Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 March 5

< 4 March	6 March >

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) 04:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of resisters to the war in Afghanistan (2001-present)

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

Delete as non-notable and because, like many lists, this appears as original research. Additionally, it does not have a lead that states why this list is notable. All of the newspaper articles cited are primary sources, in the sense of reportage. There are no sources containing analysis or evaluation with respect to this list. --Bejnar (talk) 01:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. What defines a "resister"? American politicians who oppose it? CTJF83 chat 06:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. IMO, this article also seems to be soapboxing. RadManCF open frequency 16:40, 8 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tim Song (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ILinc

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

Non-notable company, article by single-purpose user. While searching for coverage I have found only press releases and no significant third-party coverage in reliable sources. Haakon (talk) 23:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The first item I see when I do a Google News archive search is [1] this bylined article in the Phoenix Business Journal: "South Carolina taps iLinc for Web-conferencing services". This is another bylined article from a reliable source. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Reprinted a news release remains a primary source; it is just reportage, no matter how reliable the source. Eastmain, above, mentions two sources, which are both news releases by the company. --Bejnar (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Local trade paper coverage generally does not confer notability on a business, especially if it is a routine announcement of a job or contract awarded. Non-notable provider of business-to-business back office services. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Let's look at the sources. This is clearly an unreliable press-release regurgitation. This is not reliable either: it's a puff piece on the organisation that even goes so far as to do it the favour of giving a link to the company's website. Articles based on sources like this violate WP:RS, and a subject that is only covered by these unreliable sources fails WP:GNG. Wikipedia's reliability is only as good as the sources it relies on. That's why coverage in reliable sources is a critical part of our notability policies that should not be ignored by the wanton scattergun firing of sources into an article to try to demonstrate notability. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:18, 12 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rockapella. Tim Song (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elliott Kerman

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

Article does not (explicitly) provide adequate context for the subject, does not (explicitly) assert notability, and is not written in prose. ( If the context and notability were more discernable, I would have simply fixed the problems, but that is not the case.) RadManCF (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I managed to find enough sources on the man to assert WP:GNG. He seems to have been a part of an band influential enough to make him meet WP:ENT. However, if someone else could find more sources I'd feel more comfortable changing this to a strong keep. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 23:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Rockapella. I'm not seeing any coverage about him indpendent of Rockapella. -- Whpq (talk) 17:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the above. The coverage is just not significant enough to justify a stand-alone article. Merge preserves the content adequately. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:25, 12 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tim Song (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Novis

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

seems to be an advertisement. RadManCF (talk) 22:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an ad. Also, the first three paragraphs are a copyright violation of this page. Them From Space 23:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I've stubbified the article and added sources. It looks like she just about meets WP:GNG. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 23:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until GNG is established...sorry Panyd, "just about meets" doesn't really cut it. CTJF83 chat 06:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO - I don't consider the coverage in the sources to be significant - they basically confirm that she exists and she is who she says she is. Ray^Talk 07:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Add to the above that she is president of a non-notable (red-linked) organization, wrote a book that is held by < 20 institutions, won a local teaching award, and used to lecture at two universities. GS shows 1 hit to the book and no citations to any work (h-index = 0). Way short of WP:PROF. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Notability under any category not found. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:31, 9 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Correa-McMullen

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

Delete firstly because of WP:BIO1E, secondly it fails WP:ENT, there is not significant coverage of her in secondary sources. There is mere reportage on her murder. --Bejnar (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I don't think WP:BIO1E is an issue here, as she is also known for her role in Judging Amy, and the article seems borderline per WP:ENT, as she only had two acting roles. RadManCF (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Like RadMan I think this is borderline for WP:ENT. I can't find any sources covering her roles in-depth but if anyone else could I would be happy to change my vote. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 23:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:VICTIM, she should be notable independent of her murder. I couldn't find significant coverage of her career either. --Bejnar (talk) 03:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 6 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - by User:Neutrality. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular ^T · C 04:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hypercar Royalty

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

A phrase used in a single episode of a show is not notable. This is a contested proposed deletion. swa q 21:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —swa q 21:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —swa q 21:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Typ932 ^T·C 21:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. RadManCF (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 01:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO#Articles on neologisms. JohnCD (talk) 11:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. roguegeek (talk·cont) 21:38, 8 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tim Song (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted and redirected per request on my talk page. There is a fairly strong consensus that there should not be a standalone article here, and any attempt to revert the redirect will result in immediate protection. Tim Song (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rock People

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

There is no reliable third person sources and lacks notability Dwanyewest (talk) 19:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is well done, plenty of valid information to fill it. The suggested guidelines are not binding in any way. Policies are all that matters. Ignore all rules clearly states if a rule gets in the way of improving Wikipedia, you ignore it. All guidelines were done by a small number of people, usually less than a handful at a time, without the rest of the Wikipedia noticing, and can't really be taken seriously. Note, am now copying this to several AFD, which are the same, nominated by the same person, with the same invalid argument about mindlessly following the guidelines passed by deletionists campers as an excuse to get rid of things they personally don't like. Dream Focus 07:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what WP:IAR means -- Boing! said Zebedee 13:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No references, no independent secondary sources. I bet that these paragraphs could be merged into a related article, but I don't know enough about the field to determine where it should be merged. Racepacket (talk) 04:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced and apparently unreferencible. --Bejnar (talk) 06:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Masters of the Universe or keep if references found. Okip 15:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Standard fictional biography that just needs to be referenced to the comics and the DVD. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't secondary sources. --Bejnar (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 20:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and add relevant content to Masters of the Universe. RadManCF (talk) 20:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
<del> — per nom as unsourced, non-notable. it's wp:plot and wp:or. Jack Merridew 00:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Suitable combination article. The primary sources available are good enough for this--and there is no policy that articles about parts of a fiction cannot be as much devoted to plot as necessary--it's only our total coverage which should not be only plot. DGG ( talk ) 02:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is typical of arguments mad by DGG that the article WP:INHERITED value the article itself doesn't have any reliable third person sources to assert its notability. The guidelines clearly state

Everything in Wikipedia needs to be verifiable information published in reliable sources before an article can even be considered for inclusion, otherwise it could be considered original research.

Oh and by the way the primary source used for this article [2] is dead. Dwanyewest (talk) 03:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Once again, there is no doubt on the accuracy of the material presented. If someone made a statement that might be false, then you'd have to have a reliable source to verify the claim. There is nothing in there that might be false. Read the policy more carefully please. Don't just skim through it and take things out of context. Every fictional article has a plot summary taken from the primary source, there never any reason to get information from elsewhere for that. Use WP:COMMON SENSE. Dream Focus 04:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you are another one Dream Focus you like to argue WP:ITEXISTS so therefore it should be kept. Whether the subject exists or not is beside the point. Does sufficient and reliable third person information to support the article notability hence why I nominated. Wikipedia clearly and consistently states an article has reliable third person information and before you go into another of your favourite arguments Ignore all rules. Maybe you should read the rules too.

A rule-ignorer must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia if challenged. Actually, everyone should be able to do that at all times. In cases of conflict, what counts as an improvement is decided by consensus. If the majority decide to keep it so be it but no has yet provided reliable third person evidence to support that the characters are notable to prevent deletion or merger.Dwanyewest (talk) 05:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- a sourceless article about minor cartoon characters. Reliable sources are required, and this hasn't got any. It's nothing but original research. Reyk _YO! 09:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RSs for plot are the work itself--in fact, the preferred source. DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no. Where did you pull that from? The preferred sources are always secondary ones. Some independent sources are necessary, per policy. And, as I argued here, it is often difficult to tell where summary of a primary source ends and WP:OR and WP:SYNTH begins; another reason why secondary sources are to be preferred to primary ones- because all the interpretation of the primary source has already been done. Primary sources can help establish our verifiability requirements but cannot satisfy our notability requirements, and are dangerous OR magnets. Reyk _YO! 04:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and continue to improve as unoriginal research that meets a common sense standard of notability. No reason exists per WP:BEFORE or WP:PRESERVE as to why at worst we would not merge and/or redirect with edit history intact as we can verify through reliable sources that the "Rock People" appeared not only on a TV show, but also as toys and even as the sub-titular cover subject of a publication, i.e. not a minor aspect of a mainstream fictional universe that spanned multiple media and has relevance to the millions of TV, toy, and comic fans of the franchise. As we have a redirect ___location at worst per User:T-rex/essays/the more redirects the better, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to redlink that which is neither a hoax nor libelous and that has a place to redirect to. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-A Nobody as usual you seem to ignore not all subjects are of equal notability.

As is mentioned in one of the official Wikipedia policies, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, meaning that some things are not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Everything in Wikipedia needs to be verifiable information published in reliable sources before an article can even be considered for inclusion, otherwise it could be considered original research. Wikipedia is a general interest encyclopedia and so there needs to be some evidence that a subject has attracted attention beyond a small community; if the only sources that have written about a subject are those within a small community that's good evidence that the subject is not important enough to warrant inclusion in a general encyclopedia. Dwanyewest (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now as I just mentioned in a previous post does this article have reliable third person sources which discuss this subject to justify this article, does it even have primary sources to justify no and google whacking images to show it exists doesn't make it more notable. Dwanyewest (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not "all" subjects are of equal notability; however, characters that are verifiable and that appear on the cover of publications, as toys, in a mainstream well-known cartoon, etc. are at worst redirectable to a character list. No valid reason exists whatsoever for having to protect the public from the edit history of this article, i.e. no admin action is needed and no reasonable editor would call for any. When a redirect ___location exists and nothing in the article's edit history is legally damaging, we discuss a merge or redirect on the article's talk page per all of our policies and guidelines, particularly WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE. Masking WP:IDONTLIKEIT with abbreiviations and irrelevant block quotations doesn't cut it. We can discriminately agree that a redirect ___location exists and that these are notable by the common sense standard for at worst a redirect with edit history intact. You totally lose us by saying primary sources do not even justify it when we can visually see them on the cover and in titular manner for a published work... Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not pass WP:V, let alone WP:N. Argumentation above cannot change this, and is indicative of a topic that richly deserves deletion. Abductive (reasoning) 08:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please remember to make honest posts in AFDs or to focus on discussions for which you have some background knowledge or at least willingness to check for sources. Because you can type, I assume you are not blind. As such, anyone with eyes, can indeed verify that the Rock People are part of a notable franchise (anyone with any even cursory knowledge of toys and cartoons would know that) in which they appear as toys and on the cover of a published book beyond just the TV show, ergo no legitimate reasons exists for not keeping the content, even if under a redirect, in some capacity as a valid merge and redirect ___location unquestionably exists per WP:BEFORE, WP:PRESERVE, and even WP:SENSE. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 14:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - My posts are honest. The topic is so thinly sourced that I could not be sure that the name was correct. It is my hope that the closing admin will see your and DGG's arguments as overreaching and anti-policy, and delete the article accordingly. Abductive (reasoning) 16:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Any admin who follows WP:BEFORE, WP:PRESERVE, WP:V, WP:N, etc. will close as keep, no consensus, or merge and redirect at worst as no compelling reason/need exists for redlinking. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:33, 12 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tim Song (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cocadas

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

Non-notable candy and Wikipedia is not a cookery book. ukexpat (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOT. RadManCF (talk) 20:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a notable confection, and is widely known and mentioned. Article has been completely rewritten with citations, the recipe removed, categorized, with the original author link removed. Cocadas are even the subject of poetry, if only allegorically, See here. --Bejnar (talk) 00:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This Google News search, filtered to show only English hits, shows many English-language hits in reliable sources. (Not that there is anything wrong with Spanish-language sources, but English-language ones are easier to work with.) Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the 2 directly above me with the sources. Ukexpat, it isn't a how to, as it doesn't say ie, 1/2 cup flour, 1/4 cup sugar, etc. CTJF83 chat 07:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in fairness to Ukexpat, before the article was rewritten it did say 1 Cup of Buter 1 Liter of Milk 50 Grams of fresh Almonds. --Bejnar (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Before you criticise, please check the article's history. – ukexpat (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Wasn't trying to criticize, I based my rational on the current state of the article. CTJF83 chat 04:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the sources appear to be mostly offline, making it difficult to gauge reliability, they do appear to be sufficient to establish notability. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:36, 12 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tim Song (talk) 17:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Onee-san to Issho! Janken Paradise

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

This article fails to establish its notability by providing significant coverage in reliable media that are independent of the subject, since the given sources only provide passing mentions.

