< 12 May 14 May >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Great arguments by Struthious and Cunard. This is how an AFD is supposed to play out. Unfortunately for the article, the consensus is to delete. v/r - TP 14:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Donté Bonner[edit]

Donté Bonner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One significant role in the film Sydney White didn't result in any media coverage. Fails WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 29 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, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:31, 6 May 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) 23:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why would performances for local theatre companies not contribute to notability? Local television stations are usually notable, including many public access television stations; local radio stations are notable; and the programs produced locally and broadcast on these stations are often notable. By the way, the Boca Raton performance from this year is not the only place that Bonner performed in the title role in The Elaborate Entrance of Chad Deity - the East Coast premiere mentioned above was this one in Philadelphia in 2009, I believe. (As reported in a Boston paper.) At the very least, per the Google News hits the guy has been in stage performances all over Florida as well as the various roles mentioned elsewhere in the country and on film and television.

    I also don't think that the coverage of him not discussing his career biographically, but only discussing the performances he was part of which are the reason for his notability, is a problem. If you look at other aspects of notability (people), biographical coverage of the person themselves in RSS isn't necessary: for academics, for example, it says that many academics "are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources" or in WP:CREATIVE something like an artist's works being included in a collection is what makes them notable, not that they themselves have been discussed. For a non-person example, no one has written any articles in a RSS that specifically discuss Florida State Road 9336 but that doesn't mean that it isn't notable.

    Also, I don't see why you think that verifiability is a problem. Where he went to high school or college would be verifiable in those schools' year books and other records, his birth date would be verifiable in hospital or Social Security records or his driver's license if it was even challenged, etc. Verifiability isn't about whether a person reading the article can verify what's in it via hyperlinks to online sources that are in the article, it's about whether the information in an article is of a type that can be verified. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 20:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • So you're saying that newspaper articles written by theatre critics are "just announcements"? This does not seem true to me. Also, WP:ROUTINE says things like "Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all" - it's saying that the events themselves probably shouldn't get their own article, not that all the sports matches an athlete has participated in have nothing to do with his or her notability. The principles you propose would seem to say that a theatre actor has to be so famous that they're written about outside of their field on a national level before they can be notable. And all I see is proscription for Wikipedia editors from seeking out private information or relying on self-published sources to write an article, not anything that says that information should be considered unverifiable if the third-party sources in question were something like a school's yearbook or other records. Since we're getting into semantics here, you are conflating "local" and "state-wide", which don't mean the same thing. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 00:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the entirety of those articles were contained in the "abstract" text and the links offering "full text" are fake, I would accept your argument that those particular ones don't qualify as more than announcements. But I'm not entirely sure that's the case. As a counterexample, here are the paragraphs dealing with Bonner from a January Palm Beach Post article:

    Even the title character is a metaphor. "He stands for the American dream, for the illusion we all have that if you work hard you’ll be rich," says Donte Bonner, who plays Chad Deity here after originating the role in the East Coast premiere last year in Philadelphia. "Chad is a young, hip, cool black guy, rich. He’s got everything he could possibly want — muscle cars, everything – in the kind of America that America likes to see."

    A fan of World Wrestling Federation matches since he was a kid, Bonner was ready for the physical workout the play demands. "I do a ‘bulldog,’ which is where I have a guy in a headlock and I leap in the air and smash his face to the ground. And there’s a ‘power bomb,’ which is Chad’s trademark move, where I put a guy up on my shoulders and slam him down on his back," he says. "You’re going to wonder how we can do it eight times a week."

    The answer is the coaching and wrestling choreography of WWF veteran Pablo Marquez, who says the key is knowing how to take a fall. "That’s probably the toughest thing to overcome, the fear of falling backward without panicking and trying to put your hands down. That’s when you get hurt," he cautions. "My art is to make it look like it is hurting you, but in reality it’s really not."

    Bonner calls Chad Deity "a very current play with very current characters and enormous relevance to today," but he suspects that audiences will leave the Caldwell talking about the wrestling moves. "We’re going to be doing for-real serious pro wrestling that will make you really uncomfortable," he says. "That’s a 100 percent promise. That’s my one purpose in this show, to make my wrestling matches as bad-ass as possible."

    Note that there is a blurb in the footer of that article that looks somewhat like the abstracts you quoted above. Here are a couple of articles that appear from their lead-in to be similar to the above, but the full article is paywalled: Palm Beach Post, "'Bridegroom' Pairing Lacks Chemistry, Coherent Script":

    If you're going to tell a heart-wrenching romantic tale between two star-crossed lovers -- or any lovers, for that matter -- the actors playing them must have that mystical, magical, wonderful quality called chemistry.

