded to change my !vote to keep, though. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 00:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge—Michig's sources are good enough to show some notability, but the depth of coverage isn't quite there to support a standalone article. Since a suitable target has been found, and the title will be left around for searchers, merge seems like a good plan here. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 18:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 22:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opera South (United States)[edit]

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

This is an article about two separate companies that needs to be split. However I don't think either company is notable. Marcus Qwertyus 20:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pointless article glomming together two unrelated things, neither notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and start over. This appears to be an attempt to disambiguate two performance companies by having a single article on both of them at the same time. If the individual companies are related by more than name, the article needs to say so; all signs point to that they are not, however If the individual companies are notable unto themselves, they should have articles, but this article should not exist as a DAB until there are >2 such pages. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - corrected a spelling error. Damn homonyms.... =^^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for all the reasons above. If either company is notable, a new article can be created with appropriate reliable sources. --Deskford (talk) 18:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rigby & Peller. JohnCD (talk) 22:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Kenton[edit]

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

WP:DEL#REASON- subject fails to meet notability guidelines for people in general - not "the subject of the subject of multiple published secondary sources". Also does not meet the critera for WP:CREATIVE nor WP:ENTERTAINER JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did a little searching, and Rigby & Peller definitely does seem to be notable--June Kenton (her mother?) does too. If those were created, some of the article's content could be merged to those. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Rigby & Peller. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete - she seems to be quoted a bit, but not to have third parties write about her. I dont think she has passed the point where the number of times she is quoted leads to a sort of de facto coronation as "notable expert".-- The Red Pen of Doom 21:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC) EDIT: support the redirect to Rigby & Peller per BlackKite. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FYI - See also this recent request for paid editing on this article. ‑Scottywong | verbalize _ 02:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

notability is based on whether there is significant third party coverage about the subject that can be presented in a NPOV manner. i am not sure what the above link has to do with this discussion. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused too, how much would I get paid for a keep vote? Mark Arsten (talk) 03:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

oh. i did not even consider that. only the fact that if kept, careful watch should be kept for POv editing, but you are right, it has implications here too. -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Of course, published quotes by the subject are explicitly debarred as any gauge of notability of the subject. So far, I'm not seeing any notability guideline under which an article can be sustained here, quite aside from the COI issue. Ravenswing 06:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've no objection to a redirect as below. Ravenswing 19:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rigby & Peller. It is noticeable that every single Google News hit for her includes the phrase "of Rigby & Peller". However, she pops up as a talking head on TV occasionally and as such her name is a reasonable search term. Black Kite (talk) 11:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rigby & Peller. That appears to be an appropriate redirect target. Rlendog (talk) 14:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As nominator. JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rigby & Peller. Mabalu (talk) 17:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She's done enough on her own since leaving Rigby & Peller to have her own notability. If reliable sources exist that cover her in sufficient detail then WP:N is satisfied. The fact that the article was likely created by someone in exchage for payment should not affect the subject's actual notability. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 21:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

and what exactly has she done? been quoted a few times in the newspapers. and ....? -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit I thought she might well be notable to begin with, but as per usual her "resume" turns out to be overstated; for example the Sky TV series that she "presented" in 2006 turns out to be presented by someone else, and she merely interviews people on the street. Black Kite (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rigby & Peller, although deletion would probably be appropriate, she is mentioned in the Rigby & Peller article as a scion of the family. This is merely a vanity article for someone who wants to establish street cred in entertainment/media, and having a Wikipedia article leads to excellent real world "SEO." --HidariMigi (talk) 16:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rigby & Peller. Not notable apart from as per User:HidariMigi's reasons above. Vanity article. Stronach (talk) 11:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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