This article has once survived an AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janken Paradise) with the promise that it is going to be expanded within two month. Two years have passed since then and the article is at present far from notable.

Fleet Command (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article does not assert notability. RadManCF (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no real sources. The citation to GameSpot is empty. --Bejnar (talk) 01:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) MrKIA11 (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You seem to be nominating a lot of pornographic video game articles. I added a link to a review at Gamefaqs I found to the article. It got a full page writeup at a notable game site. If anyone knows any valid Japanese review or news sources, please search for the game in that as well, it sure to have some mention. Dream Focus 20:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Objection Your source does not offer what you assert. It's reliability is also rejected by Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Situational sources Fleet Command (talk) 13:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No. I have nominated a lot of articles recently but you seem to be only patrolling porn ones. My criteria for nomination is not their porn nature. However, your criteria for voting Keep seems to be either their pornographic nature or just defying me. You have attempted a lot of tricks recently. Fleet Command (talk) 13:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: I don't mean to be confrontational, but please WP:AGF. Let's stick to policy and facts and leave the ad hominem stuff out. You are correct, FleetCommand that this is not a game of trickery or of defying other editors, but disagreement is different than defiance. We're all here to build consensus through discussion. If you have the facts on your side then it should be easy to defend your position on pure content grounds without any reference to the contributor. That goes for all parties obviously. I feel things are getting unduly heated here. -Thibbs (talk) 16:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I appreciate your comments, Thibbs. I will try to assume more good faith in others. However, regrettably, I find assuming good faith in Dream Focus an extremely trying task. Fleet Command (talk) 08:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It says Gamefaq can be used when its editorial staff is doing the review. Isn't that what I linked to? And the four articles I found with you nominating, are all on the list of video game related deletion discussions. Dream Focus 20:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, it says "Should only be used for release data." I'm going to assume that you have merely read the wrong entry and were not trying to misrepresent the facts. As for my nomination, I have recently nominated 16 articles for deletion and like I said, you encountered the pornographic ones only because you were paroling pornographic parts of Wikipedia. Fleet Command (talk) 08:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I am patrolling those that were on the "list of video game related deletion discussions", which at times I do have a look at. Dream Focus 12:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From the guidelines, regarding GameFAQs: "Should only be used for release data." ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:19, 11 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tim Song (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mahadeva Sambasivan

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

Non-notable surgeon and priest, publications not identified as his own. There is mix-up of more than one Sambasivan among the listed publications, all due, to lack of third party resources and of course notability. The de-prodding was an absolute waste of time for more than one editors--117.207.144.193 (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article does not assert notability. There are many people who are both surgeons and priests, being both does not automatically make a person notable. RadManCF (talk) 20:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 20:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. There is no significant coverage in secondary sources. The three citations are to India Harmony a magazine, and to two papers that he has published that show affiliation. The article in the magazine for those of you who don't wish to wade through the broken link, says, in toto: "Dr M Sambasivan, 70, is a practising neurosurgeon at a hospital in Thiruvananthapuram. When he is out of the OT, he replenishes his inner resources by conducting puja at temples. "There's a method in both science and religion," he believes, "and we should look into the scriptures to find it." His two spheres of living - one firmly rooted to the rational and the other following the spiritual and intangible - is his way to stay connected with this world and beyond." in an article about older people who have two spheres of living. There is no evidence that he is a leader in the field of neurosurgery or religion. --Bejnar (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: fails WP:BLP due to lack of sources. This person probably is notable, but the article in its present state is too flawed. There was a former Vice Principal of that name at Thiruvananthapuram Medical College,[3] and he was a professor there.[4] The bulk of the article is a list of publications, which are not necessarily all by the same person (the 1964 article seems to be by a paediatrician of the same name). I would support a better (properly sourced) article on this person. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The data Radagast3 has found is sufficient. Given the number of published works, and that some of them are important, this is notable enough. the publication in first rate international journals shows significant notability beyond the local. Keep in mind that the citation indexes include only a small minority of the journals that would cite him, so the citation counts are a gross underestimate. This is a first rate hospital and medical college, and being in a senior position there is significant. The list of publications is indeed all or almost all by him , as the subjects indicate. There are only three which might not be, and they seem plausible for a surgeon --I suspect they are early papers, which can often be in a slightly different field. There's an interesting discussion on my talk p., where the article was challenged on the basis that the person didn't exist,and that there was no first name, , Upon finding the first name, upon finding the link to the university & the hospital which did show existence, it was challenged because there was no proof of the position. Now the proof has been found, it is still being challenged. This seems like a rather desperate attempt to remove the article, and I do not know why, except possibly to discourage sourcing a challenged unsourced blp. I hope every time we do source a previously unsourced BLP it is not dealt with in this hyper-critical fashion. DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We can't just assume that all the articles by "M. Sambasivan" are by this M. Sambasivan. I put some effort in and found some references, but the article still needs more, especially on the publications issue. I've gone ahead and trimmed the "publications" section to only contain neurology papers, which are likely to be by this person, and added some links. The article is better now, I think, and I'm changing my vote to "Weak Keep."

However, in future, rather than attacking Wikipedia policy on BLP, I suggest you put all that useful energy and enthusiasm into the article itself, and you won't have to worry about AfDs. The original author of the article should at least have looked up the first name. And it's still only a 2-line bio. -- Radagast3 (talk) 02:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to remove those three papers myself, so thanks for doing it. I think everyone here knows I support WP:BLP policy.--I have personally deleted thousands of unsourceable BLP articles. I do not support the hypercritical overextension of it that is sometimes done, and I certainly intend to keep trying for common sense and balance--I i think you support that also. My ability to write articles is unfortunately limited by the effort needed to defend them. Instead of writing or rewriting the 3 or 4 articles a day I would like to, I'm down to half that. DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pity nobody else thought of taking the obvious step of looking up hospital and college web sites. If that had been done ages ago, this AfD might never have happened. I don't think people have been "hypercritical" -- they've just reacted to the obvious holes in the article.

And just to be clear: the main notability claim here is, I think WP:PROF #6: "the person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society" -- in this case Vice Principal of the medical college. This is now a sourced claim. -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That the fact has to be verified from a single passing mention in a news item on an award ceremony itself shows how poorly notable is the subject. WP:PROF needs to be re-written to mean "academic post at a renowned academic institution". Everybody knows these papers are run-of-the-mill stuff worth not much beyond the particular number of the periodical that publishes them. Mere career boosters. IPs won't vote here, I suppose. --117.204.81.13 (talk) 06:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malayalam Wikipedia has only this to say on him and that too in an article on a place called Karamana.

The famous neurosurgeon Dr. M. Sambasivan is a resident of Karamana. Apart from being a surgeon he is an expert in tantric practice. He is tantri at Karamana Satyavageeswara Temple and and Srikanteswaram Durga Devi Temple.

The local ML:WP which has 12000+ articles and which is strong on local content has no article on him. --117.204.81.13 (talk) 06:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The edit history of the SPA anon nominator from New Delhi is interesting. Is there a POV or COI here? Xxanthippe (talk) 08:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Assume good faith. This need not be a SPA: some IP users get a different address every time. And a viewpoint from a local who can (presumably) read Malayalam has some value. However, I still say "weak keep." -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No breach of AFG is incurred by drawing attention to an editor's history. The SPA has been editing from the same address every time. Perhaps he can speak for himself. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

No offence intended, I assure you (I have nothing but respect for your contributions to Wikipedia). All I meant was that the user was 117.204.81.13 today, but might have been some other address yesterday. The address seems to be part of a large block belonging to an Indian ISP, and seems to be located in Kozhikode. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On re-reading WP:PROF (note 13), I see that head of the medical school doesn't satisfy #6, so I reverse my "weak keep" back to the original "weak delete." -- Radagast3 (talk) 12:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is questionble, identity of subject is questionable, AfD nomination is questionable. No significant notability demonstrated. Best to delete. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

In reply to Xxanthippe's question upthread I would say there is a large amount of COI to this. The article was written by somebody on behalf of www.iish.org, which is an organisation promoting bigotry. N. Gopalakrishnan is the leading voice. They advocate Sanātana Dharma a quasi political doctrine of the revivalist Hindus. Indian Institute of Scientific Heritage is their forum. Even bigots could be notable but our parties are not yet.As Radagast3 correctly guessed my IP is extremely dynamic. I have no special interest in this other than seeing the crap zapped. --117.204.81.171 (talk) 13:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator addresses issues other than notability and attempts to impose political correctness on Wikipedia. He clearly demonstrates POV in this nomination. Nonetheless the article should be deleted on the basis of its (lack of) own merits. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Delete nothing in gnews [5]. can't verify. LibStar (talk) 12:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete, our only third party source is an online zine. Can be recreated as soon as quotable references are presented that establish notability. --dab (𒁳) 15:17, 7 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As always, I am happy to userfy if anyone is interested. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 00:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Lugo

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

Fails WP:MUSIC, no WP:GNG, no GHits, contested WP:PROD GregJackP (talk) 01:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability guidelines. Bejinhan Talk 05:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The author stated he is working on the article. I commented on his talk page that it could be userfied, and would support that if he requests it, noting that he would still have to show notability when moved back to article space. (GregJackP (talk) 15:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox (talk) 19:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting due to lack of participation and the fact that the article's creator removed the deletion notice the same day it was added [6], and it was only just now restored. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My initial thought was to redirect to Kokolo Afrobeat Orchestra ensuring that the pertinent information was merged, however Lugo has done some notable producing and management work outside of his band, so it's not really a viable option. From WP:MUSIC "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band". Lugo's work has been included on a large amount of compilations, he appears to be an important figure in the Afrobeat genre and the article is fairly neutral and sourced.--Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 20:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If he is a leader in the Afrobeat genre how come people aren't writing about him in Afrobeat articles in newspapers and magazines? Fails WP:ENT and WP:MUSIC. Listing the recordings from Kokolo Afrobeat Orchestra in his article is slightly misleading. Ray Lugo is not Fela Anikulapo-Kuti. I am not even sure that the Kokolo Afrobeat Orchestra is a leader in Afrobeat revival. --Bejnar (talk) 22:32, 5 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tim Song (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

O RLY?

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

Our sources: 1. A trivial mention in a 4chan article. 2. Forum post. 3. Forum post. 4. 4chan search. 5 and 6. Trivial mentions.

Tiger Weekly: Student newspaper.