    When the chemistry is right between two characters either in love or falling in it, the audience is more than willing to take that journey with them. But when there's isn't any chemistry or just a modest amount of it, well, no one is...

    But, the blurb which Google News gives us: "Catherine Trieschmann's The Bridegroom of Blowing Rock will emotionally invest themselves in two characters:a black Yankee soldier (Donté Bonner) with a..." lets us know that one of the pairing that lacks chemistry that the article is about is Bonner. Next, Philadelphia Inquirer, "Nimble, funny, thoughtful headlock on wrestling":

    On tonight's wrestling card, we have the American who stands for everything good we learned in civics, or from Mom or by eating apple pie - Chad Deity. He's pure of thought, black and beautiful, resplendent in ringside bling and a shining gold jockstrap. He's built like your proverbial brick facility.(His given name is Darnell, butshhhh!) Opposite him is the Fanatic, whose wrestling resumé has him representing al Qaeda, Hamas, and for good measure, the...

    The rest of that one is paywalled but it seems pretty reasonable to assume that the full article is at least somewhat similar to the Chad Diety piece above so that is much more than an announcement of the performance. (Or, rather, the above Palm Beach Post piece is a column mentioning several different performances, so these others entirely about the play may provide even more coverage.)

    Okay, actually, I just realized that these archives are giving the word counts of the full articles, so I don't know about the Miami Herald one but even the Orlando Sentinel articles are definitely much larger than the abstracts you've been quoting above.

    The verifiability and BLP policies prohibit the use of school yearbooks and other primary sources in BLPs. Because their use is impermissible, the information should be deleted until they can be sourced to third-party reliable sources.

    Your conclusion just doesn't follow your premise there. We have no reason to believe that those sorts of sources were what was used to write this article and acknowledging that the information is not unverifiable because it can be verified in those types of sources is not the same thing as writing the article using such sources. The policies and guidelines you're citing talk about "contentious material" and "the possibility of harm to living subjects" and "material challenged or likely to be challenged" - they aren't just there to permit someone to bludgeon their way to a deletion on a technicality, they do not mean what you're claiming they mean.

    Or even say what you're claiming they say - they enjoin the writer to write "focusing on high quality secondary sources" and "exercise caution in using primary sources" - the things you portray as utterly verboten are not, and it has nothing to do with whether editors assessing the verifiability of unchallenged non-contentious material have to pretend that information that could at the very least be verified in third-party primary sources is unverifiable. The strictures you're implying would mean that something like material verifiable in a published journalist's face-to-face interview with the subject of the article would have to be deleted too, since that would be a primary third-party source also. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 11:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a very old AfD, so I'll put in my delete, which I know will doom it. However, the current delete !votes appear to be correct that the subject doesn't meet WP:GNG. I can't find even one decent article to try to justify this.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But if deleted, and recreated with real sourcing, I would object to any CSD instead of a 2nd AfD.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:03, 24 May 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 University of Southampton. Link to University article from List of student newspapers in the United Kingdom v/r - TP 14:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Soton Tab[edit]

Soton Tab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

New university newspaper, which are not inherently notable, and this is not independently notable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see (same user, registered an account now). What would make it notable, or is the subject nature in your opinion inherently unsuitable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave4291 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC) — Dave4291 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Obviously some news stories relate to the university, but others such as this one and this one, can also be found on the BBC here and here which surely does show its credibility? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.158.50 (talk) 06:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC) — 152.78.158.50 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

As an editor of the paper, we have the same readership as the union paper and higher then the media section, both of which have a page on here. We are also well known by all students in Southampton and have recently expanded into Southampton Solent.

