Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 January 26

< 25 January	27 January >

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. Cirt (talk) 00:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Currency Cards

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

SPAM-fork of Stored-value card, no references. MBisanz ^talk 23:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; seems to have been written with dubious motives. No prejudice against a redirect here, but this article needs to go as an unreferenced and unnecessary fork. ~ mazca ^talk 12:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as per consensus. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 01:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SoundTracker

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

Apparently non-notable software. No independent third-party sources, despite the presence of a primarysources cleanup tag since February 2009. Psychonaut (talk) 23:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per nom, due to lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 00:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to keep as well, I think this one can be closed. JBsupreme (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All that I can find for significant coverage is [1]. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Keep: Per Pcap. Joe Chill (talk) 21:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per:
- Phillips, David (2001-01-01). "A Profile of SoundTracker". Linux Journal. Retrieved 2010-01-27.

which cites:

- Phillips, Dave (2000). Linux music & sound : how to install, configure, and use Linux audio software. San Francisco: No Starch Press. ISBN 9781886411340.

--Karnesky (talk) 16:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Karnesky. LotLE×talk 20:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meh. Also found tutorial in LinuxPlanet (part of internet.com sites). Not mentioned in more recent articles tough (these are from 2001-2002), and no mention in non-Linux contexts. It doesn't look that much music was produce with it though; mostly geekness factor. It's still part of Planet CCRMA, so maybe it has some relevance; dunno much about music production. Actually it's the only tracker software included there, so it's probably the most notable Linux one. Pcap ping 01:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to OS News, "Audacity [...] and SoundTracker, which are known to be for amateurs and far from professional tools". Emphasis added. This seems confirmed by a browsing of linux boards. Also, I've sound 3 different reviews from major publications, which I have added to the article as references [2]¨¨ victor falk 09:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; references have since been provided establishing notability. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aldrin (software)

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

Apparently non-notable software. No independent third-party sources, despite the presence of a primarysources cleanup tag since August 2008. The article's only reference is to a review on a blog. Psychonaut (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If your only source is a blog review, you're probably not notable. JBsupreme (talk) 00:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Linux Journal source (which is good source, not a blog). LotLE×talk 20:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Linux Journal itself is not a blog, but it hosts blogs, and the reference to Aldrin given in the article is to one of the blogs. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, but the author of that entry, Dave (or David) Phillips is also a published author with some authority in the field of audio software. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SoundTracker. Pcap ping 01:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Seems rather obscure, with no other independent coverage besides that blog-like article. Also, this article was created by User:Paniq. Pcap ping 03:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; the only source turned up in this discussion is a blog review. The blog may be hosted by Linux Journal, but it's still a blog, not an editorially reviewed, published article. —Psychonaut (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Psychonaut. The reason some news sources and journals have blogs is to allow minor coverage of things that do not rise to the level of notoriaty or importance that the publication generally requires. Novaseminary (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Pleasure Syndicate

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

Contested PROD. While members of this group may be notable, the group itself is not. Not even the (now removed) spam link selling a currently unpublished book mentions a group called "The Pleasure Syndicate" Steamroller Assault (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the to-be-published book is a legitimate link, not spam. It is a link to a noteworthy publishing house, Random House. See here: http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780307592163. The group only recently decided to collectively call themselves by the name The Pleasure Syndicate, which is why it is nowhere to be found--yet! They have written together for years, and now do so under the name The Pleasure Syndicate. Please let me know if you have any further questions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mberliet (talk • contribs) 22:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Since the link you provided is indeed selling the book mentioned, it qualifies as spam. Please give that link a read. Also, take a look at the notability guideline for groups, to determine whether "The Pleasure Syndicate" warrants its own article. However, since by the Original Poster's own admission that "The Pleasure Syndicate" is a non-notable group, this article may now qualify for speedy deletion. Steamroller Assault (talk) 22:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as individuals rthey may be notable, but the group they have formed has yet to achieve notability. There are no reliable sources writing about them now. If that changes in the future, then would be the time for an article. -- Whpq (talk) 18:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Montreal Oil Refining Center

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

Completely unsourced, may have been copy-pasted from somewhere. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 21:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, a note: there's a current WP:RM running on the article, which I'm fairly sure is at least partially what prompted this request. I pretty much raised the concern about this list being somewhat indiscriminate during the RM discussion, since a list of Oil Refineries which happen to be located in geographically close proximity to Montreal isn't exactly the most discriminating list criteria. That being said, Blanchardb (talk · contribs) did point out that they are colloquially referred to by the [Quebeqois] as "quartier des raffineries", so the association seems to be valid. In the end I think that the article needs work (starting with a rename, IMO; continuing with some serious referencing), but it's still a valid article. Of course, I'm just there for the RM really, so in the end it's not all that important to me, but that's my take on the whole situation.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 01:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. User:CorenSearchBot/manual says that Montreal Oil Refining Center, as of 01:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC), did not appear to be a copyright violation. – Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note on comment: it's important to not overestimate CSBot's assessment either: while it has a reasonably low false positive rate, a negative means little except "I couldn't find an obvious copy" not that it isn't one. — Coren ^(talk) 18:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd like to know what makes this article a suspect in the first place.¨¨ victor falk 10:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If in fact the cluster is never referred to as a whole, I support deletion. 117Avenue (talk) 03:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly oppose deletion! Of course the cluster is always refered too as a whole when people talk of the refineries in Montréal! People don't say the shell refinery, or the esso refenery! In fact, I looked up this article in order to know how many refeneries there were in the cluster and what were their names! --YapaTi (talk) 14:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unsourced is no reason to delete, and the allegations of copyvio seem to be made of thin air.¨¨ victor falk 10:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the comment above there dose not seem to be a major copyvio problem. The article dose need a lot of clean up and references. Kyle1278 20:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this article cannot stay at the current title, in its current form. However, it does not necessarily need to be deleted. Currently, there is no claim to notability, and without references showing notability, it cannot stay as it is. However, if it were moved, per the WP:RM discussion, and modified to fit the new name, it plausibly can remain. I would ask for a procedural close until the WP:RM discussion has had a chance to run its course. DigitalC (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, reference, rename and improve. A notable district spanning a great deal of Montreal's east end, particularly the city of Montreal East. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per G7 (author requests deletion). MrKIA11 (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dorset Multimedia

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

This company is now defunct, and the article can be removed. Jacob S. ^grafitti 21:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per G7 (author requests deletion). MrKIA11 (talk) 22:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warfare (video game)

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

This game's development, as well as it's developer; are now defunct. This page currently does not have any purpose to be on Wikipedia any longer. Jacob S. ^grafitti 21:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Significant coverage in multiple, independent, and reliable sources seems to have been shown. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

7 Hertz

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

Contested CSD, Non-notable band. Ridernyc (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:N. South Bay (talk) 22:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, or anything else that would meet WP:BAND. Glenfarclas (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Shadowjams (talk) 07:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:BAND, a group must be the subject of multiple non-trivial published works. My searches have them coming up short; the best coverage I'm finding is this review, which only offers a couple sentences about the band. Gongshow ^Talk 01:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep based on the findings by Powelldinho and Camembert; coverage for subject is sufficient to satisfy WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 01:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the creator of this article, I'm deeply saddened by this discussion. The group have a page on the very notable Pitchfork Media website, and have been mentioned often in this review of an album that already happily exists on Wikipedia; their impact on the album is the same as David Thomas Broughton's, and this impact is reflected in its title. This album has also been reviewed by PopMatters [3] and Tiny Mix Tapes [4]. 7 Hertz also have a page on Allmusic, which goes on to give details of an album under their own name. It is possible to purchase their solo record and the one with David Thomas Broughton through a number of significant outlets, including the Rough Trade [5] shops. Powelldinho (talk) 16:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are reasonably substantial gig reviews here and here and they've also made a couple of appearances on Resonance FM. A longish review of them appeared in the Harrogate Advertiser on 22 February 2007, which seems to not be archived on the paper's website, but is on the band's myspace page. I strongly suspect that they've had further coverage in print media, but of course this isn't terribly easy to search for (I can have a go if people insist on it). This is on top of the coverage they received for their collaborations with David Thomas Broughton. --Camembert (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sadananda Prusty

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

A completely unsourced biography of a living person with no evidence of passing WP:PROF. Google scholar citations are minimal to nonexistent. An earlier version of the article was longer but no more informative, and included two copyvio sentences; I declined the G12 speedy nomination because the rest of the article's text seemed sufficiently novel. This was also prodded as part of the recent push to get rid of unsourced BLPs, but the article's creator removed both the prod and the unsourcedBLP tag without improving the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No coverage in independent reliable sources to indicate general notability, and no evidence of significant academic impact through publication record. Hqb (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. I couldnt find any credible sources to verify notability. I will reconsider my position if any are posted. --Stormbay (talk) 23:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- –SpacemanSpiff 01:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Near-zero GS cites. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom fails GNG in a bad way. JBsupreme (talk) 08:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - 11 Ghits at Google scholar are not bad, but not great either. Chair of the library (committee?), but not of his department? Bearian (talk) 22:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 seems to be that there are not enough reliable sources to indicate notability per the relevant guidelines. NW (Talk) 01:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Snyder

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

From another editor's PROD that was removed: Local DJ. Not notable outside of her area. No reliable sources to prove otherwise. Eeekster (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - other than fb and myspace, I literally can't find that she even exists from several Google searches, which to be says that she's not even close to notable. Her bio is not even on the Snide blog linked to this page. By the way, there is a Wendy Snyder who is notable, and she's a psychologist. Bearian (talk) 22:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete - been on radio in Chicago almost 25 years, currently on WLS-AM, heard in 38 states and Canada, WLS-AM, mentioned in a book about Radio, The Radio Producer's Handbook, dabbles in acting, IMDb, her new podcast has broken iTunes top 50 Comedy podcasts, reaching as high as #37, Illinois Entertainer, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.194.190.20 (talk) 13:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Without RSs to support notability, article should go. In addition, 65.194.190.20 might have a COI since that IP address is registered to the parent corporation of the radio station the subject of the article appears on. Novaseminary (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable outside of Chicago area. I'm not even sure how notable she is in Chicago area. ProveYouAreHuman (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete - Wendy Snyder has been a Chicago radio institution for 25 years and she has been a major contributor to some of the biggest news and talk radio shows in Chicago. There are many Chicago radio personalities with not nearly as much recognition currently gracing the pages of Wikipedia. And some of them are not even in the business anymore. Wendy continues to have an active and successful radio and podcasting career. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.142.74.174 (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete While less notable outside of Chicago, Chicago is one of the largest radio markets in the United States. Wendy Snyder may not be the biggest name in radio, but she has worked with and for many of the greats which makes her a good cross-reference point. NascragMan (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, default to delete per subject request.. NW (Talk) 01:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolay Sergeyevich Borisov

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

The subject doesn't appear to satisfy WP:ACADEMIC. Furthermore, the article is based on a single source, probably written by Borisov himself. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Important note: The subject of the article has emailed me (I am almost positive it is not a forged email) to indicate that he would like to have to article deleted. NW (Talk) 12:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. This is certainly something to keep in mind, but not enough for me to change my !vote yet. He is a reasonably prominent academic, and the article does not contain nor has it contained in the past any potentially negative or controversial information; same goes for the Russian Wikipedia article about him. So I do not see any potentially significant BLP issues here, which is what I would need to see in a non-marginal notability case to sway in favor of deletion. Nsk92 (talk) 12:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

for academics, it usually means they are so insulted by having their notability even questions that they would rather have nothing at all than see the discussion continue. I can well understand, but given there is already a discussion, and it will probably conclude with finding him notable, I don;t think it need concern us too much--the concerns can be met by blanking the AfD. For someone who is almost certainly not notable, then I can in fact see the advantage of cutting the discussion short. I am generally opposed to letting the subject have any particular weight beyond anyone else, but looking at it this way, I can see the point of DONOHARM, when the discussion will be primarily a negative one. that does not seem to apply here. DGG ( talk ) 23:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, your argument is very reasonable, but unfortunately, it suffers from you not having all the facts at your disposal. I'm not really sure that I can go into further detail, but I am intentionally not giving all the facts behind the rationale for requesting deletion. NW (Talk) 00:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep considering the publications [6]. They, and the academic rank, (Chairman & full professor at Moscow State University) are sufficient to show him an authority in his field. Doesn't matter in the least who wrote the article, because the sourcing from an official CV is a RS for what he wrote, which is the basis of the notability. I call attention to a discussion at AN/I. DGG ( talk ) 22:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. DGG is correct: Moscow State University is the number one university in Russia in terms of prestige and being a full professor there is already pretty much a guarantee of academic notability. GoogleBooks also gives substantial results: 73 hits[7] for his full name in Russian (Николай Сергеевич Борисов) and 397 hits[8] for abbreviation of his name, Н. С. Борисов. For the latter search there are a few false positives, but after I looked more closely, it was clear that the great majority of hits relate to him. GoogleBooks has much more limited search data in Russian than in English so I think these results are fairly impressive. He did win a national-level literary award (the Metripolitan Macarius Prize). While the other award, from Molodaya Gvardiya, is from the publishing house where his book was published, the award is certainly a plus. In fact, Molodaya Gvardiya is an 85-year-old publishing house and "Zhizn' zamechatel'nikh lyudei" (Life of Remarkable People) is an old and popular book series, so having published a book there at all is already pretty good. Being shortlisted for the Alexander Nevsky prize is also a plus. Similarly, being a candidate in the Russian Academy of Sciences elections is indicative of academic notability. For academy membership it is not possible to self-nominate; you have to be nominated either by one of the members of the academy or by one of scientific councils (by a secret ballot) authorized to award advanced degrees. This makes for quite a solid case for passing WP:PROF, criterion 1. Nsk92 (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- An extra cmnt re Alexandr Nevsky Prize. This [9] newsrelease from the Union of Writers of Russia indicates that there were several iterations in the competition and that Borisov's book was one of the 12 finalists. Specifically it says that "out of 50 entries admitted to the last stage of the competition", the short list of 12 entries (including Borisov's) was selected; the three prize winners were chosen from these 12. So Borisov was a finalist in the competition, even if he did not win the Nevsky prize. Nsk92 (talk) 01:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ on basis of analyses above. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep as per Xxanthippe.Varsovian (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per subject's request. nableezy - 19:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Where was that request made?~~Varsovian (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the important note at the top of the page. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the brain failure. Now that I have engaged my brain I think very much along the same lines as Nsk92.Varsovian (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a courtesy as per subject's request. Might be weak keep otherwise, but I see no crucial encyclopedic interest here that would make an article on him obviously necessary. Subjects' requests of this sort, especially in cases of otherwise non-controversial bios where they do not appear to be motivated by self-promotion, desire to avoid legitimate critical scrutiny or the like, but simply by a desire for privacy, should generally be honoured in my view. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on basis of above argument on subject's desire for privacy. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Per Nsk92 and DGG, does not seem of marginal notability, and there don't seem to be any real BLP/privacy issues.John Z (talk) 06:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets criterion for academic notability. I see no reason to heed the request by subject for deletion should be disregarded, without some kind of valid motivation. ¨¨ victor falk 11:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicted keep. If there was no request for deletion from the article's subject, I believe Nsk92 has done an excellent job fleshing out reliable sources, and this would be a clear keep. However, I'm hesitant due to the subject's deletion request. If someone chooses to be in the public eye, they can't very well say "no Wikipedia article", even if they are "marginally notable" (whatever that means). If someone has not sought out fame, but has become notable in their field through sheer hard work, I'm more inclined to respect their wishes, even if they are somewhat more than "marginally notable". In this case, because the article subject has evidently chosen to host a television program, that meets my "chooses to be in the public eye" criterion, and I believe the article should not be deleted. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom , not notable--NotedGrant Talk 17:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Neutral per Nsk92. Unless the man googles himself in English every day, it's quite strange how he found this article only couple of days after it was posted here, and how he presumably emailed the admin who declined the CSD. Arguably, he had a bio on the Russian Wikipedia for much longer. I don't see evidence he tried to have that deleted. There have been no BLP issues with this article either. I'd be willing to reconsider if an OTRS ticket is posted. Pcap ping 18:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're calling my integrity into question regarding this issue, then I can ask for him to email OTRS. Would you like for me to do that? NW (Talk) 21:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not your integrity, but you may be assuming too much good faith in the realm of WP:EEML shenanigans. I suggest you forward the email with full headers to OTRS. Pcap ping 22:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Upon further consideration, his bio isn't linked from anywhere useful on this Wikipedia, so while he qualifies per WP:PROF, not a whole lot is lost here (unlike the Russian Wikipedia [10]), assuming he was really the one who sent that email. Pcap ping 13:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry? No links is in no way a reason for deletion, merely for tagging with the {{orphan}} template. I must say I missed the ru:wiki article, and upon reading it, it is clear that he meets several of the criteria WP:ACADEMIC. ¨¨ victor falk 02:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While it has been shown that the subject is just notable, he is not a public figure, has requested deletion, and as Fut.Perf. says we do no harm to the encyclopedia by not having this article. Kevin (talk) 23:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No public figure? Conducts program "History of Russia. Lectures" on channel Bibigon.¨¨¨ victor falk 02:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - barely notable, and the subject requests deletion. That's good enough for me - Alison ^❤ 08:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Presenter on a children's TV show and some academic work, third prizes and finalist positions and the like, prizes and awards from his publisher, dodgy sources == barely notable. Subject request seals deal. Delete ++Lar: t/c 16:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Russian takes history seriously. They wouldn't wouldn't pick up a name out of a hat to educate the youth on a major television channel. ¨¨ victor falk 02:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per subject's request. Also seems to not meet notability criteria SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 04:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In what way does this not meet WP:PROF? DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete-Neutral~~As per subjects request and the limited notability.~~ ~~Off2riorob (talk) 05:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)~~ I am moving to neutral, and almost to a keep, there does after reading some comments, appear to be a good claim to notability and I didn't realize that there was no confirmation that the request for deletion isn't verified. Off2riorob (talk) 22:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it limited, I see it as being at a very high academic level, and I've given above my view on why we should dicsount the subject's view--he's just embarrassed at this discussion, as well he might be, and deleting the article won;t cure it. DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Borderline notability + a personal request for deletion? Do the right thing people. JBsupreme (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unquestionably notable and prominent professor. Embarassment and self-effacement do not keep somebody from going down in history if their accomplishments are sufficient, and Professor Borisov's are (see DGG's analysis of his academic status above). Ray^Talk 08:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paniq

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

Delete, NN BLP which fails GNG and WP:MUSIC. JBsupreme (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:BLP. South Bay (talk) 22:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't feel qualified to judge the sources or awards in this article, but the only hit in the google news is this piece about the software he wrote, which happens to be the only coverage of that software I could find; the software is also at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aldrin_(software). Apparently, an autobiography of Special:Contributions/Paniq. Pcap ping 02:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RaidMyRoom

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

Yet another social networking site. I can't find any references to this outside of Wikipedia and the site itself. Seems completely obscure and non-noteworthy. —Chowbok ☠ 20:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThisArticle. The text relies solely on primary sources which is a huge no-no. JBsupreme (talk) 20:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 01:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 01:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buzztard

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

Delete. This is a non-notable clone of another barely-notable audio tools package. Lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All that I can find for significant coverage is [11]. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 03:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the article Joe found, as well as the second part. --Karnesky (talk) 16:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources in article and identified by Karnesky. LotLE×talk 20:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per that two-part Linux Journal article. I wasn't able to find other sources besides that fact that they had a demo at this conference. I would also support a merge with the article this software is a clone of. Pcap ping 00:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Stone (British businessman)

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

The main evidence of the subject’s notability is one interview in a local paper, the remaining sources are trade press coverage of the subject’s company with the subject briefly quoted. I think this falls short of notability requirements. Cassandra 73 (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete as is now, unless reliable sources showing notability can be provided. PamelaBMX (talk) 19:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete SPA editor, Google has only one mention which is his own website, clearly not notable yet.Teapotgeorge^Talk 20:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keito Takimoto