And this is notable how? I can't find a single reliable secondary source that mentions this. Prove me wrong; don't just say WP:ITSNOTABLE. IF YOU KNOW THERE ARE SOURCES, ADD THEM. (Note: I removed an example farm, the sources for which were primary or unreliable.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Toronto Star is a big newspaper in Toronto, with higher circulation (but less prestige) than The Globe and Mail. CRN Australia is or was Computer Reseller News, a magazine for computer dealers. Both are reliable sources, and the mentions are more than trivial. And student newspapers are also usually reliable sources, in my experience. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"And student newspapers are also usually reliable sources, in my experience." O RLY? :-D Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 03:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep', this is almost as prevalent as LOL. YA RLY. --Bobak (talk) 01:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivial mentions in the reliable sources mentioned above; the Toronto Star paper is about lolcats, of which the coverage of this is a comparatively minor aspect. The CRN article is about the worm; the actual macro merits only a single sentence. Student newspapers cannot be used as blanket reliable sources, especially as they have looser editorial standards than larger organizations. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What is it with this mania with trying to delete obviously well-known internet memes? At least find a merge target, such as Image macro. Ten Pound Hammer already tried to get this deleted in 2008. You really must improve your searching for sources (try to see past the red mist), all these include at least mention of the meme and often more:[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] For internet culture, isn't Rocketboom perfectly reliable?[16] It's been described as a "notable example" of the image macro:[17] Fences&Windows 21:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So fix it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While it is a positive suggestion, WP:SOFIXIT is not a valid argument for either keeping or deleting an article. B.Wind (talk) 05:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added three sources. I think that adding any more would just be reference bombing. The Der Spiegel article relies on Wikipedia as its source for O RLY? - using that source would be fact laundering. This meme has received enough attention to pass notability guidelines, and the facts are verified well enough, so I don't see that our readers will be served by deleting this article. Fences&Windows 14:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Adequate sourcing seems to exist. Qrsdogg (talk) 02:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So fix it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree the sources are pretty weak. Mo' Urban Dictionary: Ridonkulous Street Slang Defined and Game Addiction: The Experience and the Effects could be added I guess, but it's little more than a DICDEF with seemingly little possibility of expansion. Could possibly be merged elsewhere. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 03:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as there are reliable sources that have commented on the use of the shorthand. Of course the article's cause would be bolstered if any of the citations from the abovementioned reliable sources were actually inserted into the article as the ones that are actually there really don't bolster its suitability for Wikipedia. B.Wind (talk) 05:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article had been edited and sources added. Every sentence in the article is now reliably sourced. It may also be worth noting that at least one major media organization (Der Spiegel) has cited this article in one of their articles on memes [18]; I've put the {onlinesource} tag on the talk page. The Internet meme timeline which has been published by several media organizations also uses this article as a source for the 2003 appearance date of "O RLY?" --Wine Guy~Talk 09:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think when a major media organization cites WP they cease thenceforth to be a RS, but yeah the article is in a better state now. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Image macro#Formats. The topic is fully covered there, in so far as significant coverage is lacking. --Bejnar (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well-sourced and notable per above discussion. Bearian (talk) 03:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, article has been improved to wiki standards, with notability proven without question. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- this was a fair nomination but I believe it is now moot since the article has been adjusted. JBsupreme (talk) 07:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into image macro, O RLY is easily recognizable as such and would serve as a good descriptor for the image macro article, but doesn't necessarily deserve its own article. Toad of Steel (talk) 04:19, 11 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Dunigan

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

No assertion of notability. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Being a conference player of the week, or getting in trouble for shooting a BB gun doesn't make you notable. BLGM5 (talk) 18:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE, nominator makes good point, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.RadManCF (talk) 23:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is actually a discriminate collection of information in this article: see WP:DISCRIMINATE.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see widespread coverage from just a quick google search. I also see sources in the article and believe that this subject is notable enough through general notability guideline. Additionally, the WP:ABELINCOLN covers that "athlete" is not exclusionary. Just because he hasn't played pro ball does not mean an automatic delete.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dunigan is an average player on a bad team. Let him accomplish something (All-Pac 10, lead Oregon to the NCAAs, etc) then create an article about him. By the way, WP:ATHLETE is completely outdated when it comes to amateur athletes. It lists the Olympics and World Championships as the highest level of amateur competition, but they have taken pros for closing in on 20 years. The highest amateur level of basketball competition is NCAA Division I - especially in the BCS conferences and Top 25 teams. That's not to say every college player is notable - because Dunigan isn't. Rikster2 (talk) 01:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments just two points:

1. Skill level is not neccesarily an indicator of notability, and certainly lack of "top-shelf" skill level doesn't negate the coverage in independent, reliable sources--at least, no reason is given why it should
2. The "BCS Conferneces" refer to college football exclusively and have no place in college basketball. Gonzaga and Villanova are examples of programs not participating in the BCS in football but are standouts in college basketball.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skill level may not be a criterion but skill level can dictate if a player accomplishes things that make him notable. And we all know that "BCS conferences" is shorthand for the top six athletic conferences in the NCAA. The Big 12, Pac 10, ACC, Big 10, SEC and Big East also dominate college hoops. There is no corresponding term for the big six conferences in basketball. Rikster2 (talk) 03:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It reads like you are agreeing with me and yet still arguing, I don't understand... 1) Of course there is no corresponding term for the "big six conferences" in basketball because "smaller" schools (see aforementioned Gonzaga and Villanova) often put forth highly competitive teams. But it doesn't matter because this article isn't about the conference, it's about the player. 2) Yes, skill level can dictate if a player accomplishes things that make him notable. So why even bring up skill level then? Just look at the coverage and then make the call--is the player notable or not?--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did make the call - Dunigan has accomplished nothing to make him notable at this point in his career and is not inherently notable. Happy to carry on the BCS conversation if you want on my talk page but this isn't the place Rikster2 (talk) 16:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response accomplishments mean very little to notability. 533 Google News Listings might be worth considering. Widepsread significant coverage trumps skill level. As to the BCS comment--you are precisely right, this isn't the place for it. Just strike your comments out and we'll be fine. But you make it an issue by mentioning it in this discussion. It no more belongs here than a comment like "The Kansas City Chiefs aren't notable because they don't even play in the National League" -- it's totally irrelevant because they are two different sports. No pro football teams compete in Major League Baseball, just as no college basketball teams compete in the Bowl Championship Series.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This player appears to fail ATHLETE having neither played at a professional level of basketball nor the highest amateur level. The coverage of the BB incident is a case of a person receiving coverage of only one event and any game reports etc. that mention Dunigan in passing do not pass WP:NTEMP. Would have no objection to the article being recreated if he goes on to play at a higher level. -- BigDom 17:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment as stated above, WP:ABELINCOLN covers that "athlete" is not exclusionary. Failing the WP:ATHLETE is not a reason to delete.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about BLP If kept the material about the BB gun needs to be removed as very minor & unrelated to notability DGG ( talk ) 19:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a college player who got some press completely fails WP:ATHLETE. Abductive (reasoning) 11:41, 13 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Gatena

AfDs for this article:

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

Article was prodded by Mosmof (talk · contribs) with the concern "Recreation of an WP:AUTOBIO deleted after an Afd. The subject of the article has not apparently done anything new to qualify under WP:N and notability still does not seem to be supported by in-depth coverage from sources independent of the subject's school or community." I contested the prod on the grounds that this article has been deleted twice before as Steve Gatena and has been at AfD 3 times under that title and therefore believe this should not be deleted without discussion.

I am otherwise neutral for now on whether the article should be deleted. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the prod rationale and the excellent nomination statement at the article's third AfD. Also, this reads more like a resume than an encyclopedia article. Them From Space 23:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original PROD nominator. The article is pretty well sourced actually, but as far as I can tell, none of the cited sources establish WP:N, i.e. in-depth coverage in independent, third party publications. Sources appear to be brief mentions in news roundup or profiles by publications tied to the subject's schools or communities. The user already has a near-identical promo-ish autobio as user page, so I don't see the need for another article in the main article space. --Mosmof (talk) 04:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:ATH, and I don't think he even started a game for USC. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I think that there may have been a possibility to have this page as a stub, as he had played at three different NCAA schools in one sport, the remaining consensus has spoken on this--and done so thoroghly. It does indeed look like an autobiography which is strictly prohibited. Try another Wiki.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:08, 6 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (G11, advertising) by Bwilkins. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 14:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme game list

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

There are notabilty/advertising tags already, but this just reads like WP:ESSAY or promotion. -- Boing! said Zebedee 17:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An unnecessary fork of Video game, incoherent and essay-like. — Rankiri (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: OP removed AfD tag. Restored. Rwessel (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, copyvio of http://www.stratfordbeaconherald.com/Community/NewsDisplay.aspx?c=39279. Hairhorn (talk) 01:48, 6 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.

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. Non-admin closing due to nominator withdrawing nomination and universal consensus to keep. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 09:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

7 Sins

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

This video game article does not assert its notability by providing significant coverage in reliable sources. Fleet Command (talk) 16:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC) Fleet Command (talk) 16:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOMINATION WITHDRAWN. Someone another (talk · contribs) successfully asserted the notability. Fleet Command (talk) 08:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) MrKIA11 (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A quick search shows this game was reviewed in magazines PC Gamer, PC Zone, PC Format [19] and C&VG [20] Marasmusine (talk) 23:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Therefore, perhaps you'll be kind enough to add a Critical Reception section to the article and assert its notability? Because I didn't nominated it because of being unnotable. I nominated it because it does not assert notability. Notability must be claimed with evidence. Fleet Command (talk) 05:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Objection: Excuse me? Your "PC Format" source is turns out a GameSpot without a review! You have claimed 4 reviews but 3 of them failed verifiability per WP:V. I hope you forgive me for saying this if it is unsettling but I feel I am being tricked. Fleet Command (talk) 05:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The GameSpot page is an aggregate of critic's scores. It shows the publication dates of the three magazines. I'm not sure if they are archived online anywhere, so someone who has access to the print versions will have to summarize the reviews in the article; this is what the VG wikiproject is for. However, for notability, it's enough that the game has received this coverage (and GameSpot is a reliable source for this) - the rest is just details to be filled in later. Please assume good faith! Marasmusine (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Generally, yes. But in this particular case, no. No professional review is included. And no, it does not show any publications. At least I see none. Perhaps you see something that I do not see?
      As for assuming good faith: It is an expression which is abused a lot, both in and out of Wikipedia. Hence, faith tends to waver in face of lack of supporting evidence. Therefore, please kindly considering reinforcing my wavering one. Fleet Command (talk) 06:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - PC Gamer UK, Aug 1st 2005; PC Zone UK, Sep 1st 2005; PC Format UK, Aug 1st 2005. Not sure why you can't see this on the page. In addition, there is the C&VG review, which is reproduced entirely on their website. Marasmusine (talk) 08:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        You meant that tiny list all along? It is millions of lightyears far from establishing notability for the subject of the article. Really, you have the nerves! Fleet Command (talk) 10:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        The tiny list is not the coverage. The coverage is four reviews in print magazines from reputable publishers. The tiny list tells you which issues to look at. Yes, I have nerves. Marasmusine (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Lots of sources: “Whilst showing the subject is mentioned in a number of sources, not all sources are reliable and may only be trivial mentions.” Fleet Command (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Marasmusine. AfD is not cleanup; don't assume a subject is not notable just because its article lacks references. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 03:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't assume it non-notable. I nominated it because of a lack of assertion of notability. Notability must be asserted via evidence, per WP:NRVE. Fleet Command (talk) 05:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And by the way, please do not mistake Cleanup with Citing Source. Cleanup is a minor act of improving quality. Citing sources and proof of notability however, is one of the pillars of Wikipedia. Do I need to provide a bunch of Wikilinks? Fleet Command (talk) 05:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - My point is that you saw that the article lacked citations, yet your statements imply that you didn't search for any sources yourself. If you had shown clearly that you had, then I would not be opposed to deletion as there would be evidence to support your argument. As it is however, you have made no attempt to improve the article, and instead you appear to be relying only on the assumption that the subject is not notable. As such, I will not support deletion in this instance, unless you can prove the subject is not notable. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 08:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - And if I tell you that I did perform a cursory search, would you not argue that perhaps I have not looked hard enough? Let's stick to the policy my friend: Notability requires evidence! There is no Wikipedia policy that says everyone who sees a non-notable article must invest his valuable time due to a mere chance of the article being actually notable. Fleet Command (talk) 09:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - If you don't fancy investing the time, policy does ask you to suggest merger or redirection before deletion; the developer or publisher articles would be valid targets in this case. Marasmusine (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Non-notable material do not merit inclusion in Wikipedia, merged or not. Therefore, I do not merge non-notable contents. Fleet Command (talk) 06:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        The inclusion threshold for material is verifiability. You've confused this with notability, which is the guideline for whole article topics. Merger/redirection is also supported by the notability guidelines for products. However, I'm straying from my !vote, we can discuss it further on the talk page if you wish. Marasmusine (talk) 08:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        No, I haven't! You can't create an article and name it: "Non-notable adult computer games" in which you copy and paste the contents of several articles which are on the verge of deletion per lack of notability. These articles are usually deleted per lots of reason such as the lack of notability of the resulting merger, one of the articles of WP:NOT, or per consensus.
        But really, do you want me to assume that in the face of such intelligence that you employed to write those words, you never thought for a moment: "But into what article FleetCommand must have merged 7 Sins, if she was an honest Wikipedian?" No! You are smarter to not have considered that. Hence, I conclude that this whole merger fuss is your way of making me look like a dishonest nominator and distracting the attention from the real matter: The article does not establish its notability by providing evidence! i.e. WP:NRVE! Fleet Command (talk) 08:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I'll provide the link again: WP:PRODUCT; thanks. Marasmusine (talk) 10:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        You are welcome Fleet Command (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to Game Rankings at the very least it was reviewed by three UK newstand magazines; PC Zone, PC Format and PC Gamer. That's multiple instances of reliable non-trivial coverage, notability is covered. The first of which was reprinted online at Computer and Video Games and is now cited, the existing text is also cited, the info's verified. Someoneanother 02:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Lots of sources: “Whilst showing the subject is mentioned in a number of sources, not all sources are reliable and may only be trivial mentions.” You must show that they are not trivial mentions. Fleet Command (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They're reviews, one of which is already cited for all to see. Someone another 17:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, no, they aren't cited. Second, they must be checked individually and cited in the article. I didn't nominated this article because it doesn't have Google hits. I nominated it because it lacks evidence of notability as required by WP:NRVE. Fleet Command (talk) 08:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Oh, wait! I see the article now. The ACTUAL reviews are cited. That's it: Notability asserted. Withdrawing from nomination. Thanks for the notice, Someone Another. Bless you.Fleet Command (talk) 08:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep bad faith nomination. The nominator says: "Because I didn't nominated it because of being unnotable. I nominated it because it does not assert notability. Notability must be claimed with evidence. Fleet Command (talk) 05:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)" AFD is not cleanup. If you believe it is notable, then you leave it be. If you think something should be added, then do so yourself. There seems to be adequate coverage of the game found by others in this AFD, to establish its notability. Dream Focus 06:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Another of your plays with words again, eh? You yourself mentioned in one of the last week AfDs that introduction of reliable source is a pillar of Wikipedia not a matter clean up. Why are you opposing yourself now? Because you like this article, you want it kept and you don't dare saying so?
  As for me, I have nominated this because this article lack one of these pillars. It only makes us think it is notable while it isn't. Policy says: Notability requires evidence. This article introduces no evidence. Hence it does not merit inclusion in Wikipedia.
  Fleet Command (talk) 08:24, 12 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dada Ji