If this doesn't count as acceptable for Wikipedia then please explain why! --Tom Steadman (talk) 11:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would honestly argue that by identifying myself as editor means it wasn't a COI, especially as I hand over my position tomorrow. However, i agree how it might look. I've looked for some references, as its really hard to do with a student paper but these are some i came up with. - Regular referrals from Thestudentroom.co.uk a poplular UK forum for university students - Mentioned in local news paper (http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/9585643.The_Hobbit_in_battle_with_Hollywood/) - Referenced in wikipedia http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Zaentz#section_4 - List of student papers wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_student_newspapers_in_the_United_Kingdom This is the first time i've got involved with this sort of thing, i understand it might not work at the moment but have you any advice at what we could do to help us avoiding deletion in the future? --Tom Steadman (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I understand the concern of COI I believe that the complete deletion of this page would not be effectively enforcing the COI policy. Whilst COI are discouraged they are no banned and therefore any information which cannot be viewed as a conflict should be entitled to stand. For instance the inclusion of the editorial team clearly has no risk of any forms of conflict. Furthermore the mention of the 'Soton Tab' on the 'Wessex Scene' page which I assume has been written by a neutral is an admission of its existence as a publication. Furthermore with a publication such as this figures of circulation are unlikely to be held by anyone who does not have a conflict of interest and therefore this is unavoidable. Similarly as with the 'Wessex Scene' page it is clear that circulation figures do not need any form of referencing as theirs does not. On the balance of things I fail to see how this page does not have the potential to provide a 'neutral point of view' and therefore its deletion is useless, merely its content needs appropriate monitoring. --Daniel Hogwood (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danhogwood (talk • contribs) [reply]

Furthermore I would like to draw further comparisons with that of the 'Wessex Scene' page. The purpose of these comparisons are clear. As a student publication, similar to that of the 'Soton Tab' and at the same university comparison between the pages is useful. I notice looking at the history of the 'Wessex Scene' page 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wessex_Scene&action=history' the user 'Andre666' has edited the page at least four times despite the page clearly stating he was part of the publications committee in 2011-2012. The conflict of interest that would arise from this, in addition to the fact that a lot of contributions to that page have been made anon or by accounts which no longer exist it is difficult to justify the existence of their page opposed to this one. Clearly the purpose's are identical. They are there to inform the public with a brief history of the publications and in addition some functional information. In my opinion this has been achieved and therefore deletion is not an option. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danhogwood (talk • contribs) 21:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a reference from Southampton University which confirms the Soton Tabs nomination for an EVA for engagement with the University. http://www.susu.org/eva/nominee-2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.105.221 (talk) 09:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC) — 188.222.105.221 (talk) 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whenever a booster appears at AfD it makes things easy, since it's reasonable to assume he/she will put the subject's best foot forward. Based on Mr. Editor's list of 3rd-party coverage, we're nowhere near notability. EEng (talk) 03:16, 14 May 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) 00:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Live Audio Wrestling awards[edit]

List of Live Audio Wrestling awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication that these awards are notable per WP:GNG. A brief mention on Live Audio Wrestling may be warranted, but not more. West Eddy (talk) 23:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The links are links to notable wrestlers. Ridernyc (talk) 12:46, 14 May 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) 00:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bay Alarm Medical[edit]

Bay Alarm Medical (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But if we take into consideration that WP is an encyclopaedia attempting to apply an even hand to articles in a global context then it is way below the threshold for inclusion. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:42, 13 May 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. I'm sorry Hazara Birar but if the media in Afghanistan prefers to cover other issues and has ignored this sport then that's unfortunate but media coverage is what we need. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hosharafu[edit]

Hosharafu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article fails to show any reason why this is a notable martial art and lacks significant reliable coverage in independent sources. Papaursa (talk) 22:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 22:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It was not made in one day, the sources say after research so it means it took time, I am not sure if it comes under WP:NOTFORTHINGSMADEUPONEDAYINAFGHANISTAN. Anyways, I couldn't find independent sources except this one but doesn't provide info on the style just some event.Hazara Birar (Talk) 09:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even that site is not independent - it looks like the same author.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment but this site comes under the name of Afghanistan All Martial Arts Federation.Hazara Birar (Talk) 09:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One of the major problems with Afghan media is that they have far important (suicide bombings, ISAF coverage, International community's politics in the country, Taliban, Al-Qaida, women rights and so on..) to cover therefore sports achievements are not considered a big deal in the country. You will not find anything about sportspeople/sports in media unless politicians/warlords are involved.Hazara Birar (Talk) 04:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your comment, but Wikipedia requires independent and reliable sources. Astudent0 (talk) 20:02, 17 May 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) 00:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Magdy's Exchanger[edit]

Magdy's Exchanger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Created by the person behind the concept. I can't find any sources and it appears to be pure original research. bonadea contributions talk 22:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:20, 13 May 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) 00:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fujitani Masatoshi[edit]