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

Not enough verifiable evidence of notability. The sole claimed support role could not be verified after an incursion in the anime official page. There isn't enough verifiable major, support and minor role to constitute a "voice actor career" and thus it can't pass WP:ENTERTAINER. In addition there is no article for this person on the Japanese Wikipedia. For all of this, i think this article should be removed and thus Delete. KrebMarkt 19:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --KrebMarkt 19:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- allen四names 08:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is neither asserted nor shown. Edward321 (talk) 17:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Built Construction

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

Glad these folks were "Best Remodeler" of Howard County, Maryland for two years straight, but I don't think that really confers notability. —Chowbok ☠ 19:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Substantive sources mentioned would all appear to be of limited interest and circulation. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 04:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

C. S. Menon

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

I deprodded it, but I think it should come here. An Indian academic with a significant leadership position, but not significant enough to meet WP:PROF on that basis alone. A very high number of peer-reviewed papers for the subject, 117, according to Scopus) , but none of them especially significant. (highest citation counts, 41, 40, 37, 23, 20) h=10. We've had a number of AfD discussions of people with similar records,and I think the results have not been consistent. Sometimes the result depends on what people here think of the work, but this isn't a field where I can judge. DGG ( talk ) 19:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- –SpacemanSpiff 01:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- –SpacemanSpiff 01:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Cites a little low for this topic. May be an article created too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. His citation record is not bad but it is not strong enough to meet WP:PROF #1, and his administrative position is high but not quite high enough to meet #6. Notability is the max of one's individual accomplishments, not the sum. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein. Salih (talk) 03:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bailey Quarters

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

Non-notable minor fictional character from WKRP. article has been restored post-merge, twice. It is mostly plot summary and OR/SYNTH, and the "sources" are seem to amount to every trivial ghit out there. The only commentary on offer is: this; not enough, in my opinion. Delete. Jack Merridew 19:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 19:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 19:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is the second time that someone has merged this article with no notice and no prior discussion. The comments above in favor of merger or deletion are so far divorced from what is actually in the article that I am led to question whetehr Mr Merridew even bothered to read either the article or the source material. What is meant by "the only commentary on offer"? Who's offering, other than you? There is ample "real world" secondary coverage of the subject matter, beyond the particular source you reference, and are cited in the article. The article qualifies for notability under the standards of Wikipedia, is well sourced and indeed meets and exceeds the standard for a "Good" article. Fladrif (talk) 19:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article was previously merged, not merged a second (or moar) time. There is more than adequate coverage at WKRP in Cincinnati#Characters. I have read the article, thanks, and reviewed all the 'sources' on offer, which is what I referred to above as 'commentary'. The source I called-out is lightweight and from a self-published source, but at least it is a few paragraphs on the character while all the others amount to passing mentions dredged up with Google. Happy editing, Jack Merridew 19:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be precise, it wasn't merged in either instance. First, it was redirected by User: Eusebeus on September 26, 2009 without prior notice, proposal or discussion, and again by the same editor on September 28, 2009. It was restored (twice), extensively edited, and discussed on the Talk Page. Eusebeus apparently was satisfied, as he let the matter drop. Second, it was once again redirected by you on January 18, 2010, again without prior notice, proposal or discussion. After I restored it, you commenced this AFD. Fladrif (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, you've been editwaring with at least three other editors about redirecting this character article to a more appropriate summary in the list of characters. Happy editing, Jack Merridew 20:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. In other words, you don't know the difference between a merger and a redirect, you've mischaracterized your own actions here, and you can't count. And, I'd venture that you don't know what an editwar is either, except that it's pretty clear from your edit history and talkpage that you know exactly what an editwar is, and that my edits on this article don't qualify as even a minor skirmish.Fladrif (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
sometime 2+2=5. Happy editing, Jack Merridew 21:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She wasn't a "minor" character on the show, FWIW.—Chowbok ☠ 19:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not sure what's wrong with all those book refs. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
trivial mentions dredged up off teh interwebs. They amount to faking references; the bar is higher. Jack Merridew 20:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's called research. If you actually have a substantive comment to make in support of your proposal, I'm sure we'd all be interested in reading it. Fladrif (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's called a low standard of referencing. The appropriate outcome here is ditching this heap of fanwank and using the "Hathor Legacy" piece to add a brief nugget of encyclopaedic content to the character summary in the list. Happy editing, Jack Merridew 21:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per consensus about secondary characters. Eusebeus (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The premise of your argument is fatally flawed. Bailey is one of the seven principal characters in an ensemble cast, not a secondary character.Fladrif (talk) 22:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jan Smithers, the actress who portrayed her on WKRP in Cincinnati. Mandsford (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, if it's redirected, it should be redirected to the WKRP article.—Chowbok ☠ 16:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It doesn't effect our notability rules (which revolve around what I can show you online, right now) but people seem to think she is a minor or medium character from the show. She is not, she is one of the few main characters. The show takes place in a radio station set, with the same characters every episode.. She was one of these main characters. Google books keeps bringing up non-viewable books, but I can say with a high degree of confidence, based on five years of finding and not finding refs to save articles, that sources do exist. She's a major character, from an influential show. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. She got maybe the least airtime of the main characters (either her or Venus Flytrap), but she was indeed one of the principals. That plus the woman in a man's job aspect and the Bailey vs. Jennifer comparison (a la Ginger vs. Mary Ann) tip the scales for me. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly one of the principals, and I see no convincing evidence that the references are in any way "faked". Powers ^T 13:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as one of the principal characters in show with coverage such as [12], and [13]. -- Whpq (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per being a major character in a notable series. Sorry Jack, nothing minor about Bailey. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: One of the principal characters in a notable series. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient sources to indicate notability. Nominator's accusation of faking references is troubling and false. Edward321 (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 22:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scream Tracker

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

Delete. Fails GNG with a lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 19:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge to tracker (music software). Salon (magazine) article and some 20 google books give this as one of the early and notable tracker software (together with Impulse Tracker, which has been deleted and userified despite having 14 gbooks hits), but despite widespread mention, there's not much to be said about individual incarnations of this type of software. So, we'd either have to agree that many book mentions make it notable enough for an article, or merge all such software that gets sufficient mentions in the article that describes their kind. Pcap ping 19:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 20:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pcap. LotLE×talk 03:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pcap. bbx (talk) 04:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Watch this youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4mJ58VtPFw ¨¨ victor falk 10:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a nice song to listen to victor, but how is it relevant in terms of WP:N ...? I am guessing there are probably a multitude of examples you could show for any software application being used on YouTube so I am wondering what the importance is here. JBsupreme (talk) 21:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lal Wickrematunge

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

Delete. Editor in chief of a Sri Lankan newspaper, but yet somehow still fails GNG. JBsupreme (talk) 18:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This may explain the lack of coverage: "Pariahs of the Fourth Estate". - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable journalist, editor of major newspaper, published in English newspapers. Rebecca (talk) 03:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Nomination withdrawn with no deletion-supporting opines. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 19:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trepanation (disambiguation)

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

I've tried to get this deleted via CSD and PROD, because I thought this was a fairly straightforward scenario, however others don't seem to agree, so I'll completely flesh it out here. This article has 5 entries, but links to only three articles: Trepan (drill bit), Trepanation, Trepanation (album). The other two enteries should just be deleted per WP:DISAMBIG, because they are dictionary entries. That leaves three links. Currently trepanation redirects to trepanning therefore that eliminates the need for that link; trepan (drill bit) is covered by the disambig at trepan. That leaves trepanation (album), of which I put a hatnote up for that at trepanning. Therefore this disambig is of no use and should be deleted. Moreover, prior to the incorrect addition of a link at trepan, nothing links to this disambig page. Wizard191 (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: To take you last point first, Redirects should be orphans. As for the rest:

the page is a useful summary of the sub-subjects
all the links go somewhere useful
none of your objections to the page seem to match any of the criteria listed at Wikipedia:Redirects#When should we delete a redirect?, while there are good reasons listed there to keep it eg who knows what incoming links from elsewhere on the web there are.

-Arb. (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a disambiguation page not a redirect. That's a critical difference. When the title of the disambiguation page has "(disambiguation)" in the title it's because there's a prominent article that's the most common context, but that there are multiple other contexts (usually more than 1 or 2 depending on who you ask), thus the existence of the disambig page. In this case there's only 1 other context, therefore this is handled with the hatnote at trepanning. Wizard191 (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's as may be - but while this page isn't a redirect, Arb's points stand - the links do go to useful targets, and the page provides a useful but brief indication of each different entry. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. It is not a redirect. (Note to self: do not edit when short of sleep). My other points stand. -Arb. (talk) 10:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per -Arb. The page looks like a reasonable disambiguation page to me, and isn't structured in such a way as to offer confusing or non-intuitive links. The entries match or closely match the title. So long as there are more than two reasonable uses of the term, as we have here, a disambiguation page is warranted. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The concept of inclusion criteria, in the traditional sense, as applied to articles in mainspace, does not apply to DABS. If there is more than one article that a reader could be looking for when searching a certain title or keyword, a DAB can provide a quick summary of each article to aid in navigation. This DAB does not create confusion for readers where only one article is a reasonable target for the keyword, and therefore is useful. Hatnotes alone cannot replace the usefulness of a dab, which can explain in adequate detail what each article covers. This was adequaely explained to the nom by 2 other editors when nom tried to CSD and then to PROD the page. Note that nom then culled much of the contents of the DAB in what looked like an effort to subsequently argue that it was not substantial or useful; under the misguided concept that the contents should not be on this DAB because they were already on anther DAB. Nom seems to at least partially miss the point of DABS, and should probably study up on them at WP:DAB, WP:MOSDAB and wikiproject disambiguation before attempting to cull/delete others. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 20:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per the above responses, I would like to retract this nomination. Wizard191 (talk) 15:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 00:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clifford B. Hicks

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

Non-notable author. While his books may have been published for many years, I'm not seeing sources on him that would warrant an individual article. None of the information about him (birth, death, family, career) is sourced. MBisanz ^talk 18:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The Marvelous Inventions of Alvin Fernald, published 50 years ago, is still in print, along with the rest of the series. Disney adapted two of the books into a TV movie. How much more notable would an author have to be? I mean, come on. We're not talking about some one-book wonder who sold a couple thousand copies. Not that a web search is evidence of anything, but there are currently 15,000+ references to the aforementioned book. Nairebis (talk) 00:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This person seems undeniably notable although his article is not properly wikified in this regard in terms of citations and such.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added a Contemporary Authors reference and stubbed the article. There are some old reviews of his work visible in the Google News archive results; I'll see if I can track any of them down. Zagalejo^^^ 07:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He also seems to be profiled in this book. Zagalejo^^^ 08:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient sources, sufficient indication of notability. Edward321 (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 22:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Harris (software developer)

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

Non-notable game designer, one interview is from a game selling company's website and the other is from a usergroup enthusiasts site. Not seeing that it meets the standard WP:BIO. MBisanz ^talk 18:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Delete - non notable biography. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)~~ Switch to Weak Keep - I was able to find quiet a few references to him as the developer of Frogger (see http://books.google.com/books?q=frogger+harris&btnG=Search+Books), which is perhaps notable. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 00:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:BIO. Warrah (talk) 01:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 15:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 16:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: did you have a look for any potential print sources? Anything before 1998 in this industry tends to be better covered in print sources rather than online ones. Just an observation. -- Sabre (talk) 20:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The mention in Levy's book and the interviews nudge it towards notable, but it would definitely be nicer if there was more information and sources. LotLE×talk 20:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Does anyone here own a copy of Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution? I would like to know what sort of coverage he received from that book before I make a decision. JBsupreme (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To answer JBsupreme’s question, I don’t have the book on hand but read it 25 years ago. The book talks extensively about John Harris, devoting a chapter or two to him. It talks about Mr. Harris’ difficulties of getting a girl to date him because of his social awkwardness, as well as his bout of depression when he lost his first copy of Frogger (he had to rewrite the game). Samboy (talk) 09:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Via Amazon I can tell that at the least Chapter 16 of the book covers him in significant depth. Hobit (talk) 11:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not going to !vote without looking properly, but I am deeply troubled that Harris appears to dispute the truthfulness of the Hackers interview (specifically the part Samboy mentions above) in the second/online interview. Considering Hackers could well be the most extensive source available, and this is a BLP, there may be a problem here. Someoneanother 12:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Two questions. #1 Where did you find he was disputing the truthfulness of the interview? I'm not seeing anything. #2 The book looks very detailed indeed and so other sources can be used. Hobit (talk) 14:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this interview from Halcyon Days (book), the first three Q&As specifically; "and yet there were some things that were disturbing", "There are some mild inaccuracies and exaggerations throughout the rest of the book, but not too many major things that change the basic story", "Levy made it sound like I was a walking hormone" and "Steve Levy knew the truth about all of this, and about how much it bothered me, but for some reason he either didn't believe it, or chose to ignore it, and decided to write his own version which he presumably felt had more journalistic appeal." It doesn't exactly put Levy's book in the best light. Someone another 19:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with relevant articles such as Frogger and Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution. Wikipeterproject (talk) 02:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite Covered in pages 313-329 (at least) of 'Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution'. Search inside Amazon's copy. In the preface, John Harris is one of 4 hackers Levy mentions as "the spirit and soul of computing itself". There are several print mentions in 1984-1985 I can find referenced online including an feature article in California, Volume 9. He's also mentioned in an article called "Teens Tackle Programming" in Infoworld April 30, 1984 saying that he "made 200 to 300 grand" (1984 dollars!) from Sierra Online as a young programmer. Given the significant pre-1995 coverage, offline sources are going to be more useful here. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

London Betty

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

Related to this AfD. I can't find any coverage in secondary reliable sources to demonstrate that this film is notable. The article creator, Indie Movies, is constantly adding (and, in some cases, readding previously deleted) non-notable films and has been brought up on the conflict of interest noticeboard twice now (the latest showing that the IP may be a sockpuppet), bringing to light that every other film is released by Maverick Entertainment Group. Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 20:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: These six AfDs are also related.

That's all of them so far. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 21:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and send to cleanup to remove promotional tone. A pity that the article author is adding stuff for non-notable films, and he sure could use some schooling in MOS, but since it has won some awards, at least London Betty seems to be pushing toward meeting WP:NF [14], [15], [16]. ~~Might be worth considering a merge to the article on the Bikini Bloodbath series.~~ Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ascidian | talk-to-me 17:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This AfD was not listed on a log page so I have re-listed it. ascidian | talk-to-me 17:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per MichaelQSchmidt. It appears to have some pedigree and a few recognizable B-list actors. Warrah (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Schmidt. Joe Chill (talk) 01:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's been cleaned up. Now time to source the awards and accolades. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ted lang

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

Non-notable autobiography (or at least a strong conflict of interest VernoWhitney (talk) 17:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not only a blatant and promotional COI/auto BLP, but I'm also not finding any independent reliable sources that demonstrate notability. Fails WP:BIO. PDCook (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet crit. of WP:BIO. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 21:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, basically a biography of a non-notable person written by his friend or relative. However, those of you who didn't find anything weren't looking too hard. He's quoted in an LA Times article about the writers' guild strike here, and there's another Times article quoting and discussing him and his wife on some horse-related issue here. I don't consider these to amount to significant coverage of the man himself, but if someone can find substantially more I'll consider changing my !vote. Glenfarclas (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I came across one of those articles myself, but I agree that they aren't significant coverage and don't demonstrate notability. PDCook (talk) 01:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tucson Theological Seminary

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

There are no relaible sources that establish notability for the subject of this article. In October, I proposed this article for deletion, but no consensus was reached. Since then, no reliable sources have been cited in the article (nor could I locate any). In addition, according to the institution's home page, the seminary has merged with Arizona Bible College. I could not find any RSs for this college either (though many for a now extinct college of the same name and for Southern Arizona Bible College). I think this development, along with several more months without a RS, further supports the position I took back in October that this article should be deleted and not recreated until the institution meets WP:ORG. Novaseminary (talk) 17:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question. During the previous deletion debate (3 months ago) DGG said: "It awards degrees, so it is notable." Is that really the case here? JBsupreme (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That is a fair question. I'm not sure we know that by a reliable source. Novaseminary (talk) 19:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment degree granting institution means not that it necessarily has granted a degree, but that its purpose is to award degrees, which differentiates an academic institution from a trade school. DGG ( talk ) 02:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Fair enough, but without a reliable source, it still fails WP:VERIFY. Also the article's history in just the last few hours seems to indicate a major WP:COI and WP:OWN problem. Of course, that does not necessarily mean the article should be deleted, but it seems to support the case if nothing else. Novaseminary (talk) 06:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to this, they offer the associate of arts degree. No indication whether they are accredited by any accrediting agency; is that a Wikipedia criterion? --MelanieN (talk) 01:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

Comment Their website indicates that they are not accredited. I don't think this is necessarily a Wikipedia requirement, though (though, I would think being accredited by a recognized accrediting agency is certainly evidence of notability, and probably easy to verify, making a school definitely in compliance with WP:ORG and WP:V). One could conceive of an institution being notable and not accredited. Notability is definitely a problem for the subject of this article, but I think it is verifiability that really knocks it out. They are of course intertwined. The reason there are no articles about the institution could be because no students, faculty, or affiliated people (or the insitution itself) have done anything notable related to the institution, or it could be that they have but have not received coverage for it. Novaseminary (talk) 03:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the school had any notability at all, you would think that its merger with Arizona Bible College would have made news. But neither institution garners even a single hit at Google News. So I have come around to Delete as non-notable. --MelanieN (talk) 14:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Melanie[reply]

Response to comments - WP criteria doesn't require an educational institution be accredited. However, our articles on non-accredited colleges (for example, Sequoia University, Columbus University, or Hamilton University) achieve notability when they become newsworthy, most often as diploma mills. As Novaseminary states, accreditation by a legitimate and notable organization can provide some inherent notability to a college, but an unaccredited college will require significant reliable sources to meet our verification criteria. — CactusWriter | ^needles 17:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources have been found. A search of Tucson newspaper archives (Arizona Daily Star/Tucson Citizen) finds no references. There is no "official" accreditation. The Arizona Bible College merger appears odd, since it seems to have closed in 1998. The legitimacy of an unaccredited institution which operates from an office suite and offers on-line degrees is suspect. — CactusWriter | ^needles 17:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. My nomination was withdrawn once the article was sourced, and all others who had supported deletion switched to keep as well, so we can close this down early. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nikollë Nikprelaj

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

Article text suggests Nikprelaj may have be somewhat notable in the region which would be good enough for us, but I'm not finding any sources with which to write this article. Lots of hits on Google, but absolutely nothing in the Google News archives, and I'm not really seeing any substantive discussion of Nikprelaj anywhere, at least in English. I can't check Albanian language sources and maybe there is enough there to put together an article, but unless those are provided I think this musician technically fails WP:N, and the fact that this is a BLP just adds to the rationale for deletion in the absence of sources. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC) per comment below, changed to keep. Please remove this is this strike out is a problem. thanks. Ikip 03:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. —Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. —Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I haven't looked into the subject yet, but I wanted to mention that this was one of the articles deleted in the mass BLP purge of 20-21 Jan (this one by Scott MacDonald), and J04n volunteered to source it if restored, and it was restored today, so hopefully they will assess it shortly.--Milowent (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know and I had not seen that, if they can source it properly I would withdraw the nomination. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete unless proper sourcing occurs. --Stormbay (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on new sourcing in article. --Stormbay (talk) 02:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless proper sourcing occurs (meaning citations of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications). JBsupreme (talk) 00:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to keep in light of sources discovered and changes to the article. JBsupreme (talk) 05:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is probably where this belongs, hopefully someone in Albania will come across it, I only found [17] and [18] and wouldn't vote keep based on only those. I wouldn't be surprised if there is more but all I can find in google is page after page of youtube videos and a few wikipedia mirrors. J04n(talk page) 01:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google Search result for "Nikollë Nikprelaj" këngëtar ("Nikollë Nikprelaj" singer) offers better coverage.[19], [20], [21]. According to the link No 5 (Kosova Sot, en:Kosovo Today) he received a prize awarded by Kosovar channel RTV21. --Vejvančický (talk) 09:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the help of google translate I utilized the sources found by Vejvančický to provide inline references plus info from Billboard. I believe he meets criteria 7 and 9 of WP:MUSICBIO. Nine for his second place finish in Polifestit 2008. I would also argue 7 since Billboard used him as their lone example of a contemporary artist who plays traditional Albanian music in a front page story of music in the Balkin, thus being their "most prominent representative" of that style of music. Also, coverage in a major Kosovo newspaper and one of the American music-industry periodicals of record, Billboard, meet WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 01:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to do the trick, and I'll agree he seems notable enough, plus the article is sourced now which is great. I now support keeping the article so my nomination can be considered to have been withdrawn, though since there is still one outstanding delete !vote this should probably not be closed as keep just yet (if the editor arguing for deletion changes their !vote than an early close would be appropriate). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in Agreement with the nominator opinion that sourcing provided since the article was brought to AFD have addressed concerns. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Bird