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

Non-notable short film lacking GHits of substance and with zero GNEWS. Appears to fail WP:NOTFILM ttonyb (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice toward recreation if this film's award nomintions can be sourced, or if shown that this film has won some awards, or that it has been screened at a festival 5 years after initial release so as to meet WP:NF. I gave the article a cleanup, but it's not enough. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:38, 7 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.

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

The result was Speedy deleted yadda yadda non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hristo Popov

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

While I can find plenty of coverage in reliable sources for Hristo Popov the violinist, the same is not true for the magician and juggler. RadioFan (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Bulgarian article has two references. However, the Google Search for Bulgarian "Христо Попов" илюзионист ("Hristo Popov" illusionist) is rather weak. Any help of people familiar with Bulgarian culture and language would be useful. --Vejvančický (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've posted a db-copyvio tag. It's copied from http://hristopopov.com/bio_en.html. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:57, 5 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:CSD#G4. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Codendi

AfDs for this article:

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

Promotion for non-notable software product, article by single-purpose user. The article was deleted by AfD two months ago. This is not a verbatim recreation, but I cannot see that the company has become any more notable since then. Haakon (talk) 14:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing notable about the software. –BuickCentury Driver 14:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt as repeatedly re-created spam. re-creation of a page deleted after discussion. This version does nothing to address the issues raised in the previous discussion of non-notability and spamminess; the only references given are to "cyberciti.biz" spamblogs and self-published sources. So tagged. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:14, 5 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Diaz aka Mighty O

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

I can't find significant coverage of this model in Gnews/Google. Most Gnews results seem to be about a boxer of the same name. See also [21]. Appears to fail WP:BIO, and also seems to be an autobio. Tim Song (talk) 13:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability (people), no coverage. His first photoshoot was in 2007. --Bejnar (talk) 19:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm finding the boxer, but not this guy in my searches. -- Whpq (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources of him. Jujutacular ^T · C 04:05, 12 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jedward TV Appearances

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

List of mostly non-notable television appearances by a musical duo. Notable appearances should be mentioned at Jedward. anemoneprojectors talk 13:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (partial) and Redirect - agree with the nominator completely. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree it should be kept becuase having all the TV Appearances would make the main jedward page to clutered so i think this page should be kept this page has all the TV Appearances with refferences i suggest you also write you comments on the Jedward Talk page so other user can have their say. Sfxprefects (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not all their TV appearances should be mentioned. Any notable ones can be written as prose in the main article. anemoneprojectors talk 03:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to the main article. The information is well cited and of encyclopedic significance, but it lacks the independent notability for a stand alone article. Them From Space 23:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree that it's of encyclopedic significance. Why do we need to know they were guests on all those shows? Most celebrities give interviews on television but they don't get mentioned because they're not important. It's just promotion. anemoneprojectors talk 00:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial Jedward TV Appearances includes the time they ripped their pants and swore on live TV and the time Michael Barrymore snogged their mother and slandered their father on live TV. It's all on Youtube and was the papers. Mega controversy everywhere they go. It says to explain how this meets Wikipedia policy and a policy is Wikipedia:Ignore all rules which says If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. This is an obvious improvement so should be ignored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.210.88 (talk) 02:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which rule are you ignoring? anemoneprojectors talk 03:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Partial merge Only the notable appearances that can be reliably and verifiably sourced should be included at Jedward, all others are non-notable and can and should be binned. TheJazzDalek (talk) 16:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of these televised appearances are trivial at best, and would struggle to hold their own in the actual article. Giving them a separate article is complete and utterly moronic. --A Chain of Flowers (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivia G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 19:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a complete list of every TV programme a pop group has appeared on isn't encyclopedic -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Completely trivial and wouldn't even be suitable for the main Jedward article. Imagine having this kind of list for every pop group, it would be madness. -- Big Dom 18:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory. I notvoted to keep Jedward themselves, based more on pageviews than anything else, but I do not wish to see anything else about them. Abductive (reasoning) 11:51, 13 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IndianGNU

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

I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 12:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails all three points of WP:WEB. ~ Baron Von Yiffington ^. _talk ^. _contribs 16:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google shows no signs of significant coverage by reliable sources: [22] — Rankiri (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks independent coverage in reliable sources. Pcap ping 03:23, 9 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and already moved to Satna Railway Station. JForget 00:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Satna Junction

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

No references, article was under watchlist for long time. Abu Torsam 11:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All railway stations are notable. See the map at http://www.westcentralrailway.com/ Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What guideline or policy says all railway stations are notable? If there isn't one, then it is just your opinion and thus not a valid Keep argument (and thus will most likely be ignored by the closing admin). TJ Spyke 15:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Consensus has always found that rail stations are notable. Most likely many more sources exist in Hindi. --Oakshade (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, it's a major city station. No one would ever think of deleting an article of such a heavily used station in a city over over 250,000 if the station were in the UK, or the US. This appears a case of good-faith systemic bias.--Oakshade (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, where is the GUIDELINE or POLICY that says that? If none exist, then it is NOT automatically notable and it has to pass the general notability guidelines. TJ Spyke 18:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the policy is WP:CONSENSUS. Consensus has consistently found rail stations to be inherently notable. Never has an existing station been deleted. I recall a tram stop, which was basically a glorified bus stop article, being deleted, but never an actual rail station. WP:NOTABILITY states in its heading: It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Consensus has long since demonstrated that rail stations are one of those common sense exceptions. --Oakshade (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications it is notable, fails WP:N (and the above 2 users are wrong, railroad stations are NOT automatically notable, that is just their personal opinions). TJ Spyke 18:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Consensus does state that railway stations are generally considered notable, and besides, this is a heavily-used station in a major city according to the sources, which makes it additionally notable. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 22:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I strongly disagree that anything is inherently notable and would support an effort to change this line of thinking. As pointed out above, nowhere within our formal policies is anything written that railway stations deserve a free pass from our guidelines and policies. The point of argument shouldn't be whether this is a railway station or not, it should be whether the inclusion of this particular railway station would be encyclopedic. Them From Space 23:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact many things are considered inherently notable; towns and mountains, for instance. The reason is because of the presumption of sources. It would be impossible for a major rail station in a city of over a quarter-million that has over 40 trains per day not to have sources. The problem is this station is in a country where English is not the common language and, unlike in the US, many sources are not easily available on the web. St. Paul Amtrak station, Miami (Amtrak station) and Detroit (Amtrak station) all have only two trains per day, serve way less passengers and yet we don't delete these because sources are easily available to us. I was lucky to find this book which is a debate in the Indian Parliament which had significant debate on the expansion of this rail station in 1981 because English was the official language in Parliament. If we were Hindi speakers, we'd likely find more coverage. --Oakshade (talk) 02:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Established practice is to keep articles on all rail stations, major and minor. this is in any case a major one and should not even come into question. More generally, it is much more rational to regard classes of things that are OK to write articles on, than spend effort disputing which individual few of them might not be. Each AfD discussion takes away time I could use for writing articles. My estimate is that the total effort in even a simple AfD like this one is about the same as it would take to write an article--quite apart from the effect on the spirit of the community. Every opportunity for conflict evokes negative feelings. DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Despite this, I managed to research and write this entire article since this AfD began.--Oakshade (talk) 07:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep: Satna is a city of over 225,000 people. Per above discussions and well-established consensus an article on the railway station serving the city is not only acceptable, but essential. Mjroots (talk) 06:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Prior consensus has always found rail stations to be notable. -- Big Dom 18:08, 12 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Burns (Media Matters)

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

Delete created two months ago, but still nothing to suggest independent notability Boleyn3 (talk) 10:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In fact I think it is borderline for speedy delete. Media Matters for America is perhaps notable, but notability is not inherited, and no other claim of significance is made in the article for Burns. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:57, 5 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maharaha Yashwantrao Hospital

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

The article is of Maharaja Yashwantrao Hospital, Indore. For this no proper citations & references have been given, i wish to use it for internal links but since invalid so please delete it. After the deletion i will be recreating the article with proper guidelines & references. Also the spelling of article's title is wrong. Abu Torsam 10:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you have good enough references to rewrite it, it doesn't need to be deleted - it's only a stub, so just expand it. -- Boing! said Zebedee 15:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I'd missed that the problem was incorrect spelling - the move has presumably settled it now. -- Boing! said Zebedee 19:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. The nominator's issue is that the title of the article contains a typo. I have moved it to Maharaja Yashwantrao Hospital. The redirecting pages could be deleted but seem fairly harmless. --Lambiam 22:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: No reason for deleting this article if it's just going to be immediately recreated. Suggest that the nominator is WP:BOLD and starts from scratch with the article, adding reliable references. -- Big Dom 18:13, 12 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a7 (no credible assertion of notability) by User:JohnCD. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skye englert

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

Note to closing admin: The article has now been moved to Skye Englert. I mention this because I have in the past known an AfD to conclude "delete", and the closing admin to delete the page named in the nomination, which has become a redirect, with the result that the original article has been left undeleted. So, if the conclusion is "delete" please make sure this doesn't happen! JamesBWatson (talk) 12:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since I wrote that both have been repeatedly speedy-deleted, so unless they have been recreated (again) it is irrelevant. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Time to salt? PDCook (talk) 14:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural nom.