Fujitani Masatoshi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's no indication that he meets any notability criteria, such as WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE, and the only source is a listing of him as a one of the students of someone (and notability is not inherited). Papaursa (talk) 21:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 21:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Michitaro ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.148.27.81 (talk) [reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
I don't see anything that shows notability. His lineage is irrelevant (WP:NOTINHERITED) and I don't know what you mean by "has links to history." At best my Japanese translations show he has a high rank and in the past that has been determined insufficient to show notability. Papaursa (talk) 03:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shitō-ryū is notable, and if he is founder to one of factions and has organizations that descend from him, then he is integral to the history. It means he's deserving of mention here. Pkeets (talk) 14:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shito-ryu may be notable, but his splinter doesn't seem to be. The WP article on Shito-ryu shows 23 splinter groups and who heads them, and Masatoshi is not mentioned. Astudent0 (talk) 16:01, 16 May 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) 00:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hairy Jeremy[edit]

Hairy Jeremy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a BBC children's animated television programme. Subject fails general notability guidelines. A search for reliable sources to support notability primarily revealed a bunch of YouTube videos, Amazon pages, social networking sites, and fan forum posts. An article about The Greatest BBC Children's Video Ever was deleted in 2009. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 21:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:15, 13 May 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) 00:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Raffaele Di Gennaro[edit]

Raffaele Di Gennaro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-professional footballer, fails WP:Footy and WP:GNG criteria. He may made a debut next season or on the bench for all season and quietly retired. Wikipedia is not a Crystal ball. Matthew_hk tc 20:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Matthew_hk tc 20:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:53, 13 May 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. Opinions are about evenly divided, and there is no "delete" argument that is so strong that it would compel deletion in the absence of consensus.  Sandstein  09:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of richest American politicians[edit]

List of richest American politicians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

the list is a synthesis of information not based on any reliable source ranking politicians by wealth. For an example of an article which isn't an example of original research, see List of current members of the United States Congress by wealth which is based on reliable sources. Hot Stop 19:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where's the SYNTH? I would be happier if you would please explain, once you have rested from your brave attempt to solve Poverty by claiming that the number of super-rich people is virtually limitless. And much as I hate the "Wikipedia is not compulsory" WP:CHOICE rule, it is the best antidote to the poison that is spread on AfD so often: "We cannot cope with this article". Go complain about not being able to do things you will not do anyway, somewhere else, to someone who cares. Anarchangel (talk) 04:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm withdrawing my delete vote based on the arguments made by User:Bearian and the surprising number of similar articles in Category:Lists of people by wealth. I stand by my concerns regarding the content, but acknowledge that these can be fixed through editing. Pburka (talk) 01:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which similar articles are you talking about? I couldn't find any other list of any countries richest politicians. Hot Stop 05:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC) Hot Stop 05:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I've fixed my comment. I meant the other articles in Category:Lists of people by wealth. These articles all face the same complications of comparing by wealth. Pburka (talk) 11:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Difficult" is not a WP rule. Thank you for the arguments that a ranked list based on numbers is "subjective", and that sources are problematic because they are created "at one point in time". Creating a Reductio ad absurdum against some arguments might take some effort, but not that last one. Anarchangel (talk) 04:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will clarify. Subjective What is the basis for inclusion? The list includes some people that where actual politicians and some people that simply ran for a public office. There is a false equivelancy to assume that they are the same. Pete Coors, for example, ran for public office once, but is not considered a politican per se. Some that are no longer in politics are included, but not all. At what point is there wealth relevant, now or at the time that they were an elected politician. Additionally there are people who are missing from that group. As an incomplete and poorly defined metric the list itself has little value, which begs the question, "What is the point of this list?" Arzel (talk) 11:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where's the SYNTH? Please explain yourself. Anarchangel (talk) 04:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ranking is not SYNTH, it is a mathematical operation. You have issues with the varying success of the careers of politicians on the list; this is already addressed by the "Position" and "Dates" fields of the list. But that is a matter for discussion on the Talk:List of richest American politicians page, in any case. Anarchangel (talk) 04:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mathematical operations are specifically allowed by WP:CALC (not to be confused with WP:Calculation). The wealth estimates are millions of dollars apart; not close enough to each other for concerns about varying sources to be of consideration. The mathematical operation to convert previous decades' monetary value into modern, should anyone care to perform it, falls under CALC as well. Anarchangel (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, mathematical operations are allowed, but the problem with the rankings is that we have no definitive evidence that we aren't leaving someone off of the list. If we are leaving someone off the list who should be #6, then all of the rankings are wrong. I don't see a problem with just removing the rankings ... and since we have no real way of knowing if the rankings are right, removing them is a pretty good idea. --B (talk) 22:59, 15 May 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) 00:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah_Hertz[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Deborah_Hertz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