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

This is a non-notable photographer and director. Has ben tagged as non-notable for over a year but nothing has been added to assert notability. Could not find any sources backing up claims in article. Jenafalt (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Jenafalt (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Eksi

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

BLP sourced only to the subject's website. Other references are listed but the first does not mention Eksi, and the second reference is simply a list of magazines that have used his illustrations. It's possible he meets the standard for athletes as "Mr. Turkey" from 1975 (if someone can turn up a source), but most of the entry is about his work as a graphic designer, the only thing relevant to notability as a designer is the claim "illustrations drawn many attention among Corvette owners." Probably not notable, and, given the amount of detail with no sources, presumably an autobiograpy or close COI. Hairhorn (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edem

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

I'm having trouble confirming that this place even exists. Most of the sources I found are already listed here. The only one I found that wasn't listed here was a mirror of a deleted page about Edem's king. Reach Out to the Truth 16:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from my talk page:

Hi, I just saw your message. I understand what you are saying but at the same time you have to understand that this is a small community in Nigeria still coming up. The references are government, banks, churches and even National dailies in some cases. There is also an ISBN registered book that refers to the place thus I believe these are sufficient. It might not have as much information as New York or London but it does exist. Below are some more links that I found.

http://www.nsukkaonline.net/profiles.htm He is the current Igwe of Ozi-Edem

http://www.nigeria-law.org/Okori%20Nwaezema%20&%20Ors%20%20V%20%20Obeta%20Nwaiyeke%20&%20Ors.htm

Google this link http://www.budgetoffice.gov.ng/pub/sqw.pdf, open the pdf file then go to (page 31 second paragraph). It's the National Budget with Edem listed.

http://allafrica.com/stories/200506130552.html (Nsukka East LG written there is a mistake)

http://ndn.nigeriadailynews.com/templates/default.aspx?a=15995&template=print-article.htm (Refers to a zone of Edem, Akpa-Edem).

http://www.flickr.com/photos/edeminvestmentanddevelopmentauthority/4022505376/in/photostream/ this is a flickr photostream of Edem.

Let me know if you need more information. Thanks.(Eidaofedem (talk) 08:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)).

Hi, found another link. This is a case study on rural banking in Edem and other communities.

http://www.unn.edu.ng/home/index2.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=20866&Itemid=306

Thanks. (Eidaofedem (talk) 08:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)).

Hi, one more link mentioning the community secondary school in Edem.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/18480226/List-of-Public-Secondary-Schools-in-Nigeria

Thanks. (Eidaofedem (talk) 09:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)).

Keep per [22][23][24][25][26][27]etc. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage found by Phil Bridger. There's probably more sources in the local language.--Oakshade (talk) 23:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Humanitarian response to the 2010 Haiti earthquake. Cirt (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Simpson (fundraiser)

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

This kid has acheived a lot, raising £150,000 for victims of the Haiti earthquake. If he keeps on in that vein, he will certainly qualify for a Wikipedia article in the future. But he is seven years old, and only known for one event: we should apply the presumption in favor of privacy, and wish him the best for his future life. Physchim62 (talk) 15:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to here Humanitarian response to the 2010 Haiti earthquake. I can understand the nominators decisions for posting this. For the most part the single event of the activities could be mentioned here ((humanitarian article) with respect to his privacy (by mentioning the event without being descriptive of the individual). Just my thoughts on this. Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure at all about the presumption in favour of privacy argument as Charlie himself has happily been involved in lots of publicity for his fundraising. He has given interviews to the BBC (video here [28]), another BBC video here [29]), Sky News (video here [30]), and the Mirror newspaper (video here [31]) and probably more I haven't found. Also, the only personal information I have included is his age, his mother's first name, that he lives in Fulham, likes riding a bike, is a schoolboy and has raised a lot of money: as far as I can see it is, as the Presumption guidelines say, completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic.

Admittedly he is only gaining notoriety for one event, but I would argue that it is a very significant one: as the UNICEF representative said, "We've never known anything like it. We've never had anyone raise £60,000 in one day for us before". The international aspect of the response to his fundraising is unusual as well. And how often does a 7 year old get the Prime Minister twittering about them? Stronach (talk) 16:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've no problem with mentioning the fundraising event in the appropriate article. I do have a problem in saying that one event should be used to define this person's life, and I find it sickening if that event happened when he was seven years old. Let's not forget that we have a long-standing policy not to allow people to request deletion of their own biographies, so this page will stand all through this kid's puberty, his first dates, etc. unless we kill it now! Physchim62 (talk) 16:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Woah, some strong language there - 'sickening', and you imply that he will be embarrassed by it in future. Well, none of us knows that, do we, but if I were him I'd be very proud of what I'd achieved, as he clearly is now.

Can you just clarify under what criteria you are AfDing this, please? Stronach (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONEEVENT (part of WP:BLP) is the main policy, with a plea for extra common sense in that the person concerned is so young. It is not our place to decide what this person will want or not when he is older: on the other hand, we can apply our normal policies and say that there is no reason that he has an individual biography. And yes, I do find it sickening that people pretend that a seven year-old is, for example, capable of informed consent to a media interview: kids give interviews with the permission of their parents, and such interviews are usually forgotten in the archives unless something else happens. Physchim62 (talk) 17:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Let's not forget that we have a long-standing policy not to allow people to request deletion of their own biographies, so this page will stand all through this kid's puberty, his first dates, etc. unless we kill it now!" would suggest to me that you are "deciding what this person will want or not when he is older", by suggesting that he wouldn't want it to be in existence in future years as he will be embarrassed by it. I was trying to point out another, perfectly valid reaction of his that he might have in future years, which could be used to argue the exact opposite of what you were arguing. Stronach (talk) 07:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Worldwide news coverage. Large fundraising event. Well cited. Keep. Scanlan (talk) 17:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please explain which of the criteria at WP:SK are applicable to this AFD? Ucucha 17:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect/Merge to Humanitarian response to the 2010 Haiti earthquake - WP:ONEVENT states (with emphasis added): "In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person." I do not think this instance merits overriding the general rule. And I do not see how this person's activity is anywhere near as significant as the greater events (Haiti earthquake relief fundraising). Each of the individuals rescued after several days would not get their own page, despite significant news coverage. Neither should this person. Novaseminary (talk) 22:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course his actions are not anywhere near as significant as the greater events (Haiti earthquake relief fundraising in general). But they have become internationally known and are quite extraordinary - see the UNICEF representative I quoted above. The "response by private persons" section of Humanitarian response to the 2010 Haiti earthquake lists celebrities - Charlie is just about the only non-celebrity there, and he has raised more than Madonna donated. I find that level of fundraising extraordinary and noteworthy. Stronach (talk) 07:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The others are celebrities because they're known for more than donating to humanitarian causes. Terrierhere (talk) 13:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:ONEEVENT. I question the value of an encyclopedic article on a person for just this, at any age, and ponder the wisdom of Winifred Sackville Stoner, Jr.: "There is nothing more terrible for any child than to be put up as an example of precocity and to be expected to shine in all things and at all times."--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General question - as objections to this article seem to be based as much on the subject's age as on the One Event criterion, is there a Wikipedia guideline anywhere about articles on children? Stronach (talk) 07:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My objection is not due to his age. Wikipedia has many articles on children, most of whom are likely famous actors, sports or other performers, or who have won major awards. The closest I can see to a guideline is "they are under the age of 18 years, and thus deserve greater protection from intrusions upon their privacy." in WP:BLPNAME. Obviously, Charlie's well covered in international sources and so that doesn't apply. But it does infer that children are generally afforded more privacy than adults. Terrierhere (talk) 13:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Humanitarian response to the 2010 Haiti earthquake. WP:ONEEVENT clearly applies here, and like Novaseminary I see no good reason for disregarding the general rule against having a biography in this case, particularly since the young age of the subject means that there is likely to be NO verifiable content outside of the context of this event. Scog (talk) 08:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Emotionally I'd like to keep, as it's a good article about a notable event. But while the person is admirable and has been covered internationally, his fundraising for Haiti earthquake donations is part of a larger event. The coverage is insufficient to retain a separate article about Charlie the person at this time. I think the unusualness of and international coverage focusing on his fundraising merits a few more sentences merge and redirected to Humanitarian response to the 2010 Haiti earthquake, but not nearly the entire article, as that'd be way too much WP:UNDUE weight. Terrierhere (talk) 13:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For those citing privacy has anyone asked his Mum? People seem to be assuming they know what is best for someone else's child. Mum doesn't seem to mind all the publicity plus this article is only a gathering of information in the public ___domain already. Some comments seem to be marking him down because of his age but surely that is the most noteworthy part in this noteworthy event raising such a huge amount of money and deserves more than a foot note in another related article. To my mind there is something miserable and churlish about deleting this - but do what you will. Whilst we are about it shall we delete the Helen Rollason article as well? She raised lots of money for charity. 22:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbryanejones (talk • contribs)
Delete or merge to Humanitarian response to the 2010 Haiti earthquake. There are many precedents to deleting articles about small children who are known for one event, book, or circumstance, especially of living kids. It is not churlish, it is sensible and our usual practice. Bearian (talk) 22:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain why you believe it sensible to delete? What is the invisible line you have to cross to be worthy of an article and why does being a child make them less worthy of an article? Not trying to be a troll just curious why people are getting so wound up over this. I can understand that we don't want articles appearing about every last child on the planet posted by proud parents, but this child really has achieved something extraordinary. That said, I think I am wasting my time typing this as I can see which way the debate is swinging. Who actually adjudicates based on the comments recieved and authorises the deletion? —Preceding Mrbryanejones 23:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As other editors and I have noted, the main issue is the article runs afoul of WP:ONEEVENT. That is enough to support a merge/redirect. The subject being a child is secondary (but all the more reason to follow the other guidelines precisely). See WP:AFD for answers to your other questions.Novaseminary (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What is Wikipedia, an encyclopedia or a news magazine? This person achieved brief newsworthiness, not enduring notability.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge per Oxonian2006, Bearian, qnd Terrierhere, among others. Classic case of BLP1E. --Crusio (talk) 07:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ICA (4-Icaroldichloridesulphate aka Icarus)

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

Article tagged as possible hoax but even if not a hoax, the article explicitly claims that the subject is "rare", "newly discovered", "no history of [U.S.] FDA approved medical use", "has only been available for sale since early 2010", etc. In other words, not a notable product. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the following related page because it reads very similarly and was written by the same editor:

Icaroldichloridesulphate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hoax or unverifiable original research. Hairhorn (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Most likely a hoax (the name doesn't even make chemical sense). No hits on a Google search using various derivatives of the title. PDCook (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX. MuffledThud (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. The descriptions are nonsense from a chemist's point of view. According to Chemical Abstracts, there is no chemical compound in the scientific literature that contains "icarol" in its name. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both: Looks like a hoax to me, especially given the claim that it is extracted from a rare Sri Lankan plant...Meodipt (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Obvious hoax. Nothing in the scientific literature despite the detailed pharmacological data in the articles. Cacycle (talk) 07:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BlueHighway

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

Another generic piece of software that doesn't seem to have made a lasting interest in the field. MBisanz ^talk 14:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google search, Google News search and Google Scholar search throw up nothing at all, meaning that the article fails the general notability guideline. JulieSpaulding (talk) 14:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, can not find signs of notability. Haakon (talk) 15:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Virtually no independent coverage. Pcap ping 17:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet another useless article about some non-notable content management system. JBsupreme (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, with no confirmed references. Warrah (talk) 19:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 01:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Whitney

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

Not notable. Doesn't meet BIO. No Reliable independant source. Not verifiable. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. The subject looks at first sight as thought she ought to be notable; Google Scholar finds 347 citations for her co-written book Appreciative Inquiry, and another co-written book is in over 300 WorldCat libraries. But the Google Scholar results for her name seem to be only citations and acknowledgements, and I can't find any significant news coverage in Google News Archive or LexisNexis. Perhaps someone more familiar with the field will know a better place to look for sources? EALacey (talk) 12:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability - fails WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 15:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. I'm going to add in some awards and some additional independent references. I haven't ever created an article - so it is a learning process on my behalf. I have access to the awards, and articles are forthcoming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KamiKG (talk • contribs) 16:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep on basis of WP:Prof #1 and the comments below of DGG. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete without prejudice as clearcut spam. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Top GS cites seem to be 352, 240, 213, 183, 164.... h index = 17. Looks like a clear pass of WP:Prof #1. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Delete limited credible third-party sources Vartanza (talk) 08:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of third party sources, one thousand of them on Google Scholar. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Which of those thousand are about her? 160.39.213.222 (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep WP:PROF is an alternative to WP:BLP, and it is enough to meet one of them. There appears to be some information to show that the candidate might meet WP:PROF, as an authority on her subject. The proof would the number of times she is quoted and acknowledged. because that is how the academic world expresses its views of notability. However, most of her books are not in a significant number of academic libraries. Some of the Google Scholar results are for what I assume is another person, who writes romance novels. Many of the cites to our subject are essentially self-citations from her and her associates, but perhaps half of them are genuine, and does show a certain amount of influence. The awards are remarkably minor; the academic position listed are not regular faculty. She might more realistically be considered to meet WP:AUTHOR; this would require 3rd party reviews of the books, which I have not yet looked for systematically, though there appear to be a few in Google News Archive. So a weak keep only, because almost all the publications are either self-published or published by organizations closely affiliated with her; the 2 exceptions are the only one with substantial library holdings by a regular publisher, Crown, and she has a book in press with McGraw Hill. Essentially all of them are by multiple authors, and she is not usually the first--they seem to be written by a team; furthermore, the titles and the absence of holdings in major libraries for most of them give the distinct impression that they are mostly variants of each other. The article needed major rewriting, and I have done so, eliminating the repetitive and the trivial. I apologize for not getting here sooner, but I was dealing with the current emergency on BLP deletions. DGG ( talk ) 15:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ mazca ^talk 14:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note When I came to close this discussion it's kind of hovering on the borderline between no-consensus and consensus to delete. Hence, I've relisted it - a few additional viewpoints on whether the improvements by DGG (talk · contribs) clarify the person's notability would be useful. ~ mazca ^talk 14:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable + interesting (Bgeelhoed (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
Delete per nom. I'm really not sure what Xxanthippe is on about, as this subject is clearly NOT notable. JBsupreme (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look at Google scholar at top of page. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

You've been asked once before, but I will ask again: Which of those links are specifically about her? JBsupreme (talk) 07:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've been answered before, WP:PROF requires that the work be influential enough to show as an authority, and this is shown by citations. The references are to the importance of the work, and that';s the notability. Her bio details are not what would make her notable--it's what people do that make them notable. DGG ( talk ) 02:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This notion of notability is circular. The references are not to the "importance" of her work. They are citations to her work. Under wp:n, citations are not enough for notability because they don't constitute significant coverage that can actually be used to construct an encyclopedia article. 160.39.213.222 (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:Prof Note 1. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

No. 160.39.213.222 (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The eight-edit anon might be enlightened if he did. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Your resort to an ad hominem indicates, ironically, that this 8-edit anon has a better policy argument than you. 160.39.213.222 (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF #1. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The citations and reviews of her works, according to gscholar, leading works in the field of "appreciative inquiry", are enough for a keep.John Z (talk) 05:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep over remarks from DGG (talk · contribs). Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Susan King (TV presenter)

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

Hosting two short educational programs fails the criteria for WP:ENT and other than that I'm not seeing any claims. MBisanz ^talk 14:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:ENTERTAINER says that an entertainer is notable if they have had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. I would say that 'Horses Galore' is a somewhat notable television show (a Google search brings up [32][33][34] - the third being a shopping site for a book about the TV series), but Country Search is not (a Google search brings up nothing at all - I tried multiple queries, but nothing can verify that the show even existed except [35], which didn't even come up in the Google search - it is a reference in the article). In addition, I can't find anything on Susan King in reliable independent sources, so the article fails the general notability guideline. JulieSpaulding (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marijan Rističević

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

Only claim to fame is as minor run for office that got 0.45% of the vote, per WP:POLITICIAN, simply failing to be elected is not notable unless there is other factors of notability. MBisanz ^talk 14:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He was the presidential candidate and is the leader of Pesant Party. If you mentioned Marijan Rističević in Serbia you would get 100% recognition from people asked. How come if he wins only 0.5% or 2.86% with his party? Well because he is one of those goofy politicians for whom rarely anyone votes because they are more jokers than politicians but everyone knows who they are because they are prominently shown in media. I think each country has a politician like that, that runs in every election, nobody votes for him but everyone knows who he is quite well. Please reconsider your nomination as it seems to me you don't understand the notability of this guy because you based it on his election results. Keep in mind that we can't include the rest in the article because of the rules of bios of living persons, calling him a goofy politician and a joke candidate, even though it is true, would be a violation of rules--Avala (talk) 15:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Although you may get 100% name recognition in Serbia, statements on Wikipedia should be backed up by reliable sources independent of the subject. Name recognition doesn't count unfortunately (unless you back it up with reliable sources), and I would say that this would probably constitute some kind of original research. Remember, articles on Wikipedia need to be verifiable - verifiability is the threshold, not truth. JulieSpaulding (talk) 15:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Article also fails the general notability guideline as I can't find any significant coverage of this person in a reliable independent source. I translated what looked to be the only links with substance from my Google search from Serbian into English but found nothing (a forum post about racism, a short statement on the candidate - short as in two sentences!) so delete. JulieSpaulding (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

- Further comment - The only truly reliable source I can find is the English translation of the reference cited on the page. WP:GNG prefers multiple sources as opposed to just one. JulieSpaulding (talk) 15:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Keep. Of course you cannot find many English sources for a 2nd league Serbian politician. However, he passes all thresholds easily, and there is a lot of sources in Serbian, and I just added a longish one. Discounting the election monitors, there are also [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]. I'm not sure what JulieSpaulding was searching for, but Google gives me fat 26,000 hits. No such user (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - apparently, a former member of the national parliament. Warofdreams talk 17:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has adequate references. Members of a national parliament are automatically notable. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Keep. I did not realise that Marijan was a member of the Serbian parliament, and obviously those meet the WP:POLITICIAN guidelines. In response to your question, I searched for 'Marijan Rističević' in Google and translated all Serbian pages into English. Maybe I just missed it. Anyway, thanks for pointing that out! JulieSpaulding (talk) 01:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep MP, presidential candidate. Obviously notable politician. ¨¨ victor falk 11:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unquestionable keep as member of a national legislature. This was for some reason not in the article when nominated, but could easily have been found if any checking at all had been done before nominating. DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher P. Shore

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

This is a WP:BLP1E where he is only notable for the single murder charge in a country where thousands are murdered every year. Simply isn't of the level required for WP:PERPETRATOR. MBisanz ^talk 14:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, I talked to the guy who unprodded it and we both agreed that this article and another one mentioned here will be merged into an article about the event. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 15:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this poorly sourced BLP1E article, please. JBsupreme (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:BLP1E. Joe Chill (talk) 03:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

European Federation of Materials Handling - FEM

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

Contested PROD. Insufficient evidence of notability found despite repeated searches over the last month -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The creator of this article originally asked about putting this into article space in December (Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2009_December_18#Is my article ready?) and a week ago (Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2010_January_19#move article into mainspace - for publication). I PRODed the article, and the creator removed the PROD with the edit summary I do not agree on the decision to delete the article for insufficient evidence of notability) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added 3 alternative 'findsources' -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry PhantomSteve, it is nothing personal but I removed the PROD for deletion and I just wrote a small sentence to justify it because I did not know where to put my entire reply. Actually I put in in talks, but I can rewrite it here:

The reason why I do not agree to delete the article due to lack of notability is the following: according to wikipedia's notability requirement, organizations are usually notable if 1 - the scope of their activities is national or international in scale, and if 2 - information about the organization and its activities can be verified by third-party, independent, reliable sources. (In other words, they must satisfy the primary criterion for all organizations as described above.). And also “Reliable sources may therefore be published materials with a reliable publication process; they may be authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject in question; or they may be both”. We meet the first criterion. As regards the second, the fact that FEM does not appear in the mainstream press has little to do with notability but rather with the specific scope of the association. In addition, references to FEM appear on the European Commission’s website and I dare qualify the European Commission as a ‘reliable source’. I am afraid we have made every possible effort. Thanks Cipresso (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As I said at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2009 December 18#Is my article ready?, all of the references I could find were trade-related (normally just in a list of organisations, or a mention that the FEM have standards) - none of them are about the organisation itself - they confirm the existance of the organisation itself, but nothing further than that - and I never doubted that they exist. I said a similar thing almost a month later when you asked about this at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2010 January 19#move article into mainspace - for publication. With regards to their mention on the European Commision's website, it is included in a List of trade federations with liaison status - again, confirming that they exist, but not (I feel) the significant coverage mentioned in the notability guidelines. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Thanks for your reply. I understand your point of view, but honestly I see other organisations/associations in wikipedia, with less notable references than the one of my article. But at the end who is gonna to decide what? I mean, somebody else could find that my references are enough and satisfying. How can I know this?