A BLP that has had PROD tags removed by the original creator and reinstated (rinse, repeat) a few times now. To save us all the fun, I'm putting it up on AfD now, per nom. Will inform the prod nomintator so they can make a statement. Shadowjams (talk) 09:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete although I am not the original nominator, I tend to agree that the article, in it's current state, fails WP:BIO. I think it may be salvageable, which weakens my stance on deletion. ^Avicenna_sis @ 09:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication of notability per WP:BIO, no sources cited. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong delete The article gives no independent sources to back up its claims, so I looked around. I found no support at all for the claims made in the article: for example, the article claimed that Englert would play a leading role in "the new Disney Channel show/pilot The crazy life of Annie Willis". I found that a Google search for "Skye Englert" "The crazy life of Annie Willis" produced this Wikipedia article and nothing else. It was similar with other searches: no support at all. What is even more striking is the fact that Englert's own postings on twitter and starnow do not make any such claims for her. In fact the biggest claims I found were "Ive done a little bit of acting in the past few years. I create my own videos for my youtube channel ... I use to do modeling for parodz for about half a year then finished". Perhaps the most interesting discovery was this tweetmeme page, which says "IM ON WIKIPEDIA!!!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skye_englert". Clearly the whole thing is a fantasy/vanity page by a schoolgirl, and not in the least notable. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A Google search turns up social networking site and the WP page, and I see no reliable sources that demonstrate notability. PDCook (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note The article has now been speedily deleted four times. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:58, 6 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 keep Notability is on the fence, but there's enough doubt in this discussion to not delete.Mike Cline (talk) 16:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Angel

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

Thousands of people are killed by repressive regimes all the time. There is nothing here to indicate why this person is more notable than any other victim, other than that he had a famous mother. My repeated requests for proof of notability have been rebuffed. Woogee (talk) 22:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at worst Merge A google book search indicates that there are several books mentioning this person. He was member of a terrorist group which kidnapped a US ambassador [23]. At best this a merge to the article of his mother.--Stone (talk) 10:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mere mention is not significant coverage. Why redirect to his mother's article? He does appear in the film Zuzu Angel about his mother, but is not a significant part of it, nor is the film at all accurate. See the cited blog reference. --Bejnar (talk) 05:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 09:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the sources cited make only minor reference to him in the course of articles about other subjects. One of them is a blog, in which he is mentioned several times in posts by members of the public responding to the headline posting, but not in that headline posting. None of them constitutes substantial coverage in reliable sources. Stone, the only editor arguing for a keep, says "A google book search indicates that there are several books mentioning this person", and gives one link to one book which mentions him once in the whole book. As Bejnar says, mere mention is not enough. Nobody, including Stone, has shown evidence that any book (or anything else) gives substantial coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment second third fourth there might be others. --Stone (talk) 16:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was the point of those links to show that he has been referred to and so must be notable? If so, each one of them is a brief passing mention. If that is the best that can be achieved it is an indication of lack of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since it apparently became the basis of a notable film. DGG ( talk ) 05:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, DGG can usually be relied on to support "keep". However: (1) Is the film notable? I see no evidence that it is. (2) Even if the film is slightly notable, how far is the notability of the film reflected back on the Stuart Angel? JamesBWatson (talk) 11:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User: Stone and User: DGG. The media coverage and film indicate notability.--Pink Bull 15:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: passing mentions (even in books) do not confer notability in a Wikipedia sense, which requires significant coverage. Even if the film is notable, there is no evidence that this person is. -- Big Dom 18:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Zuzu Angel. Judging from the material I've seen (most of it in Portuguese), this poor kid's death is one event. However, the quantity of material (dozens of Google Books, News and Scholar hits) suggests to me that it would be hasty to delete. The Zuzu Angel article says that she "became famous for opposing the Brazilian military dictatorship after the forced disappearance of her son Stuart". Yet that article doesn't go into any detail about her son's death. I hope that the material is merged to make two weak articles on these inextricably linked subjects into one strong, cohesive article. Abductive (reasoning) 12:12, 13 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Sandys

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

Only claim to notability appears to be that he is the great-grandson of Winston Churchill and heads up an organisation dedicated to the ideals of WSC. Very few Google hits and what there are, are almostly entirely connected with the organisation, not about Jonathan himself. NtheP (talk) 09:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination, I can find no secondary sources for him. Teapotgeorge^Talk 09:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At present the only things given which could conceivably be regarded as sources are two links to the website of "Churchill’s Britain Foundation", of which Sandys is the chairman, and so is not an independent source. Searching has produced a few brief mentions in what appear to be reliable sources, but no significant coverage. Mostly I found linkedin, twitter, Wikipedia, site listing sites (eg domaintools.com), www.churchillsbritainfoundation.org, etc. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It may be useful for people to know that I pruned a huge amount from this article before it was taken to AfD. My understanding is that the article's creator is a relative of Mr. Sandys and actually planned to expand the huge mass she contributed. The pruned material was a glowing encomium and an exhaustive history of the subject's every move, comments on the countries he had visited, etc., all without any useful secondary sources. There may have been a pea under all those mattresses, but I doubt it. There was a suggestion that the subject will receive a medal next month that seemed to have the potential of notability; I was unable to make up my mind, so I'll take no position here. But if you want to wade through the original, it's in the edit history. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks, I had read the original before submitting this AfD including your talk comment about the medal. I don't think the award is notable and I think that with the verbiage pruned out it shows how thin and weak this article is. NtheP (talk) 16:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me if I had seemed to suggest that you hadn't read the original, that was not my intention. I merely wanted others to be aware of the masses of material I'd pruned, that's all, in case they didn't look beyond the few remaining paragraphs. And I think "thin and weak" is a good description. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unable to find any independent sources to show notability. Being related to somebody famous does not make you notable. -- Big Dom 18:22, 12 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.

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

The result was Delete with log entry: 17:05, March 5, 2010 Bwilkins (talk | contribs) deleted "Quality Metalcraft Inc." ‎ (A7: No indication that the article may meet the guidelines for inclusion (CSDH)) Sbluen (talk) 08:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Metalcraft Inc.

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

Delete. Non-notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete; this is a high-tech stamping operation specializing in low to medium volume production that makes no sub-minimal claim of importance. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have put it up for speedy deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:28, 5 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Tax Club

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

Delete. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. –BuickCentury Driver 13:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The current references either broken or are not significant coverage. The "coverage" in Fox News and NBC are a joke - the Tax Club guy was only on the news because he witnessed the US Airways emergency landing on the Hudson last year. The CNBCvideo is more of an advert saying that the Tax Company will do for free the taxes of people Bernie Madoff ripped off. The NYNews video is more about helping people file their taxes on time, not as much about the company itself. A Google search turns up their own website and sites about how Tax Club is a ripoff, but I see no in-depth coverage in reliable sources that demonstrate notability. PDCook (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 6 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Greer Gipson

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

Non-notable professor - fails WP:PROF StAnselm (talk) 08:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There seems to be no way in which notability is established. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The article presents no evidence of passing WP:PROF nor WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to pass either WP:BIO or WP:PROF. The books that he authored have minimal library holdings according to WorldCat[24][25], only 5 hits in GoogleBooks[26]. Nsk92 (talk) 12:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the good reasons given above. Not notable by a long shot. Drmies (talk) 01:30, 10 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 No real argument for deletion provided, obvious snowball keep. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Precious Moments, Inc.

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

Delete. Non-notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep One of the most well-known porcelain figurine makers around, sold almost in every country, at the very least 50,000 G-hits alone for the figurines, and the article is well-sourced as it is outside of a couple of cite tags involving internal business. The bare minimum of research has not been done on this AfD and should have been done before bringing it to deletion. Nate • (chatter) 08:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sorry to revert to the "If this were deleted, that should be deleted" arguement... but if this were a valid deletion, then hundreds of others would be. Notable. SmokingNewton (talk) 08:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets the "heard of it before seeing a Wikipedia article" test. A titan in the world of kitsch. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable from article. And their figures have been in every Hallmark store, etc. for 20 years or more. There sometimes seems to be a prejudice on WP against businesses. If this was a fictional business on the Simpsons it would probably be the subject of 20 articles here, but a real business (outside of show business that is) somehow seems less important to WPers. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This kitsch satisfies WP:N. Nomination failed to cite any reason. Please read WP:BEFORE and check for reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject before nominating. Google news archive search shows over 13,000 hits 1990 to present, for precious moments most about the article's subject.. Edison (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A very well-known company, and a Google search brings up many reliable sources demonstrating notability. The article could use a few more independent sources, however. PDCook (talk) 18:57, 5 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Madanu Francis

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

Non-notable academic; fails WP:PROF. The Clines quotation which mentions his contribution, includes it as merely one of a long list of "Works known to me specifically dealing with the topic". StAnselm (talk) 07:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 08:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 08:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 08:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article tells us that this person has a doctorate, has been cited once, and is currently teaching. This is far from being notable under WP:PROF, and Google doesn't seem to find anything else (other than mirrors). -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article presents no evidence of passing WP:PROF, nor WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no tenure, no independent reviews of his work, no major fellowships or awards. Bearian (talk) 04:02, 8 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.

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. The article has undergone significant improvement since the nomination and, although it still needs cleanup, the level of sourcing is now very obviously adequate to support an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Czaplicka

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. not much in gnews or gscholar. [27] and [28]. LibStar (talk) 07:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Meets and exceeds all relevant policies and guidelines. Suggest nominator do more research on the subject, paying special attention to the different versions of her name. It might also help if the nominator would read the article paying attention to the bibliography and external links. I can't imagine a single valid rationale for deletion. Viriditas (talk) 07:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

please explain what guidelines it meets, she does not pass the significant coverage test as per WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 07:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

search under alternate names do not reveal significant coverage [29], [30]. [31]. LibStar (talk) 07:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my original comment. Your searches aren't returning correct results because she is not commonly cited using those strings. Czaplicka is a major figure in the study of Siberian shamanism, and I suggest you take a moment to read the article you are nominating, paying attention to the bibliography and the external links. Please don't respond with another malformed search string. Please actually do the research. Viriditas (talk) 08:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Viriditas. Could I perhaps suggest that rather than criticising others for using the wrong search strings, it might be more constructive if you told us what you think the correct ones are? Or better, show us some search results yourself? -- Boing! said Zebedee 12:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collins discusses the problem with her name.(1999; 2004) As the author of multiple scholarly publications, including books and journal articles, and as a recognized researcher in her respective field acknowledged by secondary and tertiary sources, the subject passes every criteria of the significant coverage test per WP:GNG. LibStar is mistaken. Viriditas (talk) 13:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I expect that is true but could we have the links so we can check for ourselves? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Have you checked the current article? I believe I have already pointed editors to it. Viriditas (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I can see. -- Radagast3 (talk) 02:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have mentioned "bibliography and external links" several times now. Secondary and tertiary sources all describe her work as important and valuable. The body of the article also asserts her notability as the author of several popular books, the only female lecturer at Oxford, the second person to gain a doctorate in anthropology, the first woman allowed into the Royal Geographic Society, winner of the Murchison Award, etc. Further research shows an archive of her work at a University, a collection of artifacts she donated to a museum, and a scholarship in her name. The number of secondary sources quoting her work is also impressive. I can go on. Viriditas (talk) 02:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The body of the article makes many unsourced claims to notability, but doesn't back them up with inline citations (a bibliography is present, but bibliographies have been so badly misused in other articles as to have little credibility). None of the external links are particularly informative, either. In particular, they do not address the legitimate questions that LibStar, "Boing! said Zebedee", and Xxanthippe have raised. Now, there is no doubt in my mind that Czaplicka is in fact notable (her 1914 book was reprinted in 1969 and 2007, for example, so that these numerous citations do not pick up all mentions, and WorldCat treats it as multiple different entities). However, the article as written does a poor job of demonstrating her importance. -- Radagast3 (talk) 04:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And when I do check out some of the books in the bibliography, I see them contradicting the article. Disappointing. -- Radagast3 (talk) 04:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a substantial mention of this person in A history of Oxford anthropology, the reference is listed in the article together with many other sources. A notable cultural anthropologist. To be honest, I don't understand the nomination. LibStar, be more careful, please. --Vejvančický (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Substantial material in multiple reliable sources, including a whole chapter in Kubica (2007). Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~Keep: it is up to the authors of the article to show notability, not for the reader to "do research." This article has a bibliography, but only one inline citation, which conveys little useful information (of course a university expresses regret when a staff member dies). Her book Aboriginal Siberia does seem to be well-cited, and this may be enough to guarantee notability, but the article needs serious work. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to use the talk page to address the most glaring problems, although obviously, adding inline citations is at the top of the list. Keep in mind, when this article was created, inline citations were rarely used. Viriditas (talk) 02:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken it on myself to remove some glaring errors, do some cleanup, and add a handful of inline citations. -- Radagast3 (talk) 05:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject is in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. This suffices. Odd that the nominator missed this. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Obviously an expert in her subject. Anyway, the ODNB listing is definitive, though it would be totally clear even without it. I'm too much involved in this sort of article to do a snow keep close,. but there is an obvious case for it. DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 6 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tim Song (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nicki Minaj's First Studio Album