i am perplexed as to why she is considered notable. i have checked throughout googleland but found nothing RS. yes, she is a professor with a named chair. but that is really it. when i recommended it for speedy deletion, there were no references at all. an editor added two: a) a link to the jewish woman's online encyclopedia - read their "about" page to see that any jewish woman can be listed; and b) a link to a book review of one of her books - yes, she was published by yale u press, but, many many people have been published there as well. so,unless i am really missing something, i would like to recommend that this article be deleted for not being notable. Soosim (talk) 18:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A citation in GS, and more so in WoS and Scopus, is by definition a reliable and independent source. See WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:40, 14 May 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. However, it would have been helpful if, along with discussion of sources "in" the article, someone could have presented some examples of supersources that are currently "not" in the article instead of assertions that "they must exist". As a personal opinion though, as long as this school has been around I would be surprised is there isn't older press coverage not archived online. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

St Peter's RC Primary School[edit]

AfDs for this article:
St Peter's RC Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article on a perfectly ordinary little primary school in Aberdeen, sourced entirely from the school's own website and archived stories from local press with routine coverage. No assertion whatsoever that the school is in any way notable. John (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The existing sources are irrelevant. We are discussing the potential to further develop the article. There are big gaps in the availability of online sources for articles on historic subjects. Dahliarose (talk) 23:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can assure you that I have examined the sources. I see no basis for your statement that "One is the Press and Journal, very much a local paper with a series of pretty frothy and insubstantial stories" - can you find any RS which describes the oldest daily newspaper in Scotland in these terms? Indeed our own page on the paper states that this "is a daily regional newspaper serving the northern counties of Scotland including the cities of Aberdeen and Inverness". TerriersFan (talk) 23:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure the P&J is not always frothy and insubstantial. Would you honestly describe this, for example, as establishing notability on Wikipedia? --John (talk) 23:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A straw man; the notability comes from its historic context and cumulation of 'regional' sources not from a single source. TerriersFan (talk) 23:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not a straw man, it's a critical examination of one of four references from this source. Here's another. It's a trivial mention. How can you argue that four such mentions equate notability? --John (talk) 23:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"the notability comes from its historic context and cumulation of 'regional' sources not from a single source." TerriersFan (talk) 00:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I read this ok the first time. I happen to disagree that four shit sources add up to notability. Have you actually read the sources we are discussing? --John (talk) 07:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Press and Journal is a long-established newspaper. Do you have any serious grounds for believing it to be systematically unreliable, or particularly unreliable in this case? And using words like "shit" do not help your argument. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have you actually read the sources? "Pupils from three primary schools in Aberdeen have produced artwork celebrating the centuries-old area of the city which is now on show at Aberdeen University." is a trivial mention and does not in any way equate to notability. It's not that there is anything wrong with the P&J, it's a respectable old local newspaper, it's these particular stories which are rubbish. So, we establish that this is a primary school, that it once had artwork from its pupils exhibited at the local Uni; honestly, if this was our bar for notability we would need to have an article on every tiny community group and youth club which has ever existed and attracted trivial coverage in a local (or if you prefer, "regional") newspaper. It isn't, and we don't. --John (talk) 13:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
179 years is far from "almost 200 years," and being "X years old" is not a basis for notability. to be found in WP:N or WP:ORG, so arguments based on age should be ignored by the closing admin. Edison (talk) 19:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments about age should not be ignored. Notability relates to the availability of sources. The longer an institution has been in existence the more sources will be available. The problem is that most sources (news articles, book snippets on Google Books, etc) relate to the last five to ten years, during which time the school has been a primary school, and not to the earlier history of the school when it educated all children through to school leaving age. Dahliarose (talk) 19:34, 14 May 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. Dipankan (Have a chat?) 13:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Ion Taranu[edit]

Ion Taranu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unsourced contents 15 months taged 꽃 (talk) 16:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 13 May 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) 00:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lethal weapon 5th installment[edit]

Lethal weapon 5th installment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Main paragraph was just copied from Lethal Weapon (film series), which is where it belongs. Does not deserve a standalone article because it touches on WP:CRYSTAL and violates WP:NFF. Michitaro (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Antarsya statement after Greek 2012 election[edit]