Thanks Cipresso (talk) 15:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ah ok, thanks, I just saw your reply! thanks for teh information...nothing personally of course!

Cipresso (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of other editors: I explained on Cipresso's talk page about how AfDs are left open for a week, and that after that time, an admin will judge the consensus based on the arguments for/against deleting the article -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability per Wikipedia guidelines. And note that arguments that "other stuff exists" are not helpful in these discussions. ukexpat (talk) 15:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expert Declaration: A Common Agricultural Policy for European Public Goods

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

No indication of meeting WP:N guidelines. Article created by editor with a WP:COI and I can find no significant independent coverage on google. noq (talk) 14:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

alright, it actually doesn't meet these WP:N guidelines. It's a pitty because it is a respectable undertaking by experts, but it does not fulfill the requirements —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valentin Zahrnt (talk • contribs) 14:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eleazar Osorio

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

Follow-up nomination to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colombian voice actor, where it was suggested that the 30 pages be nominated individually. This is an unreferenced BLP of a Spanish-language voice actor that seems to fall short of WP:ENTERTAINER. Google reveals no coverage that I can find. The article has already been deleted from the Spanish-language Wikipedia. Jafeluv (talk) 13:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Jafeluv (talk) 13:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. —Jafeluv (talk) 13:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my reasoning in the previous batch AFD.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable voice actor, unrefed blp.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JR Javier Rodríguez

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

Follow-up nomination to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colombian voice actor, where it was suggested that the 30 pages be nominated individually. This is an unreferenced BLP of a Spanish-language voice actor that seems to fall short of WP:ENTERTAINER. Google reveals no coverage that I can find. Jafeluv (talk) 13:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Jafeluv (talk) 13:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. —Jafeluv (talk) 13:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my reasoning in the previous batch AFD.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unreferenced + voice actor + lack of substantial coverage = delete. JBsupreme (talk) 00:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable voice actor, unrefed blp.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Julio Cesar Mora

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

Follow-up nomination to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colombian voice actor, where it was suggested that the 30 pages be nominated individually. This is an unreferenced BLP of a Spanish-language voice actor that seems to fall short of WP:ENTERTAINER. This Julio Cesar Mora is unrelated. Jafeluv (talk) 13:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Jafeluv (talk) 13:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. —Jafeluv (talk) 13:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my reasoning in the previous batch AFD.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable voice actor, unrefed blp.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Klaudia Kotte

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

Follow-up nomination to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colombian voice actor, where it was suggested that the 30 pages be nominated individually. This is an unreferenced BLP of a Spanish-language voice actor that seems to fall short of WP:ENTERTAINER. Google reveals no coverage that I can find. The article has already been deleted from the Spanish-language Wikipedia. Jafeluv (talk) 13:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Jafeluv (talk) 13:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. —Jafeluv (talk) 13:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my reasoning in the previous batch AFD.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable voice actor, unrefed blp.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bernardo Mayorga

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

Follow-up nomination to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colombian voice actor, where it was suggested that the 30 pages be nominated individually. This is an unreferenced BLP of a Spanish-language voice actor that seems to fall short of WP:ENTERTAINER. Google reveals no coverage that I can find. Jafeluv (talk) 13:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Jafeluv (talk) 13:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. —Jafeluv (talk) 13:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my reasoning in the previous batch AFD.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable voice actor, unrefed blp.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Camilo Rodríguez

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

Follow-up nomination to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colombian voice actor, where it was suggested that the 30 pages be nominated individually. This is an unreferenced BLP of a Spanish-language voice actor that seems to fall short of WP:ENTERTAINER. The article in the Spanish-language Wikipedia is an unrelated person with the same name. There's also a Galician actor by the same name. Jafeluv (talk) 13:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Jafeluv (talk) 13:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. —Jafeluv (talk) 13:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my reasoning in the previous batch AFD.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Alberto Gutiérrez

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

Follow-up nomination to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colombian voice actor, where it was suggested that the 30 pages be nominated individually. This is an unreferenced BLP of a Spanish-language voice actor that seems to fall short of WP:ENTERTAINER. Google reveals no coverage that I can find, although it's confusing since there's a footballer by the same name. The article has already been deleted from the Spanish-language Wikipedia. Jafeluv (talk) 13:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Jafeluv (talk) 13:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. —Jafeluv (talk) 13:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my reasoning in the previous batch AFD.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable unreffed blp on an alleged entertainer.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzalo Eduardo Rojas

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

Follow-up nomination to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colombian voice actor, where it was suggested that the 30 pages be nominated individually. This is an unreferenced BLP of a Spanish-language voice actor that seems to fall short of WP:ENTERTAINER. Google reveals no coverage that I can find. Jafeluv (talk) 13:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Jafeluv (talk) 13:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. —Jafeluv (talk) 13:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my reasoning in the previous batch AFD.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable unreffed blp on an alleged entertainer.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Leal

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

Follow-up nomination to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colombian voice actor, where it was suggested that the 30 pages be nominated individually. This is an unreferenced BLP of a Spanish-language voice actor that seems to fall short of WP:ENTERTAINER. Google reveals no coverage that I can find. Jafeluv (talk) 13:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Jafeluv (talk) 13:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. —Jafeluv (talk) 13:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my reasoning in the previous batch AFD.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable unreffed blp on an alleged entertainer.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Gutiérrez (actor)

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

Follow-up nomination to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colombian voice actor, where it was suggested that the 30 pages be nominated individually. This is an unreferenced BLP of a Spanish-language voice actor that seems to fall short of WP:ENTERTAINER. Google reveals no coverage that I can find. Jafeluv (talk) 13:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Jafeluv (talk) 13:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. —Jafeluv (talk) 13:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my reasoning in the previous batch AFD.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable unreffed blp on an alleged entertainer.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mónica Valencia

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

Follow-up nomination to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colombian voice actor, where it was suggested that the 30 pages be nominated individually. This is an unreferenced BLP of a Spanish-language voice actor that seems to fall short of WP:ENTERTAINER. Google reveals no coverage that I can find. Jafeluv (talk) 13:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Jafeluv (talk) 13:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. —Jafeluv (talk) 13:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my reasoning in the previous batch AFD.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable unreffed blp on an alleged entertainer.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Fernando Gómez

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

Follow-up nomination to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colombian voice actor, where it was suggested that the 30 pages be nominated individually. This is an unreferenced BLP of a Spanish-language voice actor that seems to fall short of WP:ENTERTAINER. Google reveals no coverage that I can find, although there is an unrelated photographer by the same name. Jafeluv (talk) 13:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Jafeluv (talk) 13:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. —Jafeluv (talk) 13:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my reasoning in the previous batch AFD.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable unreffed blp on an alleged entertainer.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Renata Vargas

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

Follow-up nomination to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colombian voice actor, where it was suggested that the 30 pages be nominated individually. This is an unreferenced BLP of a Spanish-language voice actor that seems to fall short of WP:ENTERTAINER. Google reveals no coverage that I can find. Jafeluv (talk) 13:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Jafeluv (talk) 13:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. —Jafeluv (talk) 13:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to a lack of non-trivial coverage from third party publications. Go figure though, if this person were a seiyu the article would be kept because there is some sort of a loophole for Anime voice actors. JBsupreme (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my reasoning in the previous batch AFD.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable unreffed blp on an alleged entertainer.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rocio Bermúdez

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

Follow-up nomination to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colombian voice actor, where it was suggested that the 30 pages be nominated individually. This is an unreferenced BLP of a Spanish-language voice actor that seems to fall short of WP:ENTERTAINER. Google reveals no coverage that I can find. The article has already been deleted from the Spanish-language Wikipedia. Jafeluv (talk) 13:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Jafeluv (talk) 13:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. —Jafeluv (talk) 13:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my reasoning in the previous batch AFD.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable unreffed blp on an alleged entertainer.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Raul Forero

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

Follow-up nomination to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colombian voice actor, where it was suggested that the 30 pages be nominated individually. This is an unreferenced BLP of a Spanish-language voice actor that seems to fall short of WP:ENTERTAINER. Google reveals no coverage that I can find. The article has already been deleted from the Spanish-language Wikipedia. Jafeluv (talk) 13:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Jafeluv (talk) 13:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. —Jafeluv (talk) 13:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my reasoning in the previous batch AFD.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable unreffed blp on an alleged entertainer.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrés Palacio

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

Follow-up nomination to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colombian voice actor, where it was suggested that the 30 pages be nominated individually. This is an unreferenced BLP of a Spanish-language voice actor that seems to fall short of WP:ENTERTAINER. Google reveals no coverage that I can find. Jafeluv (talk) 13:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Jafeluv (talk) 13:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. —Jafeluv (talk) 13:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my reasoning in the previous batch AFD.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable unreffed blp on an alleged entertainer.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Cardozo

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

Follow-up nomination to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colombian voice actor, where it was suggested that the 30 pages be nominated individually. This is an unreferenced BLP of a Spanish-language voice actor that seems to fall short of WP:ENTERTAINER. Google reveals no coverage that I can find, although there is an unrelated writer from Brooklyn by the same name.[41][42][43] Jafeluv (talk) 13:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Jafeluv (talk) 13:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. —Jafeluv (talk) 13:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my reasoning in the previous batch AFD.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable unreffed blp on an alleged entertainer.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Manuel Cantor

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

Follow-up nomination to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colombian voice actor, where it was suggested that the 30 pages be nominated individually. This is an unreferenced BLP of a Spanish-language voice actor that seems to fall short of WP:ENTERTAINER. Google reveals no coverage that I can find. The article has already been deleted from the Spanish-language Wikipedia. Jafeluv (talk) 13:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Jafeluv (talk) 13:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. —Jafeluv (talk) 13:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my reasoning in the previous batch AFD.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable unreffed blp on an alleged entertainer.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bayardo Ardila

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

Follow-up nomination to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colombian voice actor, where it was suggested that the 30 pages be nominated individually. This is an unreferenced BLP of a Spanish-language voice actor that seems to fall short of WP:ENTERTAINER. Google reveals no coverage that I can find. Jafeluv (talk) 13:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Jafeluv (talk) 13:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. —Jafeluv (talk) 13:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my reasoning in the previous batch AFD.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable unreffed blp on an alleged entertainer.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Ignacio Gómez

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

Follow-up nomination to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colombian voice actor, where it was suggested that the 30 pages be nominated individually. This is an unreferenced BLP of a Spanish-language voice actor that seems to fall short of WP:ENTERTAINER. Google reveals no coverage that I can find. Jafeluv (talk) 13:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Jafeluv (talk) 13:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. —Jafeluv (talk) 13:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my reasoning in the previous batch AFD.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable unreffed blp on an alleged entertainer.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orlando Arenas

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

Follow-up nomination to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colombian voice actor, where it was suggested that the 30 pages be nominated individually. This is an unreferenced BLP of a Spanish-language voice actor that seems to fall short of WP:ENTERTAINER. Google reveals no coverage that I can find. Jafeluv (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Jafeluv (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. —Jafeluv (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my reasoning in the previous batch AFD.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable unreffed blp on an alleged entertainer.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dilma Gómez

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

Follow-up nomination to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colombian voice actor, where it was suggested that the 30 pages be nominated individually. This is an unreferenced BLP of a Spanish-language voice actor that seems to fall short of WP:ENTERTAINER. Google reveals no coverage that I can find. Jafeluv (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Jafeluv (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. —Jafeluv (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my reasoning in the previous batch AFD.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable unreffed blp on an alleged entertainer.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced BLP for a voice actor? *eyeroll* JBsupreme (talk) 05:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rodrigo Marulanda

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

Follow-up nomination to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colombian voice actor, where it was suggested that the 30 pages be nominated individually. This is an unreferenced BLP of a Spanish-language voice actor that seems to fall short of WP:ENTERTAINER. Google reveals no coverage that I can find. Jafeluv (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Jafeluv (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. —Jafeluv (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my reasoning in the previous batch AFD.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Beltrán

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

Follow-up nomination to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colombian voice actor, where it was suggested that the 30 pages be nominated individually. This is an unreferenced BLP of a Spanish-language voice actor that seems to fall short of WP:ENTERTAINER. Google reveals no coverage that I can find. Jafeluv (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Jafeluv (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. —Jafeluv (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my reasoning in the previous batch AFD.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable unreffed blp on an alleged entertainer.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Cortés

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

Follow-up nomination to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colombian voice actor, where it was suggested that the 30 pages be nominated individually. This is an unreferenced BLP of a Spanish-language voice actor that seems to fall short of WP:ENTERTAINER. Google reveals no coverage that I can find. Jafeluv (talk) 13:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Jafeluv (talk) 13:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. —Jafeluv (talk) 13:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my reasoning in the previous batch AFD.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen Rosa Franco

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

Follow-up nomination to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colombian voice actor, where it was suggested that the 30 pages be nominated individually. This is an unreferenced BLP of a Spanish-language voice actor that seems to fall short of WP:ENTERTAINER. Google reveals no coverage that I can find. Jafeluv (talk) 13:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Jafeluv (talk) 13:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. —Jafeluv (talk) 13:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my reasoning in the previous batch AFD.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable unreffed blp on an alleged entertainer.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Chavarro

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

Follow-up nomination to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colombian voice actor, where it was suggested that the 30 pages be nominated individually. This is an unreferenced BLP of a Spanish-language voice actor that seems to fall short of WP:ENTERTAINER. Google reveals no coverage that I can find. The article has already been deleted from the Spanish-language Wikipedia. Jafeluv (talk) 13:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Jafeluv (talk) 13:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. —Jafeluv (talk) 13:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my reasoning in the previous batch AFD.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable unreffed blp on an alleged entertainer.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Grey Clavijo

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

Follow-up nomination to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colombian voice actor, where it was suggested that the 30 pages be nominated individually. This is an unreferenced BLP of a Spanish-language voice actor that seems to fall short of WP:ENTERTAINER. Google reveals no coverage that I can find. Jafeluv (talk) 13:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Jafeluv (talk) 13:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. —Jafeluv (talk) 13:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my reasoning in the previous batch AFD.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable unreffed blp on an alleged entertainer.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

K. C. John

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

Doing the technicalities on behalf of user:Rak-Tai who doesn't consider this gentleman notable Ϣere SpielChequers 13:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An odd one to look through this because there is another K.C. John [44] born in 1924 who would probably meet the notability guidelines. However, this article was created about a K.C. John born in 1947, although this information has been removed from the article at some point. Polargeo (talk) 14:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had technical problems with the process AfD, and assistance was kindly granted. This individual, whoever he is, does not appear notable. Pastors are typically not deemed notable on Wikipedia just because they have a religious position. This article has no citations of notability. There are no references on Google that endorse notability. รัก-ไทย 16:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Keep -- The President of a Christian denonimation with 7500 churches is certainly notable. The article lacks references, but so do many others. That is a reason to imporve it, not delete it. If the other K C John is also notable, an article on him could be created as K. C. John (Journalist). If he is more notable, this aricle could be moved to K. C. John (Pastor). I am not surprised that it is difficult to find relevant Ghits, since there is not very distinctive word in the title. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are not a lot of indexed news articles about this person, but there many sources on the Internet. As the equivalent of a bishop, I would consider him notable. Bearian (talk) 22:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have searched Google to find articles about John to verify notability, but there are only self-promoted and related articles--nothing from a non-biased press. Please read this: Notability should be demonstrated using reliable sources according to Wikipedia guidelines (not policy)[1]. Reliable sources generally include mainstream news media and major academic journals, and exclude self-published sources, particularly when self-published on the internet. The foundation of this theory is that such sources "exercise some form of editorial control."[4]. Further, he is NOT a bishop, but rather a somewhat self-appointed titular head of a losely-controlled affiliation of churches รัก-ไทย 03:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep regardless of the possibly promotional nature of the sources, the head of a large national-level federation of churches is notable. DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "large national-level federation of churches" is merely a vague number-listing of Pentecostal churches in India. The group does not appear to have any evidence of their grossly inflated and non-verifiable claims. The article is probably self-written by the so-called "heads"--not by a factual, non-biased source. A better approach would be to add material from this (auto?)biography to the Indian Pentecostal Church of God article. Wikipedia articles require that they be verifiable, which this article does not. รัก-ไทย 05:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Delete. If the person is notable, then we require evidence of such in the form of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. Where is it? JBsupreme (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 keep, withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin closure --Pgallert (talk) 14:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Valasakkadu

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

The place exists. It's non notable. Found no news links or reliable sources for notability. Request deleting this article ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 13:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All villages are notable, but there may be more than one by this name, or some of the information listed in it may be incorrect. I can find a village by this name in Cuddalore district at http://wikimapia.org/9976683/Valasakkadu-K-M-Koil-TK-Cuddalore-Dist - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Places - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep verifiable village. –SpacemanSpiff 18:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is a population center, but as Eastmain point out, there might be more than one Valasakkadu which is something editors should be conscious of. --Oakshade (talk) 19:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- And that's at Valasakkadu, Cuddalore district. –SpacemanSpiff 21:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing AfD. As per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Places which Eastmain pointed out, villages are generally notable. Completely missed it. My apologies. Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 04:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfang Galindo

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

Follow-up nomination to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colombian voice actor, where it was suggested that the 30 pages be nominated individually. This is an unreferenced BLP of a Spanish-language voice actor that seems to fall short of WP:ENTERTAINER. Google reveals no coverage that I can find. The article has already been deleted from the Spanish-language Wikipedia. Jafeluv (talk) 13:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Jafeluv (talk) 13:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. —Jafeluv (talk) 13:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my reasoning in the previous batch AFD.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable voice actor, unrefed blp.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, can find only one passing reference in a Spanish language Anime forum. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tikkavarapu Venkatarami Reddy