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Nicki Minaj's First Studio Album

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

Un-named future album release - WP:HAMMER. The article content is purely speculative ("It is unsure whether their (sic)will be other featured artists", "she also spilled the names of other beatmakers who may grace the as-yet-untitled album") plus is overly promotional ("The album will offer a universal appeal", "To make an amazing album"). Delete. I42 (talk) 06:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- obvious case of WP:HAMMER. There are a few reliable sources talking about the album, but those can be added to Nicki Minaj as news items until the album itself gets closer to reality. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge- information on the album is all correctly referenced. I guess since their is no official title to the album or official track listing it should generally be merged with Nicki Minaj for now. Although the page will probably be remade once more official news is given on the album in the coming weeks. 68.161.168.214 (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to merge, blatant WP:HAMMER. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Although the album doesn't have an official tittle, everything that is important to an official album is on this page and correctly referenced. Just delete anything that is not referenced correctly and based on rumors. Theuhohreo (talk) 05:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - not having a confirmed title, track list, and release date means that the album is not yet notable per rules at WP. But WP is not going anywhere, so articles like this can be recreated after the album becomes a reality. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hardly any substance and an obvious case of WP:HAMMER. I like Nicki Minaj and her music but most of this is just pure speculation.Str8cash (talk) 17:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing of substance confirmed, so the article just serves as a promotional vehicle.—Kww(talk) 18:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why aren't future albums always speedy deletes? --Bejnar (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because there have been a handful of exceptions where an article was justified. I would happily make "unreleased album or single" a speedy deletion category, but I don't think you will ever get consensus for it.—Kww(talk) 20:03, 7 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Husein Alicajic

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. hardly any third party coverage [32]. awards won are not major, if they were he would receive a lot more coverage. LibStar (talk) 06:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after giving the article some minor cleanup and sourcing. The Dendy Awards are notable to the notable Sydney Film Festival [33][34]. The Promax Awards are globally notable design and marketing awards [35]. The Golden Trailer Awards are notable.[36][37] The Inside Film Awards are notable. [38][39] So I can accept that winning notable awards shows notability, even without extensive personal coverage. And since WP:NF specifically advises that "standards have not yet been established to define a major award", I won't assume these are not major enough for their genre simply because they are not the Academy Awards. Multiple notable awards is notable enough for en.Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I removed a speedy deletion tag from this article back in December 2009. At the time I had come round to thinking that the subject probably was notable, though the article lacked references to demonstrate it. Ironically, what has changed my mind is MichaelQSchmidt's efforts to show notability by adding references. He has evidently put quite a bit of effort into the job, having been editing the article and adding sources for over two hours after it was nominated for deletion. However, the result, I'm afraid, is unconvincing. We have a brief entry in a listing site ([40]). We have mentions on web pages of companies or organisations with connections to the subject (he works with or for them) ([41], [42]). We have a brief announcement of a job appointment in what looks like a press release ([43]) on a web site called "Campaign Brief". We have a promotional page for a film festival, which, in the course of quite a long coverage of a number of events, makes a couple of brief mentions of Husein Alicajic ([44]). As I said, I previously thought that the subject was notable, but if this is the best that can be achieved by hours of work by an editor clearly committed to trying to rescue the article then I have to reconsider that view. None of the sources cited is fully independent of the subject, and most of them are not significant coverage either. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But JBW... you were the one who set the speedy in the first place. You removed a searchable and sourcable assertion of notability in December [45] and then tagged it for speedy deletion yourself [46] as lacking assertions. You removed the tag only after another editor used the summary "It may be unsourced, but db-a7 depends on what an article asserts. Deleting assertions before calling for db-person on the grounds that the article makes no assertions isn't reasonable" upon returning the sourcable assertion [47]. When I think something may be notable, I search for sources and add them. I don't remove assertions and then tag for speedy. WP:N does not demand in depth and extensive coverage. What is does mandate is verification of assertions of notability. He has won multiple notable awards for his work and those have been verified... and in sources independent of the subject. The fact that that was found in such a short time is indicative that the article will benefit from further improvement, and as such is not a candidate for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not doubt that MichaelQSchmidt meant all that sincerely, but he has misrepresented my position. At first I saw the article as not making any plausible claim of significance. There was one thing which superficially looked like a claim of significance, but it was unsourced, so I searched for evidence that this really did confer significance, but the conclusion I was led to by my search was that it did not. This confirmed my impression that the article made no plausible claim of significance, and also indicated to me that that statement, which was unsourced , did not constructively contribute to the article. Consequently I tagged the article for speedy deletion, and also removed the doubtful statement. I do not agree that doing so is unreasonable. Nevertehless, following the rather discourteous edit summary that MichaelQSchmidt has quoted above, I thought about it, and realised that it might indeed look unreasonable to someone else not knowing what process had led me to that action. Also, on thinking about it, I decided that there might actually be more notability than was made apparent by the lack of references, so I decided to give the article the benefit of the doubt, and removed the speedy deletion tag. This is the position I was referring to above, where I wrote "I had come round to thinking that the subject probably was notable, though the article lacked references to demonstrate it". It did not occur to me that I had to explain all the background of my thought processes and investigations leading up to my "coming round to" that position. In any case it is all irrelevant to this discussion: how I came to the position that I held should not influence the outcome of this discussion. The point I was trying to convey was simply that to me the effect of MichaelQSchmidt's efforts to show notability was in fact to reduce any impression of notability. As for MichaelQSchmidt's much more relevant and constructive comment about awards, I think the Dendy award is a rather minor award; I am not sure about the others. I do know, however, that the sources cited in the article in connection with those awards do not give substantial coverage of Husein Alicajic: one of them does no more than give his name in a list of recipients. It may well be that there is significant coverage of Husein Alicajic in reliable independent sources, but the present list of references does not demonstrate the fact. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is hoped that editors reading this discussion here do not somehow pressume that WP:GNG suprecedes all other portions of WP:N. It does not, and presuming such might act to reduce consideration of the individual's sourced notability shown through his winning of multiple notable awards. The article being discussed is not about a man with years of press coverage, rather it is about a man who has won multiple notable awards. Simple. The WP:V mandated verification of his winning notable awards does not require significant or in depth coverage... and what the present list of references does show is his winning the awards. THAT is his notability, not his being written up in news articles. While yes, in depth would be nice, it is not a mandate of policy nor guideline. Further, and while the Dendy might be minor to some, it was won at the undeniably notable Sydney Film Festival [48][49]. However, and more sourcably notable are the globally considered design and marketing Promax Awards [50]... and also souracbly notable are the Golden Trailer Awards [51][52] and the Inside Film Awards [53][54]. Even without significant personal coverage, and even disregarding the Dendy Award, his winning of those last three awards gives notability. And to repeat so the message is not lost, the winning of multiple notable awards is notable enough for en.Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per JamesBWatson. Fails GNG and BIO. Epbr123 (talk) 13:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Requiring meeting the GNG is inapplicable in this case as he specifically is notable through WP:BIO's: "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." His notability, per guideline, is through his winning or being nominated for multiple notable awards. That requires the WP:Verification as given through the sources without in any way mandating that the required sources themselves be in depth. One need not meet all the various sections and sub-sections of BIO in order to be notable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Winning awards at major film festivals meet the criteria for notability. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable awards make a notable person. Dream Focus 01:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The coverage of the awards seems adequate for our purposes. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Closing nominator please note Since this article has been put up for deletion, the extensive references have been added.[55] Okip 02:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Well referenced article. Meets all criteria for notability. Okip 02:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by User:MichaelQSchmidt that demonstrate subject passes WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, its weak on GNG, but is perfectly acceptable as sources show it meets notability through WP:ANYBIO. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my opinion to keep. I still think that the amount of coverage is less than I would ideally like for notability, but I accept that the awards probably do establish adequate notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:09, 8 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Culture Centered Approach

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

Fails WP:GNG - NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, original research and only apparently meaningful, but ultimately uninformative: a metatheoretical framework in communication for addressing inequalities and disparities. Developed by Professor Mohan J Dutta at Purdue University, the Culture centered approach is an innovative approach to health and social change communication that suggests a pathway for engaging in participatory collaborations with marginalized communities with the goal of creating access to basic healthcare, and developing economic and communication resources for local communities that exist at the margins of mainstream healthcare. It surely uses a lot of rosy words like "participatory" and "innovative", but do they say anything? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of it comes from the 2008 book by Mohan Jyoti Dutta, which book doesn't meet the Wikipedia:Notability (books) standards. I found two reviews of the book, neither served a general audience, although both were generally favorable. The concept is not a new one in health care, but apparently Dr. Dutta has provided additional insight into the analysis of cultural values held in the served population. An article about the interface of cultural values and the provision of heath-care would be appropriate; articles such as Campinha-Bacote, J. et al. (2007) "Becoming Culturally Competent in Ethnic Psychopharmacology" Journal of Psychosocial Nursing & Mental Health Services 45(9): 26-33 and Congdon, J. et al. (2001) "Themes of rural health and aging from a program of research" Geriatric Nursing 22(5): 234-238, might begin to create a basis for such an article; but what we have here is just an advancement of a particular author's work. The title is not a term of art, it just matches his book. --Bejnar (talk) 17:47, 7 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tim Song (talk) 17:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe Bernstein

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

i think it should be deleted because its a biography (which isn't even in wikipedia format), and also i don't see the importance of the biography

..::Abb 615::.. 05:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being a biography is not a reason for deletion (we have many of them) nor is not being properly formatted (that is a reason for editing to improve the format). However, lack of importance is a better reason. There is nothing at all in the article to suggest notability: everything it says is consistent with a perfectly ordinary minor academic with no special distinction, and nowhere near satisfying WP:ACADEMIC. The article also gives no sources so I have searched for them. This takes some care, as there are many other Moshe Bernsteins, but I managed to find no independent coverage of this one. It looks rather like a CV (resume). JamesBWatson (talk) 14:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he does not show notability under WP:GNG or WP:PROF - and as per James Watson there seems to be no sources refering to this Burnstein. Addionne (talk) 19:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A full professor of Bible at one the most important religious-based universities is almost certainly notable. I am much more willing to accept their standards than my own guesses. The appointment means that he is an authority in his subject, thus meeting WP:PROF. As an editor of many of the major Qumran texts, he is notable--an important part of the major achievement in humanities in the last century. DGG ( talk ) 06:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails general notability guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 22:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:PROF. The argument that The appointment means that he is an authority in his subject, thus meeting WP:PROF. is an example of the fallacy of transferred notability. That argument would make notable all professors at notable schools. There needs to be independent findings of notability. --Bejnar (talk) 18:03, 7 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Valid (and invalid) arguments made both to keep and delete. See you back here in another 18 months. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional television shows

AfDs for this article:

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

No criteria for inclusion, no sources, indiscriminate. To quote rationale from last AFD: "AfD result from [2007] was "keep" based solely on "it's useful" and "keep if improved" votes. Well, it hasn't been improved any; it's still unsourced and there are no definite criteria, as evidenced by how LONG the list is." I fail to see how the last AFD showed a consensus to keep; that one, too, showed nothing but WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT !votes from every single keeper. Some even argued that sources did exist but couldn't possibly be arsed to fix it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments OK, where to start?!:

No criteria for inclusion - They're all fictional television shows
no sources - AfD is not cleanup
indiscriminate - Seems discriminate to me