Antarsya statement after Greek 2012 election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One of the statements by a rather obscure Greek far-left party (Front of the Greek Anticapitalist Left). Nothing encyclopedic. Estlandia (dialogue) 15:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The statement is non-notable in itself and thus not suitable for merging into the Wikipedia article.Estlandia (dialogue) 15:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 13 May 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) 00:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1927–28 Beşiktaş JK season[edit]

1927–28 Beşiktaş JK season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Although Beşiktaş JK seasons are usually notable because they play in the top flight of Turkish football, I think this season is non-notable because of the simple fact that it was not held – no games were played at all. Jenks24 (talk) 11:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jenks24 (talk) 11:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Jenks24 (talk) 11:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jenks24 (talk) 11:55, 13 May 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) 00:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beccehamians RFC[edit]

Beccehamians RFC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:Notability. The only sources I can find are closely affiliated to the subject. The only reference given is British History Online and I will be surprised if the club is mentioned in that. Charles (talk) 10:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • So if we disregard the British History Online reference which seems to be spurious all we have is one mention in a primary source database closely affiliated to the subject. This comes nowhere near meeting the General notability guideline which requires significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. There is non of the independent discussion or assessment that would be needed to establish notability. The GNG must take precedence over any local notability guidelines invented by a special interest group. Unless a lot more coverage can be found the subject is not notable.--Charles (talk) 15:36, 28 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) 01:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A rugby union club is deemed notable if it has

  1. played in the top national competition of any nation,
  2. played in an officially recognized domestic or international competition organized by an International Rugby Board High Performance Union,
  3. been a founding member of a national rugby union/federation
  4. provided an administrator, player or coach of a High Performance Union.

If #2, then this criterion means there are a very large number of notable RU clubs in England and needs to be revised as notability is, by implication, exceptional rather the rule. Jpacobb (talk) 17:50, 5 May 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:22, 13 May 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) 00:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Hemisphere T20 Tournament[edit]

Southern Hemisphere T20 Tournament (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notability and importance. Plans for the tournament scrapped. SocietyBox (talk) 09:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 13 May 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. Issue raised by the nominator has been addressed now. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 17:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Sand[edit]

Nicholas Sand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLPSOURCES--There are none. Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all involved. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:27, 14 May 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) 00:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salma Shazia Fathima[edit]

Salma Shazia Fathima (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Second runner-up on a 2011 reality TV show, no assertion of notability per WP:BIO; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Scopecreep (talk) 06:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 06:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 06:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I forgot to mention the prod, thanks. I also forgot to mention that the article was created by a blocked sockpuppeteer, if that matters. Scopecreep (talk) 07:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 13 May 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 Church of Universal Triumph, Dominion of God. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dominion Ruler Church of Universal Triumph, Dominion of God[edit]

Dominion Ruler Church of Universal Triumph, Dominion of God (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not entirely convinced that the church itself is notable, it certainly dosen't have much coverage in the media, but this position certainly isn't. The article should be merged into Church of Universal Triumph, Dominion of God. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I vote that this article should not be deleted.This church and its leaders have great significance in chronicling the development and the expression of the afro-american religious subculture in the the urban United states of America.The United States of America is an important country and its subcultures are of great interest to the global community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adawablk (talk • contribs) 21:47, 15 May 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. v/r - TP 15:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fame Kills: Starring Kanye West and Lady Gaga[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Fame Kills: Starring Kanye West and Lady Gaga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This WP:RPDA is about an event that never happened. It is notable that the planned concerts and their subsequent cancellations occurred, this is not notable in its own right. This article violates WP:IINFO as it's a list of tour dates that never occurred with a few tibits of information. Any relevant information is already mentioned in The Monster Ball Tour - one sentence needs to be added to Kanye West and Lady Gaga. SplashScreen (talk) 11:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while information that may be notable enough to include in an article about the performers, it does fail WP:info Newmanoconnor (talk) 19:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 29 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) 01:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you would have known if you hadn't simply glanced at the AfD history, the current version of this page is very much different from the version that was deleted at the first AfD, thus speedy is not an option. You would have known this if you had looked through the points made at the second. The second AfD was about this current state of the article and there was not consensus to delete. I really don't appreciate you making rash decisions like this from a surface-level judgment on something you aren't familiar with. I !vote yet again to keep this as it was significantly improved from its initial state with numerous reliable sources. There is too much information here to merge it into the other articles without violating WP:UNDUE. –Chase (talk / contribs) 06:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This argument falls foul of WP:BHTT and WP:PLENTY. It doesn't matter whether there is "too much information" on the topic; we're here to argue over whether this information is notable in itself. In this case, it is not. SplashScreen (talk) 23:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not at all; we have a list of tour dates, prefixed by "Lady Gaga and Kanye West were going to tour, here's some random details about how 'gay' it was going to be what the stage might have looked like (trivia and WP:FANCRUFT) and here's a list of reasons why it may or may not have been cancelled (WP:SPECULATION)". Please explain what here justified its own article. SplashScreen (talk) 23:05, 6 May 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,  Sandstein  05:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll find that WP:IINFO is a policy. SplashScreen (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So what? It rather obviously doesn't support your argument here, since that list of dates isn't the only or even the predominant content. The article quite plainly includes the "sufficient explanatory text" IINFO calls for, which means that the policy argues against deleting this article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not when that text is fancruft and trivia about how "gay" (whatever that means) the show was going to be. SplashScreen (talk) 21:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note that WP:GNG says that "significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion". In this case, an announcement of a bunch of tour dates, some tabloid tittle tattle about how "gay" it is and a few rumours about its speedy cancellation are not concrete enough. This event had next to no WP:IMPACT on the careers of Lady Gaga, Kanye West or anybody else involved and the article dances on the periphery of WP:NOT#NEWS. Therefore, it does not deserve its own article. SplashScreen (talk) 10:38, 20 May 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) 00:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Education Agency Gold Performance Acknowledgment Criteria[edit]