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

Non notable hoax. Zero CA hits and zero cricket related google hits and zero cricinfo hits and no hits at home website for the Deccan Chargers and no hits at the Tamil Nadu Cricket Association. SGGH ^ping! 13:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The word "hoax", as with the word "liar", is something that should not be tossed about unless one can back it up. I don't think that it's at all merited, given that the article's author [45] has created various pages on sportsmen that cite to verifiable sources. This article, for no apparent reason, does not cite to a source. There is a person with this name who would be notable in his own right, [46] but he's listed as President of the Indian Newspaper Society and not as a cricket player. Mandsford (talk) 14:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only reason I didn't tag it as a hoax myself but took it to WT:CRIN is because the editor has created other such pages which are perfectly legitimate. That said, there's no reference anywhere at all that this person is a cricket player for either the Deccan Chargers or Tamil Nadu cricket team as mentioned in the article. Any such player would be on Cricinfo and CricketArchive (search for Reddy) doesn't show this Reddy). Given that, I think the tag is appropriate. –SpacemanSpiff 17:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this story indicates that a Tikkavarapu Venkatarami Reddy owns the Deccan Chargers. I can't find much else though. – ukexpat (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Deccan Chargers team is owned by the Deccan Chronicle paper, so this is definitely an issue of mistaken identity then. –SpacemanSpiff 20:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It also says that he is the Chairman of the Deccan Chronicle and heads Deccan Chronicle Holdings Ltd. Aaroncrick (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. --Dweller (talk) 19:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The page was nominated when it was a redirect (and should thus have gone to WP:RFD), but is now a disambiguation page, so the deletion rationale is moot. Sandstein 06:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Council of States

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

Delete as per WP:R#DELETE point 2. Many countries may have councils of states e.g. India, Sudan. Delete redirect to Swiss Council of States and create disambiguation page. --Geeteshgadkari (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need an AFD to do that, just edit the page. Polarpanda (talk) 13:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We don't need an AFD to merge/redirect/disambiguate. But since it's here, ugh. We have State Council and Council of State and this article, Council of States, all of which sound like they refer to the same thing but in fact have wildly different meanings. We should reconcile this, somehow. This article, the plural, should (in theory) redirect to the singular form, but the two concepts are different. Smerging them would just create confusion, as would shoehorning the content from one into the other. Not sure how best to proceed, here; might be worthwhile to withdraw the nom in favor of a longer, more in-depth move/merge/redirect discussion on one of the talk pages. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on the comment. The plural of Council of State is Councils of State, not the present title. The article Conseil d'Etat (Switzerland) alerts readers to the difference. Sussexonian (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Legard

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

Unreferenced, non-notable per WP:POLITICIAN: being a prospective Parliamentary candidate does not automatically confer notability. Promotional tone per WP:PROMO; evident WP:Conflict of interest by creator. Proposed deletion contested by creator. MuffledThud (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The gnews hits show a range of incidental coverage, but not the significant coverage that would be required to pass WP:GNG in the face of such an obvious failure to pass WP:POLITICIAN. Aside from the notability guidelines, it would take a mammoth swing for Legard to win Darlington, so if this article is kept its likely, at least for a few years, to be for a forgotten political candidate only. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Darlington is actually a Con/Lab swing seat (or at least it was pre-Blair), but that doesn't matter. Very little coverage, clear WP:POLITICIAN. At the most, redirect to the constituency page and include an external link to his official site. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. No RS or V. Does not meet BIO or POLITICIAN. NN. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability; being a PPC and a local councillor is insufficient. Warofdreams talk 00:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep lots of references, although these are not yet inline. Notable as well. (Bgeelhoed (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

The references are all either self-published, or quotes in a local newspaper. Warofdreams talk 15:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This may be true, but even if it is: Wikipedia does not forbid to refer to self-published work. Also referring to local newspapers is not forbidden. So notability is not affected. (Bgeelhoed (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

Wikipedia does forbid refer [sic] to self-published work, please read WP:SPS. ╟─Treasury Tag►Lord Speaker─╢ 17:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NOTABILITY. Self-published work and sources which do not address the subject directly in detail are specifically mentioned as examples of sources which do not contribute towards a demonstration of notability. Warofdreams talk 00:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete quite clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN notability. JBsupreme (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly non-notable. He doesn't appear to be notable from his job or his old political position. And, of course, it takes quite a bit to be notable for your candidacy. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Keltz

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

A role in a single film and a few minor or single episode roles in television series but nothing, so far as I can see, to establish notability. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 15:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, zero notability here. JBsupreme (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice until such time as this actor gets some coverage. What I found are mentions [47]. Oh, he was in some nice stuff, no denying... but no one thought to single him out for coverage. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- When Michael Q Schmidt thinks something should be deleted, even without prejudice, you can pretty much bet the farm that it will be done. JBsupreme (talk) 08:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well... you know my habit is to actually try to fix something first, rather than simply looking at it and remarking it could never be. So I cleaned it up and went on a hunt for sources, before reporting back here. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm glad you did, Michael, but I did my homework and, unfortunately, came up with similar results. Perhaps somebody'll write about him in detail but it's unlikely to happen before the end of this AfD. :-( HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 04:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I appreciate well that you are a truly diligent nominator, and I have great respect for your understanding of WP:IMPROVE and use of WP:BEFORE. I'll still tilt at the occasional windmill. I might fail, but there is no honor in never having tried. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pelangi Kasih School

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

School of questionable notability. I have not read WP:SCHOOL recently so someone should check that. AFAIK a primary/secondary school is not inherently notable, and I see nothing special about this school. Also the article is written as an advert: "we offer" etc. Chutznik (talk) 20:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Secondary schools are considered notable by editor consensus. However, the current article is largely a copyvio of the school's website. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and comment: Firstly, i stubbed the article back to one or two sentences for the reasons expressed above. Ie, copy right and also it was an advert. While noting the claim above to to "editor consensus", personally, I don't think that all secondary schools are automatically notable at all. There is no notability established here for this article. Hence I'm nominating deletion. --Merbabu (talk) 02:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All secondary schools are notable. This one claims notability by offering Cambridge’s International General Certificate of Secondary Education and Checkpoint. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: How are all secondary schools possibly notable? --Merbabu (talk) 13:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is not a Philippine-Related discussion. This is indonesian. There are no School-like name in the Philippines. - Gabby 21:22, 26 January 2010 (PST)
Delete - the Indonesian project if it were a project that could accommodate the thousands of secondary schools it has - as notable - then the WikiProject Indonesia as we know it would not be able to cope. The project might accommodate articles that are well referenced and not copyvios, but to keep on the basis of it exists is not a common sense process. Satu Suro 13:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Education - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - high schools are notable both for the prominent role that they play in their communities and for the substantial influence they exercise. In this case sources exist to meet WP:V. Indonesian schools have a poor Internet presence and time must be given to enable local sources to be found to avoid systemic bias - 2 or 3 days is wholly inadequate. The "if we keep this then we will get thousands of other schools" argument doesn't wash; we never get large numbers of pages created on the back of an AfD and, even, if we did, WP is not paper. TerriersFan (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TerriersFan with exception to the not paper argument. ;) JBsupreme (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - good stuff on policy - to be given to enable local sources to be found to avoid systemic bias - maybe the keep proposers could find some then? The lack of good local sources or reliable 3rd party sources is why the delete vote has been given, I still would maintain to vote on a broad wikipedia policy of keep secondary school stubs, is in this case and many others pointless on the basis of being unable to satisfy both WP:V and WP:RS due to the nature of Indonesian schools and consequentially their lack of notability. Satu Suro 23:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Indeed. It’s one thing for people to say in an AFD that “consensus” is secondary schools are notable and that we have to avoid systematic bias, and it’s another for us on the ground in the Indonesia project to implement it. While it’s a noble idea to say that English wikipedia should treat all Indonesian high schools the same as those in North American or Australian, it would be good to see people putting their money where their mouth is – so to speak. Are the "keep" proposers here willing to remove unverified articles on schools? It would save the limited time of the handful of Indonesia project editors who are extremely reluctant to see any school in a country of 230 million become notable. Thanks in advance for your help. --Merbabu (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All high schools are notable. Wikipedia:Verifiability is met: the school's existence is confirmed by http://www.pelangikasih.or.id/. Cunard (talk) 06:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. To my knowledge there is not a shred of consensus that all high schools are notable. The reason we keep essentially all verifiable high school articles is that (a) most, if you dig enough and in enough sources, have received significant coverage in reliable sources, facially meeting GNG (though many people disagree about whether the sources—typically local newspapers—are those that are capable of establishing notability); and (b) it's not worth the effort to determine whether a particular high school does or doesn't have that quantum of coverage. ^Bongo_matic 10:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All high schools are notable could be better restated as All high schools are considered inherently notable for the reasons stated by TerriersFan; none that are verifiable have been deleted for the past year or two. While no guidelines say that high schools are inherently notable, consensus at every AfD for the past several years has indicated that they are. Cunard (talk) 10:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Really? Cannot wait for the 8999 other stubs to be started - great on policy - not very clever otherwise - see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Indonesia - the issue is it is very easy to establish a school exists - a totally different ball park is whether there are reliable WP:RS apart from a schools web site - do we really want 8,000 + self referential stubs that verify a school exists - and not a single third party genuine reference for each one apart from a wikipedia mirror site perhaps? - has anyone even checked to see how WP:ID actually deals with high schools? Satu Suro 08:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - source: - http://www.depdiknas.go.id/statistik/0708/sma_0708/index_sma_0708.html

TABEL / TABLE : 1 GAMBARAN UMUM KEADAAN SMA MENURUT STATUS SEKOLAH OVERVIEW OF GENERAL SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL (GSSS) BY STATUS OF SCHOOL TAHUN / YEAR : 2007/2008 SMA07/08

No. V a r i a b e l Negeri/Public Swasta/Private J u m l a h V a r i a b l e s Jml./No Jml./No .T o t a l

1. Sekolah / Schools 4.493 43,88 5.746 56,12 10.239

Anyone who thinks that every one of those schools is notable has to think outside of the AFD process and ask are they really doing something good for wikipedia? by ascertaining that copyvio stubs sit with the overall idea that wikipedis WP:NOT can be violated by quoting WP:SCHOOL policy. If so go ahead and keep - but dont say you are not creating a precedent for rubbish stubs in a project that has editors not exactly thrilled by your aping policy against statistically impossible odds - how can 10,000 schools in one country be notable? How can any one project actually cope with that? Satu Suro 08:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure: I asked DGG (talk · contribs) to comment here about why we always keep verifiable high schools. Cunard (talk) 09:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and so I came, to say what i have said before:

The rationale for keeping all high schools is that in practice we can find sufficient material to show about 95% of them notable by our usual guidelines, and it is not worth having elaborate and time-wasting debates like this to exclude the other 5%. Any established school will have some notable alumni; will have some athletic victories; will usually have won some academic competitions and placed either high or low in some academic standings; the decision to found a school will normally be discussed in news sources or in sources about the founding group or agency; the construction of the school will have been a major project, and also have resulted in public information; the appointment of the successive heads will have been newsworthy; the school will have been a place where some noteworthy things have happened. Any of these is enough for notability, and it is extremely rare that some of this cannot be found. When Wikipedia was started it was sometimes difficult to find such material with the limited research facilities most people here were able and willing to use, for it required research in local print libraries--and very few Wikipedians have proven willing to use libraries at all, or anything not freely and obviously available on the internet. But now with the growth of Gbooks and g news such material is in fact widely and freely available on the internet, and anyone who looks carefully will find it. The information is perhaps more readily available in some countries, like the US, than in others, but the basic principle remains, that the material will always be available. when ai first came here, I did not understand this, but I soon realised that the attempts to distinguish just which schools were below the bar for the thousands of them was a useless enterprise, when almost none of them really failed it. Any attempt to discriminate would make more errors than it corrected. Wikipedia is not the arbiter of what is important--we are not equipped to do this. All we can do is include information that might be of value to someone about those things which can reasonably be considered to be of some importance. why should a large nation not have thousands of notable schools? Notable is much less than famous. We are not an abridged encyclopedia.

In terms of accumulating rubbish, it actually works the other way round. By including basic information we encourage the addition of more. By including basic information about towns and villages and schools and other institutions and things and people we encourage people to improve them. Many more people will, in practice, be able and willing improve an existing Wikipedia article , than are able to properly start one. The continued existence of Wikipedia depends on the continued recruitment of new editors, and this will be primarily from students. Very few active editors remain for more than three =years--they very reasonably develop other interests--writing for Wikipedia is rarely a career. If we do not replace those who leave, we will die; if we merely replace them, we will be static. There is very little here that will not be greatly improved by wider participation--this focus of=n wide participation is the basic idea behind open editing, what made Wikipedia worth starting and makes it worth continuing. Working on local topics is the ideal way of getting started, and what we have always recommended to beginners. Wikipedia is not harmed by the inclusion of borderline topics: it is harmed by the inclusion of spam and prejudice and error. The way of preventing these is to have more people working here. and the way of working here effectively is to add good material. It is more valuable doing this than quibbling at Afd. In the time it has taken to have this discussion, we could each of us have started or improved at least one article for each of us. I will now return to doing that, and so should all of us. DGG ( talk ) 16:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ironically cannot agree with DGG more - what an amazing waste of effort and time over an Indonesian non notable school with a website - 'keeping' every caught copyvio stub from the Indonesian project is not going to help - either way, so DGG is right in parts but shows literally no undertanding of what happens in the Indonesian project, we get this all the time, if we had the desperation to keep this stuff all the time - it is the most counter-productive use of time imaginable Satu Suro 00:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the explanations above of why it is better for Wikipedia, in the long-term, to consider high schools to be notable. The encyclopedia does not exist for the benefit of the editors who take part in a particular project, and nobody is demanding that they immediately improve any articles within the scope of that project. There would be no counter-productive use of anyone's time if such articles were left alone and not nominated for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So from the argument If I understand right - we are left with inadequate unreferenced stubs about probably non notable high schools - cluttering various parts of wikipedia - which are by a policy kept - something has gone very wrong somewhere Satu Suro 00:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Scotland

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

Little evidence of notability. He gets his fair share of Google News hits but most are the briefest of mentions. The rest are hidden behind paywalls, letters to the editor or false positives. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 16:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He seems to have written a published book. But there's very little to suggest he passes WP:CREATIVE as an author or journalist. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Services to the Nation

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

Non-notable organization. Article was authored by the organization itself. Psychonaut (talk) 12:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To inform the debate: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Phil Bridger (talk) 23:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Jelly Moustache

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

Reason; Vanity Page Promoting a Product Everything2000 (talk) 12:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Empire Today. Cirt (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Empire Carpet

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

Possibly non-notable company. Article reads like an advertisement and was written by a single-purpose account. No independent third-party sources except for a list of business association awards, themselves of dubious notability. Psychonaut (talk) 12:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Advertising Age magazine, a leading publication in the U.S. advertising industry, evidently named this company as "one of the top 200 brands in the United States". Advertising Age's text is not available for free online, but one of the references is Floor Covering Weekly reporting on Advertising Age's list. The "Jingle Fever" article from Replacement Contractor magazine is also from a reliable source. The Better Business Bureau references can be ignored. When I was searching for additional sources, I saw references in The New York Times from the 1920s to the 1950s to another company named Empire Carpet, presumably unrelated if this one was founded in 1959. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Merge to Empire Today, (which is the present name of the same company, as noted below by Zagalejo) The puffy promotional language in the article could use some editing, but that is not a valid reason for deletion when the company is clearly notable. They are known both as a national business and for their catchy jingle featuring their phone number. The notability of their jingle and the man who appears in their ads accrues to the sponsoring company. See Google News archive, with many news articles 1960-present. See the Washington Post, which says the Empire ad is one of the best known ad series in the USA, and that it runs in more than 24 cities [48]. See [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58]. Edison (talk) 15:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They seem to be fairly notable in the secondary sources.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a notable company, but we also have the article Empire Today. Perhaps a merge is in order? Zagalejo^^^ 08:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Empire Carpet has substantial history and is the popular name for the company. People search for "Empire Carpet" more than the company's new official name. Refer to Google Insights statistics for 2009 on recent search volume for Empire Carpet. The article has now been edited to remove promotional language with the objective to serve as a neutral information resource for Empire Carpet. --Pete.kehoe (talk) 19:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Empire Today. I'm satisfied with the references provided in this discussion, but in a general company shouldn't get two Wikipedia articles simply by virtue of having changed their name. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Empire Carpet merits a dedicated page owing to the name's popularity to this day and its long history since 1959. It should not be merged because it is an entity in its own right. There is Wikipedia precedent where major companies that have gone through name changes or mergers/acquisitions maintain two Wikipedia pages (e.g. an "historical" name page and a current company reference). Refer to:
Ameritech now known as SBC Communications
Marshall Field's now Macy's after acquisition
Andersen Consulting changed their name to Accenture in 2001
Mars formerly known as M&M's
In all these cases these companies have two separate Wikipedia pages (links to pages above), one each for their historic and new name. --Pete.kehoe (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, some of the links you list are actually redirects, which would support a merge rather than a keep !vote. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Empire Today per the nom. JBsupreme (talk) 20:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Pitcavage

AfDs for this article:

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

No longer notable. This individual's noteworthiness stems mainly from his anti-militia activism 10-15 years ago. JP419 (talk) 11:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about "no longer notable" as an AfD argument, but I would like to note that I have created this article in 2005[59]. This was before "BLP" and all, and it would seem that the notability of the subject can easily be discussed within the Anti-Defamation League article. In this sense I would prefer a merge, to preserve editing history, but failing a merge delete would also be arguable. --dab (𒁳) 14:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Once notable, always notable. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He was never very notable. Back in March of 2009, I did my best to salvage this article, (adding several references), but I found it time-consuming and DIFFICULT to find many reliable third party sources, and none that mentioned anything particularly notable. Just about anyone with a degree can get published, and doing so does not magically confer notability. Also, to the best of my knowledge, Pitcavage has never been a PAID employee of the ADL. He's just an enthusiastic straphanger that volunteered. Trasel (talk) 15:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to their website he is the Director of Fact Finding for the Anti-Defamation League. Sounds like a job, but I can't swear to it. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I tend to agree. It will be sufficient to mention a few of his publications at the Anti-Defamation League article. --dab (𒁳) 08:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I want to emphasize the once notable, always notable principle. The real question is whether he was ever notable....Vartanza (talk) 09:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Vartanza, Eastmain, I would agree with the "once notable, always notable" principle, but I just saw a significant article deleted this month in spite of that very argument, which I backed with the additional argument "Ignore all rules" on the grounds that I thought they were being inconsistent (I tested this theory by nominating Michigan Militia for deletion, using the same argument that was used for Indiana Militia Corps.) Actually, I think that this stub ought to be merged into the article for the Anti-Defamation League simply because his only notability (as such) was developing the "militia watchdog" website, which is now archived at the ADL website. He's a footnote to a footnote. My vote would be to merge, or delete otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JP419 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This looks like a WP:POINTy nomination to me. Regardless, Pitcavage is notable. He's authored a number of pieces still used as reference materials today and has often been used as a subject matter expert by various media outlets. In the mid 90's, Pitcavage was the main "go to guy" on militias. Since notability doesn't expire, the nomination reasoning seems wrongheaded. Passes WP:GNG easily.Niteshift36 (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that this is a WP:POINT nomination. Has anyone looked at Google's News Archives? He is still clearly widely consulted, eg Newsweek last April [60]. Lots of hits in Google Books and Google Scholar also, over 50 in Google Scholar in the last decade, 25 in the last 5 years. Anyone referenced so many times is notable. Dougweller (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Author of 4 books, numerous articles, an acknowlegment in the Encyclopedia of Terrorism, his works cited by a number of books....looking notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g5, created by banned user, see User talk:Gandalf the Beige. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thought Screen Helmet