However, I do agree it looks like a trivial list that most people would like or find useful. The article really needs to be titled something like "List of meta-fictional television shows" or "Fiction within fiction on television". Now if fiction within fiction has some real-world notability, then it would be a straight keep, tag for cleanup and move on from me! Lugnuts (talk) 08:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- my opinion from last time hasn't changed. This is a sourceless, indiscriminate collection of trivia. TenPoundHammer is correct when he says that all the keep votes last time around amounted to nothing more than "I like it", and I think the consensus should actually have been recognized as "delete". Reyk _YO! 12:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is no improvement to delete something just for the sake of deleting, and I can't think of a more appropriate site where people could place this information. None of these would lend themselves to their own article. As Lug points out, the criteria for inclusion is obvious from the title, and the title is fine the way it is. More so than, say, a fictional school or a fictional newspaper, the fictional television show is a plot device for the scriptwriter to comment upon something that exists in the real world, without running the risk of accusations of libel. Wikipedia sets a lower bar for entertainment articles (TV, film, sports) so I'm not that concerned about the sourcing issue. Ultimately, it comes down to the concept of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia that everyone is welcome to contribute to, and whether one likes or doesn't like this type of list, Wikipedia serves many purposes. Mandsford (talk) 13:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly Delete This is an amazing list. Lots of work went into it. However it really belongs on its own site, not WP. When the concept of "fictional TV show" becomes notable then there can be a WP article Fictional TV show and an external link given to the list. I am becoming teary eyed as I type this. Really. Not joking. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is Fictional TV show notable? Let's see if multiple reliable and independent sources have coverage of "fictional TV shows:" 290 Google News archive hits for fictional TV show and 66 Google Book hits]. ~~Some discuss the general concept ot a "fictional tv show" rather than just a particular one.~~ ~~Some~~Most just use the phrase to note that the TV show itself is fiction, but some are talking about "shows within shows" or "shows within books" or "TV shows within movies." Looks like a possibility. Edison (talk) 17:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list is discriminating: It is limited to fictional TV shows. I looked to see if there were reliable and independent sources which mentioned the fictional shows, as well as their parent "real" shows. I will not do so for every entry, but at the top of the list ther is coverage of "America's Next Top Pirate" from 30 Rock here. Also from 30 Rock there are Google News articles at least mentioning "MILF Island", "Are you stronger than a dog?", "Gold case", "The Girlie Show", and "Sports shouting". I found nothing for "Super computer" which had less coverage in the show, so it could be edited out of the list. Deletion is not a substitute for editing.As for editing, the list should include the "Alan Brady Show" which has 339 Google News archive hits, a fictional show from The Dick Van Dyke Show, which had Google News hits from the time the show was on, 1961-1966. Edison (talk) 17:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All trivial mentions. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the general concept can be shown to be notable then it seems to me that just a trivial mention should be enough to put an item on the list. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What is the encyclopedic purpose of this list if not listing trivia? There are no connections between "Baloney and Kids" and "Acceso Mexico" except that they are two fictional TV shows, how does that help? The title of a fictional TV show doesn't deepen the understanding of the real TV show(s), and saying that they're spoofs of real shows is usually original research since the real producers can't be bothered to comment on their creative choices on such trivial matters. This is a hopeless case in my eyes. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nomination is now incorrect - the article has a source. As consensus was established at the last nomination, this seems to be a disruptive nomination contrary to our deletion policy:"It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome". If the nominator disgrees with the previous outcome, the correct process to use is WP:DRV. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The closing admin noted in the most recent AfD for this list, "Consensus has not changed since previous AfD; lack of willingness to actually improve article does not in this case mean it should be deleted." Of course, it does take some work to find relevant sources here—I've just now added several sources, non-trivial articles that establish the WP:N notability of this topic. Keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete. Fiction within fiction is certainly a notable topic (with notable examples existing in books, comics, theatre, radio, cinema and television) which has been written about in reliable sources. Some of the items listed here are certainly notable examples of that but, unfortunately, the list as a whole is not really encyclopaedic. Many of the entries are unreferenced. How can it possibly hope to be complete given that many shows within shows are used as one-off throwaway gags? Is completeness even desirable? If not, what are the criteria? Having said that, I really do like the list and I would hope that an alternative home for it can be found off Wikipedia, rather than see it vanish entirely. I think, as other have said above, we need a good article on the topic of shows within shows, or maybe fiction within fiction more generally, and then this list can be linked from its new home as an external link. We could also have a category for fictional TV shows so that the individually notable ones with articles are grouped. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This list is essentially an orphan being referenced by articles almost entirely as a see also in other fiction lists. An article, if there were adequate reliable secondary sources, about fictional TV and radio programs might be enjoyable to read. This list is not useful, and smacks of WP:OR. To paraphrase the U.S. Supreme Court in Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, sweat of the brow does not create notability. --Bejnar (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as previous AfDs had a clear and overwhelming consensus to keep. While I understand that consensus can change, we should really only have second and third nominations when an AfD closed as "no consensus" or if a previously deleted article was recreated, because once we have an unambiguos keep, then we should focus on improving the article in question as if anything subjects become more notable and sourceable over time. Two solid keep closes just seals that deal. Beyond that, we should once again keep the article per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world), What Wikipedia is, and Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, maintainable, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable that also serves a navigational and organizational function). WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is what the delete votes amount to, is not a valid reason for deletion. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't fair to characterise the delete votes as IDONTLIKEIT. In fact, some of the delete voters are quite clear that they do like it, but just not as an encyclopaedia article. I think the list has no hope of ever meeting many of those criteria for lists. Lets go through them:

discriminate: No. There is no clear inclusion criteria. Sure, they are all fictional TV shows, but so many of these exist as throwaway elements in fiction that we would need to restrict it more than that. The risk is that the resulting list would be tiny compared to what we have here.
encyclopaedic: Not as it stands. At the moment it is incomplete and indiscriminate. I guess it might stand a slim chance if somebody could come up with the right inclusion criteria.
maintainable: Not without an inclusion criteria that is narrow enough to exclude all the uncountably many passing jokes and throwaway uses of a fictional TV show.
notable: Some of the items on the list are notable. (A good clue is that they have articles of their own or are mentioned and referenced in the article for the main show.) Others are not (for the same reason in reverse, i.e. they don't even get passing mentions). Shows within shows as a subject is notable but a big list of them is not the way to approach it.
unoriginal: The list is not drawn from a single external source, or even a concatenation of external sources on the subject, so it is an original compilation. I don't see that as fatal in itself, although it is not encouraging. The question is what is left once the Original Research is taken out.
verifiable: While quite a lot of the items are unreferenced I am sure that many of them could be referenced. The rest are non-notables.
serves a navigational and organizational function: This is the killer for me. It is hard to see how it can do this when so many of the items listed do not have articles or even sections on them in the article for the main show. We can't aid in navigation if here is nothing further to navigate to.

Lets look at an example: Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog is claimed to contain two fictional shows: Edgar Eagle and Lifestyles of the Very Good. Neither of these is mentioned in the Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog. Lifestyles of the Very Good does not get a mention in Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous either, although a different parody Lifestyles of the Sick and Twisted does get an unreferenced mention. I have no reason to believe that the information is false (even though it is unreferenced) but its absence from the main article suggests that it is non-notable and trivial. The 6 Google hits for "Lifestyles of the Very Good" would seem to bear this out. "Edgar Eagle" gets rather more hits (although I didn't see any RS) yet it still only merits a one line write-up on the Sonic News Network Wiki.

This isn't some knee jerk "Ugh. Delete!" response. In fact I would like to see some way found to save the list but I think that taking it off Wikipedia is the only realistic possibility for achieving this.

--DanielRigal (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't fair either for anyone to falsely characterise the keep arguments as "ILIKEIT." In any event, the list already meets many of those criteria for lists. Lets go through them again:

discriminate: Yes. There is a clear inclusion criteria: only "television shows", only "fictional" television shows, and per our guidelines and policies only "verifiable" fictional television shows. Restricting the entries on the list further so that we have a more compact list is a reason to edit the article, not scrap it altogether. Have short articles is not a problem in an encyclopedia, just as Britannica has the micropedia articles that do not also appear in the macropedia.
encyclopaedic: This discriminate article is certainly encyclopedic in the paperless Wikipedic sense of what many of our editors and readers come here for. If it stands any chance for further improvement then we go that route first per WP:BEFORE as deletion is an extreme last resort when something is a hoax, copy vio, libelous, etc.
maintainable: It has a clear inclusion criteria and it only needs vigilant editors to make sure that only sourced entries are added, as is the case with pretty much every article.
notable: "Non-notable" is subjective and tends to smack of personal preference, i.e. "I don't like it". Because some entries that are verifiable through reliable secondary sources are worthy of articles, the concept is objectively "notable." And a fair compromise would be to focus on those entries that have stand alone articles.
unoriginal: Such secondary sources as this analyze the idea of a "cartoon-within-a-cartoon". If we use and cite such sources as that, the research is not our own, i.e. it is unoriginal. To that end, when I argue, I am always considering Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state and unequivocally an article based on secondary sources concerning "fictional television shows" is absolutely feasible.
verifiable: If some do not really belong in this list, then they can and should be removed while we focus on the ones that are verifiable through secondary sources, such as Itchy and Scratchy Show or say The Terrance and Philip Show.
serves a navigational and organizational function: Even for the entries for which the fictional show does not have an article, the show in which the fictional show appears probably does and we can still at least have an internal link to that article.

Thus, I am still not persuaded that this concept is unsalvageable and per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE, I would much rather see further effort put into that end, even if as suggested above to move it to a totally new article on Fictional television shows that focus on a more analytical summary of the secondary sources I alude to above, i.e. an article about the concept that uses the most significant examples rather than a list. The bottom line is that we have alternatives to deletion that have not yet been exhausted. I will as always gladly help when I can, but unfortunately, tomorrow I am having an ultrasound. So, we'll see how that turns out... Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't characterise the keep voters as being guilty of ILIKEIT so I am not sure why you bring that up.

I am concerned that your rebuttal glosses over the serious problems with the basis of the article as it stands. These problems have clearly been ongoing for years (although this AfD is the first time the article has come to my attention). So, if the article is claimed to be salvageable, my question is: Why has it not yet been salvaged? Is there really any hope that it will be improved after this AfD, or is it going to be left as it is until somebody stumbles over it again in a year or so and sends it for a fourth AfD? --DanielRigal (talk) 17:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Expressed a little more briefly, major fictional elements in notable fiction are suitable subjects for articles and lists. There is no reasonable Wikipedia policy that justifies deletion: Indiscriminate would only apply if it were devoted to shows in all fiction whatsoever, not just notable fiction. We would probably be justified in writing separate articles about every one of these included shows, and a list of such articles would surely be appropriate content. I'm not in any rush to write such articles; in the meantime, we have compromise solutions like this. this sort of article should be supported not just by those who wants extensive coverage of fiction in Wikipedia, but by everybody who is willing to compromise on that issue at all. DGG ( talk ) 03:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Lugnuts, DGG et al. - easily definable and circumscribable. I suspect there will be commentary in articles/books on fiction about pretendy TV shows etc. If I have time I will try and source. Actually has three references describing the same material as what the article is about already, one more than necessary under General Notability Guidelines. More wil be nice to cement this as a notable topic. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The same nominator, who didn't get his way last time, nominates the same article again. *sigh* This article is a perfectly fine list article. When these shows get mentioned, in newspaper reviews, TV guide, books about television of that era published years later, Wikipedia articles for the shows, or wherever, they mention its a show about a fictional television show, or a show within a show, that a key aspect of it. Listing things that have something clearly defined in common, if that something in common is deemed notable, is what list articles are all about. Dream Focus 09:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was more than a year and a half ago so it is not like he is constantly banging away at this article trying to get it deleted, nor is he the only person to suggest that it should be deleted. Wikipedia's standards are evolving and many commentators have noted that we are getting a bit more rigorous about enforcing encyclopaedic content than we have been in the past. It does not seem unreasonable to suggest that the article be looked at again. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't think nominating an article for deletion then nominating the same article again for deletion is not going to work for the people who think this list is useful, which it is, furthermore, the last nomination was not in 2007, it was in mid 2008, one year and a half of time is a long ime. However, it's still pretty useful and during this discussion, someone has added a source to it. So right now, I don't see much of a reason why it should be deleted, it's got useful information for some. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move on. This is the 3rd nomination, I know over time, but come on! This is exactly the kind of article that many people love about wikipedia. Per the essay WP:WIFC, "The value in Wikipedia, and its popularity, comes from the huge amount of random articles on nearly any topic imaginable, with all the relevant information in one place. Wikipedia is a great resource because of breadth and depth; no matter how good an article we have on evolution or the United States, a hundred thousand similar articles can be found everywhere. What distinguishes us from the paper encyclopedias is our versatility and our ability to constantly expand on any topic one can think of. We thrive on the attention from people all over the globe searching for some random little factoid. It does no harm to have loads of articles on things that would never be in the scope of Britannica." The same thing goes for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dewey, Cheatem & Howe. Deleting these articles will not benefit the project. In the meantime, I invite everyone to check out my newest creation, Bikini barista, it could stand to have some more pictures added.--Milowent (talk) 17:47, 12 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of companies based in the Boston area