Texas Education Agency Gold Performance Acknowledgment Criteria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Should probably be merged into the article Texas Education Agency if possible. J (t) 12:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Original author here--would not object if it were merged. Quidam65 (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 29 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) 01:36, 5 May 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,  Sandstein  05:23, 13 May 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) 00:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Odom[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Gene Odom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:BIO. Article was created by an advertising for "Gene Odom" -only account with no other edits other than to exploit wikipedia to promote Gene Odom and his websites. Was at Afd previously however due to lack of consensus for this Non-notable subject it was not deleted. Little has improved since. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article.

--Hu12 (talk) 04:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 05:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In addition to the product placement problem described by Hu12 above, which in and of itself would be grounds for deletion, this article clearly violates WP:BLP. Any and all references in the article are from the subject himself. -- Ultracobalt  (talk) 05:42, 13 May 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. Although it needs some cleanup, AfD is not the right place for it. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 17:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Santika Indonesia Hotels & Resorts[edit]

Santika Indonesia Hotels & Resorts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

is it self publish advertising? *Annas* (talk) 04:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:56, 13 May 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. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drakkar Noir[edit]

Drakkar Noir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is merely a list of mentions of the fragrance "Drakkar Noir" in various TV shows and songs. It might have existed, but there's nothing to show that it is any way notable independently. —Ryulong (竜龙) 03:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 05:14, 13 May 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) 00:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nymon lester[edit]

Nymon lester (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Internet searches for "Nymon Lester" come up with nothing reliable. The Le Monde citation can't be easily verified (contradictory dates are given) and the Daily News link goes nowhere. Possibly a hoax? Michitaro (talk) 02:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Once these speculations have been proven and published in reliable, independent sources, then the article can be created. Michitaro (talk) 02:58, 14 May 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.  Sandstein  08:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Make It Better Later[edit]

Make It Better Later (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found no notability for this band. Fails WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 02:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:40, 13 May 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) 00:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April West[edit]

April West (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Porn performer of no discernible significance. Fails all of the tenable PORNBIO alternatives; reported awards/noms are for sex scenes, which by consensus are insufficient to indicate notability. Apparently no GNews hits or nontrivial GBooks hits (name is common and brings up a large number of spurious hits). No reliably sourced biographical information. Only reference is a mislinked page which, if the proper page could be found, would only show an awards listing, so the article is functionally unsourced. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete -
  • the Avn source is primary and if this is a notable subject there must be a good secondary source out there.
  • the film count is inaccurate - three unreliable sources provide inconsistent numbers. Since the number cannot be WP:V it must be removed WP:BLP BO; talk 23:25, 13 May 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) 00:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Depend undergarment (neé Depend)[edit]