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

Non-notable product. No reliable sources. Anna Lincoln 11:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I hope sources can be found to enable this entertaining and interesting article to be kept.Fainites ^barleyscribs 11:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If it were a notable product, Merge to Tin foil hat, as an example. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only sources I can find are bloggers making fun of it, or non-reputable UFO paranoia sites. -Verdatum (talk) 17:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a non-reputable UFO paranoia product, so surely the most reliable sources are non-reputable UFO paranoia sites. Common fig (talk) 09:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Above vote is from the article creator. This account has since been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. -Verdatum (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable joke product, not backed by reliable sources. Note: the sock that created this article canvassed my !vote [61] ⇦REDVERS⇨ 10:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about this: ^ "'Anti-alien' hats for Wales". The Sun. 22 July 2008. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/ufos/article1451303.ece. Retrieved 27 January 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Common fig (talk • contribs) 12:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a reliable source. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 13:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How about merging with Alien abduction ? Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to merge. It's either a joke or some loonjob. Either way, it sort of goes against the whole encyclopedia-y thing we've got going on here. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 13:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a joke. I thought that people would find this article interesting (and amusing as well, possibly). And I object to the term "loonjob". Common fig (talk) 13:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not just a joke though it is funny. I suppose it might be a hoax site but belief in alien abduction/mind control is a very real phenomenon. The problem is the lack of sources, particularly as to efficacy in reducing alien abduction experiences by 99%.Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chennaielirundhu 1370 km

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

Non notable future release per WP:CRYSTAL BigDunc 11:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If principal photography has started, it may be worth listing. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Am unable to source the stub as written. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Schmidt. Joe Chill (talk) 01:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article created by User:Adharsh.rated. User name suggests a possible connection to Adharsh Khanna, the name of the star of the film as suggested by the article. The creating editor of the film article has also created an article for Adharsh Khanna four separate times, each time having it speedy deleted per WP:CSD#A7. This would lead me to believe that the creating editor and the lead actor are possibly the same person and that the articles on the film and on the actor were created for promotional purposes with little, if any, concern for notability and verifiability requirements. I have been unable to locate and independent, third-party reliable sources to verify the film meets WP:NFF, WP:NF or even WP:N. No prejudice towards recreation should the subject meet any of these requirements in the future. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete :no mention of this film in vernacular and local media.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan Militia

Delete/Merge. Like the recently deleted article on the Indiana Militia, this organization is currently no longer notable. I suggested that the main points of both articles be worked into the article on constitutional militia movement if they are deleted. We honestly don't need multiple articles at this point and I believe we ought to merge them right away. JP419 (talk) 11:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Once notable, always notable. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no particular opinion on this article but find the statement "... no longer notable" quite odd. - Rjd0060 (talk) 13:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This group got plenty of RS coverage in the early-mid 1990s. Notability does not expire. A Google Books search shows non-trivial coverage too. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Even though they are not in the news, they are still around; indeed, here is a 2009 story [62]. Besides, lumping the Michigan Militia with the Indiana Militia is absurd, kind of like lumping the Union army with the Confederate army. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 15:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no such thing as "no longer notable". Either the subject is notable or it is not. JBsupreme (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - They were in the news a lot in the 1990s and are certainly notable. The article could use a few more references to show this, but a Google search seems to turn up several hits from reliable sources. PDCook (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This group is indeed notable according to the book Terror in the Mind of God, which I read for a college political science class- the Michigan Militia has some 12 thousand members and this book was only published a few years ago.--Flashdornfeld (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is not temporary. TomCat4680 (talk) 03:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:ORG. Joe Chill (talk) 03:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have no recollection of an "Indiana Militia", but this one received significant press coverage in its heyday.--Milowent (talk) 01:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Fitzgerald (journalist)

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

BLp of a non-notable sports reporter in australia, who has won no awards, not been covered by any reliable source in any way, made a unique and lasting contribution, etc... Heavily edited apparently by the subject himself. Was deprodded by an Ip. Bali ultimate (talk) 11:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete writer for a local newspaper is insufficient criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. I could not establish notability through independent sources. I did what I could to cleanup the article to meet guidelines. Much of the article is information that fails WP:BLP. -Verdatum (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:AUTH (which applies to journalists). As a sports reporter for a newspaper with a circulation of about 70,000, I do not consider he is notable in any sense. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- to establish notability, we need to see non-trivial coverage from independent sources. JBsupreme (talk) 11:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of independent WP:RS is a clincher Satu Suro 07:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 LED lamp. Cirt (talk) 22:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geobulb LED Bulbs

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

Borderline CSD G11 — possibly spam for a non-notable product, created and largely authored by a single-purpose account. Psychonaut (talk) 11:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Article does not establish notability, with only one story from a reliable source primarily about the subject. And that's in the paper local to the manufacturer. The other sources are either primary, OR (the UL listing), or passing mentions. I searched for more coverage and found mostly blogs and product reviews. I do not believe the subject is notable. Rees11 (talk) 13:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and welcome the newcomer. There is evidence of notability. Give the user a chance. Maybe even try helping her. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple editors on the article, making the SPA charge largely irrelevant now. C. Crane Offers New Energy-Saving LED Light Bulb Powerful Enough to Replace Common Halogen Type MR16 Bulbs.Published: November 17, 2009 got printed in the New York Times, no it is likely that the product is indeed notable. Collect (talk) 13:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a NYT story, it's a press release reprinted in the NYT. Rees11 (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I said nothing to the contrary. Moreover, the NYT prints few press releases at all, so the fact is the NYT regarded it as notable. Collect (talk) 21:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am seeing some critical coverage of this subject, ie [63] so given that it's not all press release material out there I think this article should remain. JBsupreme (talk) 19:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to LED lamp LED lamps as replacements for incandescent and CFL are undoubtedly notable, but I see no evidence this one manufacturer warrants coverage separate from that article. I42 (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to LED lamp. One printed press release from the vendor and one Boston.com article do not seem sufficient evidence of notability to justify a stand-alone article. A niche product which has not apparently achieved a large sales volume and has not had much independent press coverage. Edison (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to LED lamp, although I would prefer a dedicated article to LED light bulb (why "lamp"?). LED light bulbs may be an important change in our lighting culture as we move toward greater energy efficiency; that change is notable, since one can find many articles on the subject. I was just looking for information on what the status of these bulbs were, with an eye to buying a couple of them. Wikipedia is lacking in information, alas. This article reads more like a company catalog, but that said, it is unique in telling me that the geobulb exists and is one of the viable options to the ordinary light bulb; there are others, e.g. pharox (http://www.mypharox.com), but there are not many. How would one choose between them? What are their features? So I say merge for now, but I ask for an article on the LED light bulb. Bdushaw (talk) 02:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to give two links: nytimes on pharox, los angeles times on pharox - both refer to the generic problem of replacing the incandescent, as well as the compact florescent, light bulbs with a more energy efficient option. The geobulb is in the same category, it looks like. Bdushaw (talk) 10:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Khaled Tag El Deen

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

This lyricist does not appear to meet even the basic criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people), any and all coverage appears trivial. Wine Guy Talk 09:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per lack of reliable third-party sources. The subject fails notability criteria for musicians.--Vejvančický (talk) 08:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 22:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sri Lankan Moors

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

Non-notable cross-categorization. Anna Lincoln 09:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'll wait to see if the author has anything to say, but I note that this was probably split off from Sri Lankan Moors#Notable Sri Lankan Moors. Glenfarclas (talk) 09:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is a spin off from Sri Lankan Moors#Notable Sri Lankan Moors. There are only twenty red links while the rest are all blue and 8 of the red links have a reference.--Blackknight12 (talk) 10:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the correct approach to a spinoff list, which is to include discriminating information about each of the persons. Please note that an indiscriminate list is one that contains nothing but a list of items under a heading, with no further information to discriminate (i.e. distinguish) between one item and another. However, it does need some improvement, since the intro says that this is a list of "Arab traders who settled in Sri Lanka between the eighth and fifteenth centuries". Although a 500 year old MP or cricket player would be very notable, I suspect that most of these persons weren't around until the 20th century. Mandsford (talk) 13:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an acceptable stand-alone list under the relevant guideline. As Mandsford wrote above, it is also not indiscriminate, although it could use some work. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Db4o

Proposed for CSD (A7, G11) with no consensus. Rjgodoy (talk) 09:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject of the article is notable enough (e.g. [64]). I'm nominating it because it was proposed for CSD at least twice, and it was also reverted to stub. However, the article needs some third party sources, and may have to be rewritten. Rjgodoy (talk) 09:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong and speedy keep. [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] etc. Even covered in college textbooks [70]. The article could use some work, but it's definitely nowhere near the advertorial level required for deletion. Also a 7-part tutorial in IBM developerWorks, which was already linked in the article. Big WP:TROUT for the guys trying to CSD this. Pcap ping 15:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, weakly. But note that the article was full of swatches of totally unacceptable puffery. I removed a few of the most blatant examples, but much more needs to be done here. It could very easily have been deleted as unambiguous advertising, and proposing this article in the state I found it in was not unreasonable. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed more from further below. [71]. I only skimmed it the first time. Pcap ping 16:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My litmus for software is that a book has been written about it; ISBN 1590596560 for this one. The article needs aggressive editing, though. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pcap & Mikeblas. The article does need some love though. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I gave it some tough love by removing many of the essayistic endeavors of the article's creator :-) Pcap ping 20:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Per why the heck is this nom here? LotLE×talk 03:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While I agree with keeping the article, other editors considered it should be deleted:

2010-01-07T21:37:52 User:Anthony Appleyard rv to stub & remove the advertizing

2010-01-07T19:12:59 User:SamJohnston g11 - blatant advertising, a7 - no assertion of notability.

2009-12-15T04:32:59

Since I reverted Anthony's edit and I also opposed Sam's CSD request, I wanted to be sure that other editors endorsed my action. Rjgodoy (talk) 06:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/Redirect to I Promised Myself, covers don't get their own article WP:NACD CTJF83 chat 22:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Promised Myself (Basshunter Song)

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

Contested prod. The reason for the proposed deletion is: "Per WP:NSONGS: "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article", only reached 94 on UK singles chart, no references."

Prod was contested by 71.111.133.130, who said on the talk page: "Don't delete this page!!! Just because the song only made it as high as 94 doesn't mean it should be deleted! 94 is still in the top 100! And it's a single off of his album, so there should be a page for it. And it's not like it's hurtful having the page here, and it's not completely useless, so it should stay! And if people try deleting it, I will just recreate it. So, ha. There!"

I would still propose the article is deleted per WP:NSONGS which not only says that "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article", but also "All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Adambro (talk) 08:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Adambro (talk) 08:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I mess up typing how we're supposed to on this page, because I don't know exactly. And if it's listed somewhere, well then it's too mess to find. Sorry! "I Promised Myself" is truly a single. It may not have risen up to a super high number, but not all singles do. The single does have a music video, and the page is informative. Therefore, I think it should stay. If even needed, I will research more about the single to add information to the page and cite everything. Please don't delete the page. Thank you for your time. And apologize with how I acted before. I was in a bad mood and very stressed when I discovered that the page was up for deletion, and Basshunter is my favorite, and this is where I come for information on him, his albums, and his singles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.133.130 (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to I Promised Myself. The Basshunter version is cover of a Nick Kamen song that already has its own article, and we shouldn't have separate articles for every cover version regardless of whether they charted or not. The are no sources in this article, so there is nothing to merge, but redirects are cheap, and it is a plausible search term I suppose. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So how about this compromise? I find citations for information there is currently (for what actually needs it) and that can then be transferred over to the other page to have its own mini section, just like the A*Teens version. Would that be okay then? And now that I think of it, that's been done with another one of Basshunter's singles that was a remake. I think it was "Please Don't Go." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.133.130 (talk) 03:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything missing (which, by the looks of it, is a lot) over to I Promised Myself, then redirect to the same. This is a cover version, and we don't have separate pages, regardless of its notability. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per DirtyNizzy.--_LittleGordon 01:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Stuyvesant

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

I cannot figure out why the person would notable. Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person. (see WP:BIO#Family). Ilyushka ☃^Talk!_Contribs 08:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a clue either. Maybe Lightning12 could explain just why he started an article on Margaret. DutchmanInDisguise (talk) 16:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article would stand a good chance of being speedily deleted under criteria A7 - no indication of importance...Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to bring it to AFD instead because the name gave few thousand google hits. I wasn't sure if I missed something in the article that makes her notable. Ilyushka ☃^Talk!_Contribs 09:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any hint of notability in what Lightning12 wrote. Nor could I find any google hit which suggested notability, although I didn't inspect all 2,680 hits. There seem to have been a lot of women whose name included "Margaret Stuyvesant", such as:
- Margaret Stuyvesant Rutherford White, who lived in the 19th century
- her mother, Margaret Stuyvesant Chanler Rutherford
- Margaret Stuyvesant Thorp
- Margaret Stuyvesant Wainwright
- Margaret Stuyvesant, who lived in the 18th century
- Margaret Stuyvesant Dart, an author
- Margaret Stuyvesant Ten Broeck Gibson
The Margaret whose page's deletion is being considered is mentioned numerous times in genealogy pages, but none of these pages suggest that she did anything which would be "notable". It is quite likely she has hundreds, if not thousands, of descendants who list her name in their family trees.
The onus is still on Lightning12 to justify the existence of a wiki-article for Margaret Stuyvesant!

DutchmanInDisguise (talk) 00:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now somebody at an IP address copied a huge mass of data from somewhere into Margaret's article. But I still don't see anything in all this stuff which indicates what the old gal did that was notable. Yes, she happened to be a half sister of a Dutch governor. Yes, she married a guy who might possibly have been prominent. Her kids and descendants seemed to be a part of the Dutch upper class which ran things in New York until long after the Brits took over.

But what did she do ?????

And furthermore, all the new text looks like trash. Mr. 69.120.6.142 (could he really be Lightning12?) doesn't seem to have any idea how to format something so it'll look like a wiki-article.

Let's delete the article! That's my recommendation. What does anybody else think ?????

DutchmanInDisguise (talk) 05:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The format of the article isn't the point - that could be fixed if the subject was notable. Notability by association is not considered notability under WP guidelines (WP:INHERITED). Wikipeterproject (talk) 02:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's all been said above.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 21:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daigaku

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

This page violates WP:MOSDAB, namely regarding including definitions and WP:DABNOT regarding partial title matches. The term "daigaku" is not ambiguous (it has one meaning in Japanese and none in English) and so this page is unnecessary. armagebedar (talk) 08:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete as unneccessary list - we don't need an article/list for every foreign term. completely fails WP:NOT#IINFO. Blodance the Seeker 12:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per the above reasons. Though it could, perhaps, be redirected to it's translation in English. According to WP:ENGLISH, "Redirects from non-English names are encouraged". Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 17:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- partial title match list. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -armagebedar (talk) 00:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we don't use foreign generics as dab page placeholders for all specific articles that may fit under them, since I doubt very much whether any of these is called "Daigaku" alone anywhere. Cf. Universidad for a proper usage. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to university. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to University. --DAJF (talk) 10:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 several valid sources WP:NACD CTJF83 chat 22:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ABC islands (Lesser Antilles)

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

The use of this term to refer to these specific three items appears to be original research, backed up only by self-published sources. The PROD-tag was removed by someone who claims to have seen this term used in "lots of sources", but unless they are cited rather than vaguely mentioned in an edit-summary, it is clearly non-notable. ╟─Treasury Tag►consulate─╢ 08:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here's twelve sources that use the term, from 1959 to 2007, with all different authors and in different fields: [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] From 1971 1959 [79] [80] and [81]. No, not all these should be added to the article, but the term is in broad common parlance. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No wikipedia-valid reasons are given why this article should be nominated for deletion: self-published sources are allowed by wikipedia. (Bgeelhoed (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
No they are not—please read WP:SPS again. Why would you say something like that? ╟─Treasury Tag►without portfolio─╢ 06:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC) I looked at it: it says "self-published sources are largely not acceptable".[reply]
Again: Keep No wikipedia-valid reasons are given why this article should be nominated for deletion: self-published sources are not forbidden by wikipedia. (Bgeelhoed (talk) 12:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
Are you just trolling now? ╟─Treasury Tag►Captain-Regent─╢ 13:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, "largely unacceptable" is weaker than "forbidden". (Bgeelhoed (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

Keep: I can't for the life of me see why this article should be deleted. It might only be stub-class, but then most of the 20 interwikis are also stubs in their languages too. A few tweaks and expansion, and this could be a nice, tidy addition! Jared Preston (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It should be deleted because it still has no references to state that the term is anything more than one travel-website's own personal invention. ╟─Treasury Tag►Woolsack─╢ 14:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone who's interested, I found one citation in Lonely Planet's guide to the Caribbean islands. Jared Preston (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources given by Bradjamesbrown are sufficient to show common use. Additionally, WorldCat shows 7 items with the phrase in the very title: [82] 3 maps, 2 books, and 3 theses. and a number of others with the phrase in the publisher's summary, e.g. http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/437248532&referer=brief_results], where it clearly is used as the common term. There is no rule against stubs. DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC) .[reply]
I don't remember suggesting that there was a rule against stubs, and I look forward to having my recollection refreshed by the diffs that you will doubtless provide to back up your comment. ╟─Treasury Tag►sheriff─╢ 16:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was not opposing you when I said that, merely seconding Jared. DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bradjamesbrown's ample list of sources shows there is no valid reason for deletion. Edward321 (talk) 22:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Special Response Units in the United States

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

I'm nominating this with mixed feelings. I worked on the list a while ago and added the majority of the 33 references. But most of the entries still are not sourced. The list has no stated criteria for inclusion, which has lead to some questionable entries. Further, the majority of the municipal, regional and county agencies don't have their own article, so wikilinks just go to generic articles about the city or county. Another editor asked for assistance in cleaning the list up in 2006 and nobody helped. I hoped that adding a bunch of links would spur others into action. It didn't. As it is, I think is is contrary to WP:NOT#DIR. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. This is unencyclopedic because the intersection of the two topics isn't culturally significant in itself. Them From Space 04:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not a directory, may be better as a category. MilborneOne (talk) 11:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Staffanstorp. NW (Talk) 01:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Centralskolan, Staffanstorp

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

prod contested Article a small high school which fails general notability guideline. Oo7565 (talk) 07:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here's the school's website [83] in case a Swedish speaker passes by. I don't know enough about the Swedish system to common further at this time. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the highest level of compulsory schooling, equivalent to high school, is notable. I notice that there are plenty of sources in Swedish available in Google. The way forward is to translate and incorporate the sources not to delete. TerriersFan (talk) 18:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TerriersFan again. JBsupreme (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a run-of-the-mill municipal primary school with no particular claim to fame. By the standards of Swedish Wikipedia, no schools of this type are notable enough for stand-alone articles, and the article on this specific school was redirected to Staffanstorp three years ago. The same has been done for all regular Swedish primary schools (grundskola) in Swedish Wikipedia, while secondary schools (gymnasieskola) are often considered notable. The guideline is located here for those who know how to read Swedish or put their faith in Google translate... Setting the standard significantly lower in English Wikipedia would look strange to me. By the way, national statistics tell us that in the school year 2008/2009, there were 4,755 primary schools in Sweden, of which 1,804 offered classes 7-9. This is one of around half a dozen of schools of this kind that currently happen have articles - and is no more notable than any of the other circa 1,800 or 4,750. The majority of existing articles are actually on Swedish schools that "stand out" by being interantional, boarding schools, having a long history or being situated in architecturally important buildings; this school doesn't. Tomas e (talk) 22:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You probably have already noticed this, but this is not the Swedish Wikipedia. JBsupreme (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - - It was a major contributing reason to why I wrote in English. Unfortunately, that didn't seem to make it easier for you to comprehend what I wrote. Tomas e (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You probably noticed that you ignored the majority of the above comment. /Grillo (talk) 14:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well to spell it out in full, on en the general notability guidelines apply (WP:N); see Wikipedia:Schools#Notability. It follows from this that all secondary schools are notable because all are certain to have references in secondary, printed sources and likely in online sources too. There is no requirement for there to be something "special" about them. (Aside: it often seems to me that "Notability" is an unfortunate choice of word for the policy; "Inclusion criteria" would have been a descriptive yet neutral phrase. But we are stuck with it).
      - Just to be clear, this is a school for children aged 13-16. It is not the equivalent of a high school, but more that of a junior high. /Grillo (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Is this some sort of vague way of you suggesting the school is less notable? It doesn't sound like any junior high school I've ever heard of, and if I were to try to find an analog in the US/Canada I think high school would be the best match. JBsupreme (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I've tried to explain the Swedish school system on the article's talk page. /Grillo (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, if enwiki wants articles about all Swedish högstadieskolor, we can give it to them. 1804 in total...it will take a while, but it sure can be done. 94.191.149.38 (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Sounds good, we need something to replace the 50,000 unsourced BLP articles that should be deleted! JBsupreme (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Like this Frank Andersson one? 94.191.149.38 (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All high schools are notable. Cunard (talk) 06:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per my comments on the article's talk page. -Arb. (talk) 10:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- At least remove the stub-sign. There is nothing more notable to tell about a school of this kind. -- Lavallen (talk) 17:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC) (Yes, another swede.)[reply]

Delete, for the record. I think my opinion is clearly stated above. /Grillo (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim to notability. Not a high school. "Högstadiet", ages 13-16, is equivalent to UK secondary school, US middle school, and French collège. See also this table.¨¨ victor falk 12:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (well really merge see Cunard below): I would normally vote keep, like the other keep votes, if this was a high school. However, the above comment appears to be correct that it is not equivalent to a high school, and i can't find sources to otherwise find it notable.--Milowent (talk) 15:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If consensus is that this is not a high school, I would advocate a merge to Staffanstorp#Schools in lieu of deletion. When elementary/middle schools are brought to AfD, we always merge them to the nearest locality / school district. There is no reason not to do that in this instance. Cunard (talk) 18:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's what i meant :-) --Milowent (talk) 05:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It appears that Tomas e (talk · contribs) has already merged some of the information in the article so a merge/redirect is needed for attribution purposes. Cunard (talk) 08:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Grillo. Obelix (talk) 01:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or atleast merge, article contains useful encyclopedic content. Can be expanded if the right person passes by. bbx (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - come on, a small primary school? It is not a high school, by the way. Plrk (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there any reason you would not support the position of a merge and redirect? It is not a middle school and it is not a high school by the U.S. definition perhaps, it seems to be somewhere in between. I'm not an expert on this though. JBsupreme (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - In the UK, though, education to 16 is considered a high school. Whatever else it is, it is not a primary school! I would add that, in any case, no convincing arguments have been adduced against a merge. TerriersFan (talk) 05:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - In the UK, primary school starts at age 5. In Sweden it starts at 7. High school is called Gymnasiet; see Gymnasium (school) ¨¨ victor falk 05:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Merging/redirecting is fine with me; my position is better described as "not keep" rather than "delete". Plrk (talk) 09:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Blue Book of Bicycle Repair

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

Delete. Non-notable book. Bordering on spam. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I created this article to resolve a dispute over “Big Blue Book”. I have little idea whether The Big Blue Book of Bicycle Repair is really note-worthy. I will notify the editor whose content was cloned to make this article of the nomination. —SlamDiego_←T 07:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have redirected Big Blue Book to Little Blue Book since it was a one sentence sub. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was originally a redirect (pending expansion), and that helped to foster confusion (as “Big Blue Book” was mistaken for itself a confusion for “Little Blue Book”). It also is not as encouraging to editors who might potentially expand the article to a full discussion of the Big Blue Books. —SlamDiego_←T 09:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have put the Big Blue Book up for deletion as well. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Blue Book. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A poor choice of nominees, and I don't know why you have us discussing it here. —SlamDiego_←T 06:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jatapurgovia

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

Possible hoax. Unable to verify most references, except for one mention in a work of fiction Rhomb (talk) 07:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the username of the individual who created the article is a reference to that exact same story. I know that Stanislaw Lem enjoyed using false documents in his fiction, but he also enjoyed using obscure historical details, so... bleh. DS (talk) 13:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article was summarily deleted and has been brought back at my request for the purpose of holding this discussion. I'm no expert on Armenian archaeology and thought that the article needed some expert views. Rhomb (talk) 07:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails V (and N). ^Bongo_matic 13:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is, I think, an elegantly constructed hoax; every one of the citations I'm in a position to verify doesn't quite check out, but in a way that you might be fooled into thinking it's just incidental corroborating evidence. It's attributed to Herodotus... but only to fragments of Herodotus, presumably explaining why it's not in any standard edition I've looked at. The citation to Dionysius is just to a source explaining the referenced work exists, not to a copy of it. One of the two "Urartic inscription" citations is a lengthy and quite dull piece about labels on wine jars. (I'd hoped to check Dover, since it seems to be very clearly cited, but I haven't a oopy to hand.)

All this could, of course, be coincidence, and it just so happens that I couldn't find any citation explicitly mentioning it. However, it's pretty indicative, and coupled with the fact that the only internet results for it are from a work of fiction... Shimgray | talk | 18:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This seems a hoax. The article creator's user name is "Poleander Partabon", the same fictional character mentioned in the one source that the fictional Jatapurgovia is mentioned in in a g-book search [84]. --Oakshade (talk) 19:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Oakshade; this is a fictional kingdom without real world notability and written falsely to indicate otherwise. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax. Suda On Line says nothing about Jatapurgovia:[85]¨¨ victor falk 12:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnie Bailey

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

Asserts notability (charting single) so I couldn't speedy it, but I can't find any proof of said notability. And then, upon a closer look at the page, it seems she only charted in a DJ magazine (???). Google News turns up very few results, most of them copying an apparent PR release. (The page history also indicated a possible COI.) SKS (talk) 07:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find anything reliable to show that she passes Wp:MUSIC (and since was a poll in a magazine based on the musician's genre count towards notability?). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ClapsandBoos

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

This website is too new to have recieved the significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources required by WP:N, nor does it meet any of the other provisions in WP:WEB. Them From Space 06:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly not notable. Bueller 007 (talk) 06:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologize for the inconvenience. Please delete this if this is not conforming to any of the standards. Thanks! Arvindrockz —Preceding undated comment added 06:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no more than a fan forum. No where near reliable. Universal Hero (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After attempted inclusion of this site as a reliable source on the Avatar (2009 film) article, I investigated further and found its clearly user-submissions and fan forums. Not notable. DrNegative (talk) 02:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evergreen International Limited

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

'Delete. Non-notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 00:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

W. John Walsh

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

Delete. Fails WP:ONEEVENT Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. John Walsh has written widely on many topics related to Mormonism, such as relations to African Americans. Just because he is most noted in relation to the YFZ ranch incident does not mean that is the only place where he has recieved notice.John Pack Lambert 05:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The fact that he has only been noticed over this denotes non notability. Perhaps you can cite specifically how he passes WP:GNG and WP:ONEEVENT or even WP:AUTHOR? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. Bueller 007 (talk) 06:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two major news sources already, which is perfectly fine for a stub like this. Jclemens (talk) 17:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It looks possible that he is notable due to his writings, independent of his news coverage. I see articles of his published or linked to on a variety of websites. If someone could find independent in-depth coverage discussing him as a writer, I'd gladly change to "keep". -Verdatum (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If he has writtne widely, perhpas some one can add details of where. As a non-LDS, I do not feel concerned about this reputation personally. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as WP:ONEEVENT. Both cites are from one month, April 2008, shortly after the event. One of the cites is an interview by Fox News, not exactly a reliable source. If someone can find more, which are reliable and of more recent vintage, and add them to the stub, I'll change my mind. Everybody knows I'm an inclusionist and I'm open-minded. Bearian (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mongolian passport

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

"...sometimes, when you know you are right and others are wrong, it's time to let them be wrong and just leave it that way."
Seb az86556 to User:Wiki Greek Basketball on January 2, 2010.

Nomination withdrawn. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After the removal of the visa-free section this has become a one-liner truism that does not warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia per WP:NOT (dictionary)

Also nominating: Saint Lucian passport/ Nicaraguan passport/ Saint Kitts and Nevis passport/ Honduran passport/ Grenadian passport/ Haitian passport/ Dominican Republic passport/ Antigua and Barbuda passport/ Monégasque passport/ Andorran passport/ Papua New Guinean passport/ Yemeni passport/ Tuvaluan passport/ Qatari passport/ Kyrgyzstani passport/ Bahraini passport/ Tanzanian passport/ Swazi passport/ Namibian passport/ Lesotho passport/ Rwandan passport/ Seychellois passport/ Malagasy passport/ Ivorian passport/ Djibouti passport/ Republic of the Congo passport/ Eritrean passport/ Gabonese passport/ Burundian passport/ Cameroonian passport/ Cape Verdean passport/ Botswana passport/

(I left out the ones that had at least a picture. All original contributors have been notified if still active.)

Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. This is a WP:POINTy nomination of a user involved at the Talk:Passport dispute. Those articles have always been one-line stubs, with or without the visa-free sections. Now that they're gone, maybe some effort will actually go into improving documentation of the passport itself, rather than documenting unrelated visa policy of foreign nations. —what a crazy random happenstance 08:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How am I involved? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I count seven posts to that page, along with this, which resulted in this and this. You did not revert, but you are most certainly involved in the dispute. —what a crazy random happenstance 08:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look, all of them now easily meet CSD-A3: "...a rephrasing of the title,...", e.g. "an X passport is a passport for people of X". I could just as well have put them up for speedy deletion. That -- would have been somewhat pointy. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed, yes. Nevertheless, that is no reason to forum shop. This discussion belongs at Talk:Passport. —what a crazy random happenstance 08:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. If you are going to nominate a batch of articles to be deleted, create a separate AfD for each, and don't lump them all together; each one needs to be considered singly and individually on its own merits, and discussed individually. WP:BUNDLE is for related articles on the same topic, not simply for parallel articles on different topics. It is often a good idea to only list one article at afd and see how it goes. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 08:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... so now you're asking for mass-AfDs? I'm sure I would've been screamed at for WP:POINT even more... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way WP:BUNDLE: "A group of articles with identical content but with slightly different titles." - The only difference between these is the different name of the country... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, they weren't identical content until all of the carefully collected encyclopedic content was inadvisably deleted from them; each had a unique map and a unique capsule summary of the contents of dozens or hundreds of reference pages, just like a good encyclopedic page should have. Admittedly some of those pages were structured to be difficult to keep up to date, but I haven't seen compelling discussion to mutilate them on those grounds.Edward Vielmetti (talk) 09:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agree here. To make this clear: I don't care whether they exist or not, but if they do exist, they need to have content. "Honduran Passports are issued to Honduran citizens to travel outside of Honduras" is not an article -- seriously, it simply isn't. It's a circular definition. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I see. This is not like the discussion at Talk:Passport at all. I am sorry of having accused you of forum shopping, I was clearly mistaken. </sarcasm> A one sentence article is still a one sentence article no matter how much table formatting follows it. The visa policy of Chad as applied to Yemeni citizens has nothing to do with the physical document issued by Yemen as the Yemeni passport. Do not discuss this here, return to Talk:Passport. This is forum shopping and canvassing. —what a crazy random happenstance 09:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a possible alternative, I'd suggest a new Visa free travel from Mongolia page, which would copy in the offending but useful information on travel requirements, and separate it out from the Mongolian passport page which would provide details for passport holders. This would actually be quite useful since there was a piece of information that I wanted to source (where Mongolians can get passports in Australia) that did not have a place in the current page as it is constructed. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 09:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This debate is again proceeding at Talk:Passport, and this AfD should be closed. —what a crazy random happenstance 10:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I think that the nominator is right that these articles don't do anything other than to state the obvious ("The ______ Passport is an international travel document that is issued to __________ citizens"). If that's all you have to say, don't bother. Mandsford (talk) 13:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I agree with Mandsford. We wouldn't have an article on each US state's drivers license. (I hope we don't anyway.) WP's purpose is not to be guidebook to international travel laws. People need to go elsewhere for that, like the countries' own websites where they can get official and up to date information. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. I pinged the nom earlier to ask them to withdraw; having two delete votes complicates that, I think. But the issue here is that 33 related articles, all stubbed in the last 24 hours at 1/10th (on average) of their original size, are up for deletion in one go - despite the fact that, as has been noted above, the issue of their status (and that of the forked articles made from the excised material) is still very much under discussion at Talk:Passport. If editors were to expand them to comply with policy (not to say that they do or don't already comply), it would be a daunting task - moreso to accomplish it in one week. I recommend that we wait for consensus at Talk:Passport before moving foward with any mass deletion, and that further AFD nominations be subject to a limit of a few at a time, to avoid overwhelming editors. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - It's quite hard to assume good faith with those pointy nominations, but I'm trying... --Latebird (talk) 18:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this violates WP:POINT. What exactly do you presume is the point I'm trying to make? Convince me. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Specifically:~~

If someone deletes from an article "unimportant" information which you consider to in fact be important to the subject...
do argue on the article's talk page for the material's inclusion

do not delete most of the remaining article as "unimportant".

This latter clearly could be rewritten as do not AfD the remaining article as "unimportant".

You have clearly objected to the removal of the visa-free graphics and seem to be resorting to disruptive tactics to make your point and force a resolution no one will be happy with. You also seem to to have a certain amout of COI: "Another thing I work in the Travel and Tourism Industry and I need to know this kind of information", from this pointed to above. Sorry, but I see no reason for your rudeness to User:Happenstance User:RashersTierney either. --Jubilee♫clipman 03:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please revisit this statement. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies: I misattributed those comments to you because I am still trying to get to grips with the whole (exceptionally complex) issue as requested by User:RashersTierney. I will look more closely at your involment in the discussion linked above before striking the rest. --Jubilee♫clipman 03:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me help you out: From Talk:Passport: "Maybe I'm re-hashing things, but just to be clear. If in the end there will be such a guideline, that's fine. I'm just doubtful that will happen, and I'm against creating fait accompli's sp? before the guideline exists. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)" I clearly state that I don't have a bone in this fight, and that I do not insist on either way. (Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, I saw that, but I also saw " I would not want to set the precedent of having to go around deleting all sorts of possibly outdated pieces of information just because someone could interpret it as legal, medical, or otherwise binding guidance" which seems to suggest that you object to the rationale of deleting the material in the first place (on apparently accurate grounds, I confess, ie "Wikipedia isn't legal advice, period"). However, I see your point in some ways: this has resulted in massive edit wars... I am not sure how AfFing articles that are patently viable helps though? These articles could be expanded to explain the history and usage/abusage etc of these passports. Indeed many no longer fit your stated reasons for AfD, including the top nominated article, precicely because they have been edited to become encyclopedic. I have stricken the rest for now, as I suspect you are not actually fussed either way on the ex/inclusion of the disputed graphics but rather are pointing out flaws in the arguements that have been made for their exclusion. --Jubilee♫clipman 04:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Now tell the involved warriors^{[tongue-in-cheek]} to read my new section @ Talk:Passport. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They have found it... I might point you to WP:BEFORE (again), however... The articles are clearly viable and you failed to remember that stubs are awaiting expansion and that recent removals from an article might suggest either vandalism or poor editing. Don't forget that stubbing is a perfectly valid process to restart articles that have been the subject of improper edits or whose previous edits are controversial. --Jubilee♫clipman 05:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... you withdrew. Good decision! --Jubilee♫clipman 05:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Without any content, the articles serve no function. If a user is able to provide encyclopedic information about e.g. the Rwandan passport (or just an image) that would be welcome. There is plenty that could be included, information such as number of pages, how it is obtained, biometrics, etc, but in the present state, delete. In the same way, we have Vehicle registration plates of Poland which is full of information but there is no Vehicle registration plates of Rwanda. And of course one afd covers the lot because inevitably the result must be the same for all candidates. Sussexonian (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found no difficulty in finding a substantial source which discusses the topic of Mongolian passports at length and have added a brief citation to the article. There is no case to answer as the article is not in the slightest a dictionary entry - the nomination seems to confuse a stub and a dictionary entry - a common mistake, as explained at WP:DICDEF. All the other article should be kept too as this misunderstanding seems to be the common factor. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, these articles are easily sourced and updated, and inherently notable. Let's not forget there is no deadline. —what a crazy random happenstance 05:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now that the distraction of unrelated graphics have been moved to more appropriate homes, these stubs are much more likely to attract constructive edits. They were very intimidating before as they bore no relation to what they should have been contained. Whats the pressing hurry? Already some of these articles are being developed for the first time. RashersTierney (talk) 06:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Colonel Warden. Matt's talk 20:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And restore to what it was. Some keep mass deleting 90% of the article. [86] Dream Focus 11:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently all the passport articles have had their content moved to other articles, such as Visa_free_travel_from_Mongolia. Why not just rename the articles instead of moving 90% of them somewhere else? And I don't see why mentioning that all Mongolian citizens must have a passport at a certain age, and whatnot, shouldn't be done on the same page as the Visa information. I say, merge that information all back together. Dream Focus 12:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has been exhaustively debated at Talk:Passport. Please don't fork that discussion. RashersTierney (talk) 12:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is Visa_free_travel_from_Mongolia which seems to be an improper fork as it has been created by cut-paste from this article without proper attribution of the original author in accordance with our copyright licence. No deletion should take place until this mess is resolved properly. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please raise the issue of 'histories' at Talk:Passport#Implementing Edward's compromise agreement. If there is a technical problem, the editors there would want to know. RashersTierney (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hold off all deletions for now and speedy close AfD - These articles are the subject of extensive debate found here and on their own talk pages. The nomination appears to be an attempt to force resolution by unreasonable and disruptive means. All the articles could quite easily be edited to become viable, I suspect, by knowledgeable editors (indeed many have been, including the top one), so this is also a case of a WP:BEFORE violation. Perhaps the proposing editor also ought to be knuckle-rapped by an admin for wasting time and disrupting legitimate editing? --Jubilee♫clipman 02:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Addendum - he has been rapped, actually, but that admin is involved in this debate. What I meant was that a non-involved admin needs to be brought to deal with the editor. --Jubilee♫clipman 03:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Martin (model)

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

No independent stand-alone notability. Entire fame rests on being a girlfriend to two musicians, one very briefly. See WP:NOTINHERITED Laetoli2 (talk) 04:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cutno (talk) 05:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the most famous rock groupies. The article is well-referenced. --Scieberking (talk) 17:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No imdb.com entry, no allmusic.com entry, no major photo shoots or portfolios, no published biography, a modelling career which never took off. Vanished into obscurity. Absolutely non-notable. Rapastone (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It provides a continuity between major performing artists, which would not be readily discernable without a reader's familiarity with its multiple sources. The fact that Ms. Martin was intimately associated with both Eric Clapton and Jimmy Page makes for some notoriety. Finally, Wikipedia provides a greater encyclopedic reference to the music industry than is currently available. The fact that Ms. Martin is not included in other online sources makes it that much more important that information pertaining to her and other more notable personalities be included, however trivial it may seem.Kupyets (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: User:Kupyets only edits appear to be about this afd. Because X hangs around someone else who is famous, does not automatically make X famous as a result. Notability is not inherited WP:NOTINHERITED. AfdWatcher (talk) 23:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only notability is association with a notable person. Piriczki (talk) 13:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable. Not even associated or linked with any known modelling agency. Similar precedent: Lori Maddox, who I would argue is even more notable as a groupie, was previously deleted for non-notability (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lori Maddox). PaulHammond2 (talk) 23:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ian James (broadcaster)

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

Sort of contested prod. Was prodded and had 2 endorsements. Then an editor removed it saying he'd look for sources. He added a source that didn't support the text. So far, we can only show he did 2 episodes of a show on BBC Leeds. Was tagged as unsourced since 2006. Tagged as an orphan since 2006. I looked for significant coverage, but his not terribly uncommon name didn't make that any easier. Even if I assume everything in the article is true, I don't see him passing WP:CREATIVE. Minor shows on BBC. Article claims he hosts a show called "Glitterball" on BBC Leeds, but according to their website, the host is Dominic Busby, not Ian James. [87]. From all appearences to me, he's had jobs, but nothing that has made him notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: He may be doing a gardening show for 2 hours on Sunday afternoons on BBC Radio Merseyside. [88] Again, not striking me as terribly notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep BBC is reputable enough. Weak delete, per Niteshift36.[89] Ikip 04:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Two shows? No Cult following? No way. Cutno (talk) 05:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Multiple searches on variations of name produce nothing that can be used to establish notability for this person or this article. Being listed as part of a BBC show does nothing to establish notability, especially when that link is the only reference. Without significant coverage in mainstream media meeting WP:RS, there is no reason to keep this article. Flowanda | Talk
Delete. I couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources for this chap to pass the notability criteria. He's a guy who has worked in local radio in the UK and that's it. 217.44.64.171 (talk) 01:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Teechart

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

I can't find significant coverage for this company in reliable, third-party sources to meet WP:N. It's also worth noting that the sole editor obviously has a conflict of interest with the subject matter. Them From Space 03:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 03:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found nothing too. Daa89563 (talk) 04:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTADVERTISING May come into play here. Cutno (talk) 05:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daw Khin Khin Thein

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

I removed the speedy. Claim to notability is being the wife of a notable diplomat. Any useful content (of which there is none) could be merged into the husband article. General case of notability not being inherited. Shadowjams (talk) 03:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The one thing I'm not sure about, because the husband is quite notable as is the son, is whether or not the wife was also notable, but in a way that I can't find. It's hard for me to assess what's out there, so I'd rather it be here than speedied. Shadowjams (talk) 03:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to merge, and since nothing encyclopedically interesting is said about her, no redirect is desired either. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I believe the editor is acting in good faith, I don't think diplomatic spouses are inherently notable, like first ladies. Shadowjams brings up a good point, though. Burma is a relatively closed society, the husband and son are targets for discredit by the regime, so it will be really a task to find something about her. I started the articles on the son and hubby, it's a rough one. I wish the new editor good luck. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 03:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, and I'm not convinced "wife of a notable diplomat" is even enough to pass speedy. Hairhorn (talk) 04:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note I normally agree, but the son and husband have someone important notability and my concern was that between the lack of Burmese sources and the language issues, I wouldn't be able to find ready indications of notability that might have slipped through. It's clear the article as it is, is not useful. Shadowjams (talk) 05:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is has no references and may violate WP:NPOV.
Delete Unless there's a plethora of information on the Burmese wiki. I'd try to look, but I don't even have the font for Burmese. Wine Guy Talk 12:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianna Savoca

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

Broadcasts on a public radio station hosted at Ohio University. Google news has 0 coverage, and googling the name brings up lots of social networking hits on the name, but no third party indications of notability.