Depend undergarment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect to Dependency. A product should not have an article name that is a commonly used word regardless of market share. It is essentially product placement, although admittedly that probably wasn't the intention when the article was created in 2004. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 05:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 05:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So does this mean you are of the opinion that there should NOT be any article about the product? Why not? Oops, I see that I also said "redirect" above, but I meant to say that one version or the other should be kept. I did not bother to make the case for the product's notability since I thought it was obvious. But this is an extremely high-profile product, one whose very advertisements make news [12] [13] [14] and whose product updates get covered in significant, legitimate news stories - Reuters for example. I did not want to add these things to the article until I knew which version was going to survive, but there is plenty of sourcing out there. It looks as if UncleG has fixed the duplicate article problem so I will start to work on the article. I agree with you that the product is not the primary usage of the word "Depend"; that is why "undergarment" needed to be added. --MelanieN (talk) 15:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--User:bluefox79830 —Preceding undated comment added 02:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]


  • Here's the basic timeline of events.
  1. User:Alan Liefting blanked Depend and redirected it to Wiktionary. User:This, that and the other then redirected it to Dependency.
  2. I reverted the edits, bringing the article back, and was subsequently reverted by User:Alan Liefting. In the midst of the BRD cycle, User:Bzuk created a copy of the article at Depend undergarment.
  3. The original article was reinstated, and User:Alan Liefting nominated it for deletion.
  4. To resolve the duplicate article issue, User:Uncle G moved the original article to Depend undergarment, replacing the copy.
  5. User:MelanieN undertook a complete rewrite of the article.
We currently stand with the nominated article at a new location (Depend undergarment) and a redirect at its original location (Depend). I think that covers everything. - Eureka Lott 17:28, 14 May 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) 23:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Cogman[edit]

Bryan Cogman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

His writing roles are relatively minor and do not show notability per WP:CREATIVE. West Eddy (talk) 13:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added several citations about this writer; but even without them, the notion that a critically acclaimed writer for a critically acclaimed and immensely popular (record-breaking in Blu-Ray sales) show is not notable is patently absurd. Keep this article, don't support rampant deletionism.Ashwinr (talk) 19:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 29 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, 6 May 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, 13 May 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 with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:21, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Ferro[edit]

Dan Ferro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No references other than IMDB provided which is not considered reliable. My attempts to establish notability through WP:GNG - no further sources located - and WP:NACTOR - has not been in a significant number of notable films etc - failed. Jay Σεβαστόςdiscuss 13:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 29 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, 6 May 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, 13 May 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) 23:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Apan[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Tiffany Apan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This artist doesn't meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, either under NMUSIC or BASIC. The coverage is inadequate to be considered "significant" or "in-depth", even taken in aggregate. The claim (made in the previous AfD) that her inclusion on compilation albums satisfies the notability requirements is not correct, as there is no suggestion that the compilation albums are themselves notable. Bongomatic 03:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 6 May 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, 13 May 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.  Sandstein  05:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Annette Betté Kellow[edit]

Annette Betté Kellow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable actress and erotic dancer. Cameron Scott (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to switching my vote if acceptable sources are found and added. Clearly she's an interesting person. My sense is the IMDb is generally not a good source (since it often depends on users themselves to supply information); but I agree it is a good idea to keep open-minded about the possibility of new sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The filmwork may be verified directly to the work itself. IMDB is decent enough as a external link in that it offers information with which to expand searches... but of course not as a citation. I'll take a look a bit later toward the needed expansion and sourcing, as is work of which I am reasonably able. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly she is a burlesque dancer and credible performer but what we really need here is what Wikipedia calls reliable sources which are verifiable -- newspaper articles, magazines, TV show airings, books, etc. Generally we do not accept YouTube videos or sites like MUZU (since it wasn't a real reporter, but an upload by somebody named Pip Ellwood). Are there local magazines which have articles about Kellow? Or burlesque-oriented publications? Suggest do a search using this string: ("annette kellow" OR "annette bette kellow" OR "annette Betté kellow" OR "annette Bettè kellow" OR "annette b kellow") and looking through all the SERP pages until you can find sources which meet the RS guideline above. If you need guidance write on my talk page.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:00, 9 May 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, 13 May 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) 23:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

67: The Maple Leafs, Their Sensational Victory, and the End of an Empire[edit]

67: The Maple Leafs, Their Sensational Victory, and the End of an Empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I see nothing to distinguish this book. It's merely a description of a sporting team/victory; admittedly, a particularly famed one, but the book on the subject does not seem to have the notability of its subject, or indeed any notability at all. Even the article cites merely the book itself. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 6 May 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, 13 May 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. Consensus is to delete because of lack of independent, reliable sources. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bodyspace[edit]

Bodyspace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found no reliable coverage for this website. SL93 (talk) 22:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 7 May 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, 13 May 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.
More