Local newscasters of midsized markets aren't notable if their notability is only local. This looks to be a non-network (public television) version of a non-nightly news anchor in a small market.

Possible COI as well. Shadowjams (talk) 02:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- citing WP:NOR --Cutno (talk) 04:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable third-party sources, the subject fails notability criteria for people. --Vejvančický (talk) 07:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

María Cristina Rosas

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

In Spanish. Was deleted from the Spanish Wikipedia under their speedy deletion criterion G3 (the equivalent of our G11, but also applies to autobiographies and soapboxes). Notability is asserted but not established, and even the Spanish version of Google returns nothing helpful. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This article is so terrible, I have not seen why it wasn't speedy deleted under G11. --Cutno (talk) 04:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. G11 ~~or G1 since this is a Non-English article in English Wikipedia~~. Daa89563 (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - That's not a speedy deletion criteria. For whatever reason, foreign language articles can persist indefinitely and not meet any CSD criteria. You might be interested in WT:CSD and advancing those criteria. Shadowjams (talk) 07:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake Daa89563 (talk) 11:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The machine translation is very readable in English. Based on that, fails WP:PROFESSOR. Shadowjams (talk) 07:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:PROFESSOR is failing this time. JBsupreme (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GS shows h-index of at most 5, which is way below the typical impact level that we usually consider with respect to WP:PROF. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Paulshock

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

Fails WP:ENTERTAINER, no large fan base or cult following, no significant improvements to her field (neither wrestling nor wrestling commenting), only one minor award, no biographical sources describing her life and achievements. Apart from the sources already in the article, the only mentions in google books are passing mentions[90] and one page 3 girl photo[91]. Enric Naval (talk) 01:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete non notable BLP. Viridae ^Talk 02:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 02:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete insufficient reliable sources of the depth required to begin allowing for the creation of an appropriate and neutral blp.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cutno (talk) 04:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN Daa89563 (talk) 05:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had a hard time finding the current references for the article as it was. I only added them to help cut down the number of unreferenced BLPs. JuneGloom07 Talk? 13:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. How are we doing with unreferenced BLPs, did anyone take a snapshot? JBsupreme (talk) 18:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is tough, I think she is notable enough to have an article based on her role in WCW, I will do some searching (and hope others do to) to show notability. TJ Spyke 21:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep well referenced article, people magazine and the sun wrote about her. Ikip 23:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note I contacted editors who had edited this page before. Ikip 23:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the Talk:World_Championship_Wrestling page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
We're back to disagreeing Ikip! Being written about by The Sun is not really an achievement. Of the reliable sources in the article, all are but trivial, passing references. That said, I'd be happy to be proven wrong and if something (anything) decent can be found, I'd be happy to see this userfied or incubated. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 00:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:GNG. WP:ATHLETE doesn't apply since she was an interviewer in WCW and never had a match. Nikki♥311 01:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as IAR to WP:ENT, this actor/model/arm-candy celebrity is simply one role/scandal/famous marriage away from meeting ENT and likely already passes GNG for a public career spanning at least a decade. I found multiple trivial mentions in online publications and likely plenty more exist. The only concern I have is that as is the article feels like the BLP of someone who's career has ebbed so no one would object of the subject asked for it to be deleted. It's borderline but something could easily turn up to indicate notability. -- Banjeboi 09:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh... I consider Nikki311 an expert in this field, if she says this article should be deleted you can bet your bottom dollar it will be. JBsupreme (talk) 09:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't even read that !vote and simply offered my opinion which I stand by. No one can prove sources don't exist simply do a basic search to see what is available online. I wasn't impressed by the quality but there is enough "bits" between different careers to sweep together. Having said that I see no reason to fight to keep as the overall sense I get is that the career is waning at best so this particular BLP serves to document a person's declining career so I feel WP:Harm plays a part. If a big 'ol article on her was produced that effective covered her then it goes from borderline to probably. Keep in mind as well this is, after all, a BLP and just maybe things change. Whatever decision is made now should at least be seen in the light of available information. -- Banjeboi 11:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - So 1) you didn't read the discussion prior to !voting; and 2) you don't understand deletion policy, in that you think "bits between different career(s) to sweep together" is enough, as far as sourcing goes. It's not. UnitAnode 16:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I didn't happen to read that comment, no read to invent further context beyond that. I had no idea that editor was considered an expert in wrestling but that hardly means they are an expert on this subject which is only one career they've had. And actually yes, I do understand most deletion policies so please don't build antagonism where none is needed. -- Banjeboi 05:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources contain nothing but passing mentions of this woman, which is simply not enough. Unit Anode 17:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She ain't having a Wikipedia article she weaker than Sable was. And Sable was easily outclassed by Chyna, Jacqueline etc. Throw her out of the ring!--BIG FOUR ! ! ! ! 21:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:GNG. Epbr123 (talk) 11:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Demo, Fall 1998

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

I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 01:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete/Comment. Article is part of several others regarding the musician, Tom Shear. Cutno (talk) 01:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 04:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not finding any in-depth coverage for this self-released demo; does not appear to satisfy WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 04:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Demos are generally not notable, per WP:NALBUMS. ReverendWayne (talk) 04:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of B'nai B'rith Girls chapters

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of B'nai B'rith Girls chapters

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

Unnotable web directory listing for the local chapters of B'nai B'rith Girls. Wikipedia is not a directory and it is not a mirror of the http://bbyo.org/ website. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cutno (talk) 01:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, as an additional note, B'nai B'rith Girls has been tagged for CSD Copyvio as it is a copy/paste from the aforementioned website. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A list of chapters in a non-notable organization. Joe Chill (talk) 03:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the organization might be notable (the previous article was deleted as a copyvio, but a non-copyvio might pass db-corp standards); but there is no justification for creating a WP:NOT#DIRECTORY-violating directory page, especially when there is no article for the organization itself. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
B'delete - copyvio or not this list of chapters are not notable (nor is the book). JBsupreme (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - wp is not a directory Tzu Zha Men (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stove King

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

Non-notable musician, sources are fansites and it doesn't appear his made a unique impact/won awards in the genre. MBisanz ^talk 01:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect to band. WP:MUSIC--he's not notable just because his band is, and I don't see any independent notability beyond that. DMacks (talk) 01:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Comment The Kleptomania (album) article of which this article is linked to needs serious cleanup, As for this AfD, definitely has to go. Cutno (talk) 01:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 04:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The first source is from the old official Mansun website, as the .co.uk website was deleted. The second link it a transcript from a fan interview. He has played on all the bands albums and has featured on the front cover of Bassist magazine in the UK. If making a unique impact and winning awards in the artists genre is a requirement, you'd probably have to delete thousands of article? And the links above trying to demonstrate lack of sources - if you actually google his name on Google Images plenty of images are shown. Unohoo45 (talk) 12:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Got a cite for the cover of Bassist? If we had inforamtion and cites for any of this "making a unique impact and winning awards in the artists genre", that would definitely support individual notability. But right now, everything only has his musicality and other facets in the context of "member of his band", not "he himself in other respects". "Lots of images on google" DMacks (talk) 15:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Satisfaction of the notability criteria for politicians has not been refuted by the delete !voters. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alfredo Fuentes Hernández

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

Interim director and general counsel of an organization doesn't qualify as notable. Also, the only source is a press release from the organization. MBisanz ^talk 01:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Cutno (talk) 01:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:POLITICIAN - holding the highest office of an international organisation for 6 months seems notability enough. Clicking on the Google "books" and "scholar" links suggests he may also meet WP:PROF. Here's another source on his other activities: [92]. Rd232 ^talk 18:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've put an independent source in the article about the subject's CAN appointment and also confirmation that he was a dean of faculty at a major university. There are plenty more sources available here - please note when searching that according to Spanish naming customs the second surname is often omitted when discussing a person. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep per WP:politician and above. Ikip 02:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Guy's a non-notable bench-warmer. Jack Merridew 03:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colm Connolly

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

Just another US attorney who happened to prosecute a couple of not especially high profile cases. Mangoe (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I see potential for the article to be expanded. --Cutno (talk) 01:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. US Attorneys are notable, and generally have a relative abundance of sources. Rebecca (talk) 01:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a crappy article, because it stops keeping up with this guy's career as of a couple of years ago. He's a big deal in Delaware. Here's more references to get it up to date. [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] Edward Vielmetti (talk) 07:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All those links focus on him being a nominee. If he gets the post, OK, then I would agree, he would (by our IMO weak standards) be notable. THe final article suggests that this might not ever happen. Mangoe (talk) 11:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His notability isn't based around being a nominee for a judgeship, although that helps - it's around him being a US attorney, and a reasonably high-profile about that. We have good, well-sourced articles about plenty of US attorneys, precisely because they tend to be clearly notable. Rebecca (talk) 11:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Annarumma

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

This individual does not appear notable. Candidates are typically not deemed notable on Wikipedia just because they are candidates. His career has no citations of notability, and his political citations only indicate that he is running. Nothing cited indicates that his candidacy in itself is notable. Therefore, I respectfully nominate this article for deletion. SoxFan999 (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Subject does not have any significant notability. However, this may change over time since the elections are a time sensitive event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cutno (talk • contribs) 01:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I support having articles for the actual nominees of major US and UK parties, even if they do not win--but for splinter parties such as this, just as for candidates for a party primary, it's another matter entirely, unless real notability can be proven. I'd perhaps even consider this a valid G11 speedy as primarily promotional. DGG ( talk ) 03:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:POLITICIAN and beyond that I'm not finding any reliable independent sources that satisfy WP:BIO in general. PDCook (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It doesn't surprise me that Soxfan999 has nominated this article. If you look at his history of contribution's you will see that he has negatively edited everything having to do with the Florida Whig Party. This is a personal attack from the Modern Whig Party a group in which the FWP was once affiliated with. The attacks started instantly after Florida cut ties with the MWP. To say this party and it candidates are not notable is absurd. Look at the articles in reference that explain that the Florida Whig party and its candidates have made history in Florida simply by running the most ever third party candidates for Federal office in the States history. Look at the edit history and say that this is not personal. why has he never contributed to any thing besides the FWP article and the MWP's article and in the Florida Candidates articles?Jrogoski (talk) 11:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

attacking a new wikipedia editor doesn't take away from the underlying fact that the subject is not notable. If the party is notable for running candidates, then it is more appropriate on the party page and not a separate entry for some who is not notable. Also, typically the creator of a page doesn't vote to keep. I also am a republican voter in Florida so am interested in this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SoxFan999 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note: it is entirely appropriate for the page creator to !vote/comment here. PDCook (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:POLITICIAN, no reliable sources to meet general notability guidelines. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 15:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Delete (changed for reasons stated below Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 05:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)) but review after the creator or someone has had time to develop this new article. One reference is from a local general circulation newspaper with a print circulation of about 50,000 Ocala Star Banner and there is also a reference from Ballot Access News (I didn't look up circulation since I recognized it as legitemate) which is a 25 year old national nonpartisan political newsletter. By nonpartisan I mean in the sense of political party favoritism, not that it doesn't have a position on the general political issue it reports on. To say no reliable sources have been cited is incorrect. I don't know how much weight to give their mentions. I think BAN's was quite brief and the Star-Banner article seemed to require clicking through several pages to read which I didn't do because I'm not that interested. I'm not sure if the Muncie Free Press should have been rejected as a reliable source though I think whoever wanted/wants to use it should make the case for it if it is a reliable source since that's not clear. MFP seems to rely heavily on some fledgling new "wire service" that solicits news but exercises editorial judgement (ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox TV news programs and major newspapers also do this) and it looked like MFP exercised editorial judgement over what it uses but I lost the link that indicated that and [98] suggests "wire service" isn't as apt a description as I'd thought it doesn't undermine exercise of editorial judgement.[reply]

No talk page exists for this article, or attempt to work together to reach concensus by the editors and the request for deletion appears to be premature IMO. Bluntly it appears to be an edit warring censorship tactic. "Gaming the system" or whatever the appropriate Wikipedia phrase is. That's my main reason for suggesting the article be kept for maybe two to four weeks to see if it goes forward and judge on the merits then. If it's just been abandoned I don't see it as being notable enough to keep but maybe work on it has just been interrupted. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 11:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The citations of the Ocala newspaper and Ballot Access could be good citations if they were about the article subject. But they are more only mentioning that he is running and mainly focused on the political party. This entire article is written like a campaign literature, but the two media sources only mention him as opposed to feature. I looked for additional articles to try and save this page but did not find anything that would comply. I still contend that this page be deleted for lacking notability and failing the politician standards. If he down the road receives enough attention on his own then a more appropriate article could be created. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SoxFan999 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Annarumma is not even mentioned until page 6/7 (and only once) in the Ocala article. The Ballot Access and Independent Political Report articles just sort of say he's running and then talks more about the party. The reliable sources given in the article, and the ones I've found via a Google search, simply do not demonstrate a level of notability that would satisfy WP:BIO. Overall, this is largely a promotional article written like an ad campaign. As far as there being no discussion on the article's talk page, that is simply not a prerequisite for AfD in this case. If it was a borderline case of notability, then a discussion may have been warranted, but Mr. Annarumma clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN and I think this AfD discussion is not at all premature. Furthermore, I came across this article in the deletion discussions list and I assure you, Refrigerator Heaven, that I am not here to censor anything and I am certainly not gaming any system. I am here to show my support for Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I will point out that no amount of work can make a non-notable article notable. PDCook (talk) 15:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Muncie Free Press site is "Citizen Journalism" user-generated content (see [99] and is clearly not a reliable source. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find the comment by PDCook (who has no appearance of a conflict of interest) sufficiently convincing to change my suggestion from keep to delete. I also see an edit summary line along the lines of "stop your unauthorized editing" (which is in some associated article) may not have been a comment by SoxFan999 as I'd thought previously and I don't really disagree that this sounds like a puff piece though I don't assume that means the article subject is necessarily non-notable. However, I've no interest in researching the subject to find out or otherwise editing the article. I don't recall how I came across this article and doubt I'd have even looked at the deletion discussion if not for the nature of the controversy about deletion of Biographies of Living Persons at [[100]]. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 13:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note of procedure: if you are changing your !vote from keep to delete, you should strike out (using <s>ABCXYZ</s>) your ~~keep~~ above and add a delete next to it. PDCook (talk) 14:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Headlines (Jay Leno)

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

Zero indication of notability. ÷seresin 00:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 01:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Cutno (talk) 01:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Jay Leno Show. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, "zero indication of notability" doesn't get it, given that the headlines segment has given rise to several bestselling books that raised money for pediatric AIDS. As with Dave's Top 10 Lists, the Headlines segment has notability independent of the television show upon which it is a feature. No !keep, however, as the article is actually a compilation of jokes and mirthless, pseudo-scholarly explanations of why a particular joke is funny (e.g., "Jay usually introduces these with 'Here's something I didn't know...', and after showing them, sarcastically comments, 'Oh, really?' as if he had just learned that....") As tempting as it is to make a list of the funniest things you've ever heard or seen on the Tonight Show (and the template is here for people to add the latest funny wedding announcement, news headline or advertising text), the not-as-fun alternative is simply to describe this in a paragraph and provide the link to Headlines website. I won't be surprised if this ends up as a keep, since the nomination is wrong about "zero notability", but there's no good way to present a separate article about this feature. Mandsford (talk) 13:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mandsford. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. The Late Show Top Ten List is its own article. I know, not necessarily a valid argument per Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, but the point is that a very notable segment on a television show can/should have its own article to keep the size of the main article reasonable. Certainly the article in question needs to be cleaned up and presented in an encyclopedic manner, and not just be the list that it currently is. PDCook (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think being the most well-known aspect of a 17 year running program which was the most popular late night program for years qualifies. --Iron Chef (talk) 02:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can think of at least two previous occasions where this article was considered for deletion for the exact same reasons stated here (not notable, not verifiable, fancruft, etc.). At this point, it has just become a deletion-equivalent to an edit war, and it needs to cease. This is the third time in which it has been nominated for deletion, and I predict, like a soothsayer, that this is the third time it will NOT be deleted.Wikieditor1988 (talk) 09:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted: G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.banglapedia.org/httpdocs/HT/S_0234.HTM —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hazrat Shah Sufi Amanat Khan

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

Questionable notability. I can't find any references to this person outside of wikis and a few guides to sights in Chittagong (including one that's a copy of this, or maybe this is a copy of that). No evidence of coverage outside of Chittagong. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 00:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability. If there are reliable sources that show that this individual is notable, then by all means - I'm happy to keep. But I can't find any. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 01:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Procedural Note. It looks like this debate was started on 26 January, but wasn't included in the log (or the article tagged) until 18 March. So, despite the ancient debate (by AFD's standards), I'm going to pretend this debate is a regular March 18 2010 debate, and recommend that it be closed accordingly on the 25th (or whenever). UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 01:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but remove copyvio. The subject is a well-revered religious figure in the history of Bangladesh. In fact, the 2nd largest airport in Bangladesh is named after the subject (See Shah Amanat Airport). Banglapedia states that the subject is ranked among the great saints of Chittagong [101]). So, the subject is definitely notable. However, the article is actually a copyvio from Banglapedia (see [102]). --Ragib (talk) 02:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article needs to be moved to the proper name of the subject, i.e, remove the "Hazrat" and "Sufi" honorifics. --Ragib (talk) 02:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Now that I'm looking more closely at Ragib's notes, I see the part about the copyright problem. He's right. That page has a 2006 copyright notice on it, and there's no evidence that it's a copy of the page here rather than the reverse. Other articles that that resource have in common with Wikipedia don't share content. I've nominated the article for db-copyvio. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was fast: it's gone. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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