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

WP:Directory - Not linked and most companies don't appear to be unique to Boston. Shadowjams (talk) 04:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, NOTDIRECTORY CTJF83 chat 09:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although the topic would be worthwhile as an article, this comes closer to being a directory than most articles. All that's missing is phone numbers and a yellow background. That being said, this is the author's first contribution to Wikipedia, and I don't want to discourage new editors. It takes time to learn the rules here, and although this breaks several of them (such as WP:NOTDIRECTORY), I like the way that the author organizes data -- it's very concise. I'd suggest that the author be shown how to "userfy" the article and work further on it. I think that, ultimately, it should limit itself to companies that are not unique to Boston or even to New England, and should concentrate instead on nationwide or worldwide companies that are headquartered in the Boston area. Mandsford (talk) 14:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't want to discourage new editors either, but that doesn't mean giving them free passes on the pertinent policies and guidelines, and this is a very indiscriminate list. "Large operations?" Well, there are a lot of McDonald's restaurants, Mobil gas stations, Sears department stores, etc etc etc. If Mandsford wants to give the creator a tutorial on article creation, sure, go for it. RGTraynor 01:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As is true with many editors, I'll be happy to answer any questions that a newcomer might have, particularly when it comes to showing a person how to work on an article in userspace. For now, based on policy, I have to say Delete, which is no reflection on the user's writing ability. Mandsford (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change scope The problem with the list is that it contains all companies that have "Large Operations in Boston Area". That is a completely arbitrary criteria, and if not changed, is a clear delete. The first four are the Big Four auditors, none of which are based in Boston. What I would support is a list of companies 'based in' the Boston Area, i.e. companies with their global head offices there. This is the same criteria as is used for categories (e.g. Category:Companies based in Boston, Massachusetts). In addition to such a list only including notable companies (i.e. blue links), there could be a cut-off at a particular revenue if the list gets too long. Choose a very round number (for instance $10 million). Otherwise, non-profits, unless operating commercial businesses, should be removed. The list could then contain other relevant information, such as revenue, ___location, industry, year of establishment etc. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:58, 10 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roundtable Institute

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

I had prodded the article guiding the creator to our WP:NOTABILITY link, and requesting reliable sources be added in case notability had to be established. The prod was removed without an accompanying reason. I have personally not been able to establish notability. Request AfD. ▒ ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ▒ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 04:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC) ▒ ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ▒ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 04:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only reference is self-published. Jim Heaphy (talk) 05:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). The foundation is only for Hong Kong, and not all of China, and thus fails the alternative criteria for non-profits. Additionally, the information is not verifiable from independent sources. This is not to be confused with the Oxford University Roundtable Institute, and the scores of business, clinical, ethics, research and disability roundtable institutes. I did find this brief bio of Fung Chi Ching, the Secretary-General of the Roundtable Institute & Network, but it is not an independent source. --Bejnar (talk) 18:37, 7 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boedeker Plastics

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

Delete. Non-notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless independent references establishing notability can be provided. Jim Heaphy (talk) 03:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A Google search turns up a lot of hits, but they're mostly advertising or other companies that work with them. I can't find any independent and significant sources that demonstrate notability. If someone can find some, I may change my mind. PDCook (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 5 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MIT–Leaders for Manufacturing

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

Delete. Non-notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Come on, imagine if we're to have articles about each programs here, Argh... -RobertMel (talk) 04:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 5 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.

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

The result was Speedy deleted. Non-admin closure. Anna Lincoln 12:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Winston marsh

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

The article gives me no reason to believe in this person's notability: it's basically a puff piece without any reliable sources that discuss the subject in any kind of depth. I have not been able to find anything of significance. Drmies (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's tagged as speedy delete. -RobertMel (talk) 04:39, 5 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tim Song (talk) 02:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now....or Then

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

Only source is Golden-road.net message board which is unreliable. No sources forthcoming for years. Precedent established through AFDs such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Check-Out that these are unsourced, unverifiable, and unlikely ever to have an article worth keeping. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Any useful content could be added to The Price is Right. Jim Heaphy (talk) 04:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reason to exist as stand alone, per Jim Heaphy. -RobertMel (talk) 04:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability – Not notable or recognizable element from show. No sources available and subject is already covered in List of The Price Is Right pricing games. Nothing other than YouTube and fansite links are produced from a Google search. Sottolacqua (talk) 16:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I disagree, the game is a recognizable element of the show - though certainly not one of the most recognizable, perhaps not even top 25, but no need to talk dirty. Sad to say, though, we can't really keep without proper sources, and we don't have them. As I said last week, you'd think someone would write a book about these pricing games, given the show's history. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is ANOTHER source for this as well as ALL the pricing games, past and present, and that source is http://gscentral.net/pricing1.htm Kaos 42 (talk) 06:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That link is an unsourced fansite which does not meet criteria listed in Wikipedia:Sources#Reliable sources. Sottolacqua (talk) 12:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - This article is seriously unsourced and fansites are really consired unreliable sources. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:51, 10 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.

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

The result was delete. No sources. Merging not needed because it already has an entry in List of The Price Is Right pricing games EdJohnston (talk) 03:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Triple Play (pricing game)

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

No sources forthcoming for years. Precedent established through AFDs such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Check-Out that these are unsourced, unverifiable, and unlikely ever to have an article worth keeping. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability – article topic is not notable, no sources available and subject is already covered in List of The Price Is Right pricing games. No relevant results come up from Google search. Sottolacqua (talk) 16:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging to a list of games. Stifle (talk) 10:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bah. There is a solid list of games already. The big problem, in my opinion, is that without the image things get very difficult. And of course we don't generally allow non-free images in quantity in list articles. So merge to the list of games and include the picture. Hobit (talk) 18:56, 8 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (X! · talk) · @106 · 01:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joker (pricing game)

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

Only source is Golden-road.net which is unreliable. No sources forthcoming for years. Precedent established through AFDs such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Check-Out that these are unsourced, unverifiable, and unlikely ever to have an article worth keeping. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Any useful content could be added to The Price is Right. Jim Heaphy (talk) 04:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage by reliable sources on this specific game could be found. TheTito ^Discuss 05:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability – article topic is not notable, no sources available and no relevant results come up from Google search. Sottolacqua (talk) 16:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 5 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Cutts

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

An apparently autobiographical resume, remounted without significant improvement after being speedied. According to the references, he was an understudy in the stage production of Hairspray and has had a single film role in an undistinguished film. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep and trim the fluff. Discounting the one film, it seems he has a notability in theater for roles other than Hairspray.[56] Article needs deperately to have a major sandblsting. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Role in Hairspray was either ensemble or a replacement to Seaweed J. Stubbs. I'm not sure where MichaelQSchmidt is getting his information from, but from what I can find, Hairspray was his only on Broadway role, including touring. Otherwise he has one film role. Does not meet WP:ENT. avs5221 (talk) 01:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. Perhaps it's that his film role is in a comedic film about a "drama camp" that puts on plays; the references about the film talk about various plays that have been on Broadway, but I think what's happening in the film is that they are putting on undistinguished versions of the Broadway originals and that's a source of humour. My first impression was that he was suggesting he had been in the Broadway originals, so that might be a source of misapprehension. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough notable. -RobertMel (talk) 04:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't meet WP:ENT. Although he's had roles in two productions, only one is on broadway and neither of his appearances appear to have made a large impact on anyone. There's no in depth coverage of this person, and he hasn't had enough roles to warrant an article. Especially not one of this length. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:02, 5 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial controversy

AfDs for this article:

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

Original research around a particular collocation. At the first glance the article looks like well-referenced. But it turns out that 100% references are quotations of the usage of this phrase, and not a single about theoretical discourse of the concept. There are many standard phrases, such as false assumption or wrong decision, or theoretical possibility, but we don't write articles about them just because you may write a dictionary definition for them and find several thousands google hits. Xuz (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article's topic lacks clarity. Is it talking about argument for argument's sake - staged debates at the Oxford Union and other formal events? Is it talking about synthetic outrage as a rhetorical device? Is it talking about news stories which exaggerate some incident to create sensational stories? It lacks a proper foundation and so cannot stand. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs improvement (to say more about the subject, rather than just a list of examples), and I understand the WP:SYNTH concerns, but I think it's also clear that this is a real and widely-used concept which is deserving of an article. It should also perhaps be moved to Manufactured controversy, as that seems to be the more popular term. Robofish (talk) 21:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree that the article needs to be improved, but I believe the topic is worthy of a better article. There should be redirects from the synonyms listed in the article. Jim Heaphy (talk) 04:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject maybe worthy, but article is trash, should be restarted all new. We may just as well delete the current one. -RobertMel (talk) 04:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is itself a manufactured artificial excuse for POV. If kept, it can of course be edited, to indicate that it is used in a purely dismissive way, without any regard for the facts of the matter one way or another. The first step will be removing all the examples, as they are all individual exercises of POINT. Probably better to start over. DGG ( talk ) 04:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This expression, or pair of words, is certainly used but is really no more notable than a "major controversy" or a "limited controversy" an "old controvesy" or a "new controversy" etc. In a sense all controversies are artificial since they are created by us humans. Kitfoxxe (talk) 07:24, 5 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 20:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sumerian Records

AfDs for this article:

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

Deleted once, re-created, has never had any sources or assertion of notability. Guy (Help!) 23:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, it is linked from quite a few albums. Unless you delete all these albums from wikipedia. Xuz (talk) 23:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Now it has an assertion of notability, OK? Simple Internet searches can find sources for this. Can be rescued. Bearian (talk) 00:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If the label issues recordings by at least nine notable bands, then that makes them notable in my opinion. Jim Heaphy (talk) 04:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lean Keep. I can see why it was nominated, but there are some sources out there that reference it, and a number of these bands have individual articles as well. Anyone know why they have the Egyptian sphinx on their logo though?--Milowent (talk) 18:28, 5 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.

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 22:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PodSite

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

Non notable neologism which appears to be acting as a coatrack article for several non-notable podcasts. Artw (talk) 23:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:COAT. Google search doesn't bring up any relevant returns, which is weird for a web-centric term. "A search on an alleged "Internet meme" that returns only one or two distinct sources is a reasonable indication that the topic is not as notable as has been claimed." Per WP:GHITS. avs5221 (talk) 01:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A coined term that hasn't achieved notability. Jim Heaphy (talk) 04:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - probably a hoax as there is no real google results on this term. December21st2012Freak ^{Talk to me} at 04:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not only, a neoligism, but also the article looks more like a dictionary definition. -RobertMel (talk) 04:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable neologism. Anna Lincoln 12:10, 5 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try 'N' B

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Try 'N' B

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

One of Frank Farians follow ups to Milli Vanilli. They rerecorded one of the Milli Vanilli albums and went no where. Everything that needs to be said is already mentioned in the Milli Vanilli article. Ridernyc (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the performers is notable. No independent references. Jim Heaphy (talk) 04:17, 5 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trance (Wildstorm)

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

Unreferenced fancruft on a minor character. No sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the character list at Gen¹³. Doesn't meet WP:FICT at all. From what I can find, he's a very minor character. I'm not even sure he needs to be on the Gen¹³ page, but I'll leave it at that. avs5221 (talk) 02:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @106 · 01:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems to be a very minor character, not even mentioned in the main article about the series. Continued lack of references and article being almost entirely written from an in-universe perspective further suggest a lack of notability. cmadler (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the series article. -- Big Dom 18:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Topic has not received coverage in secondary sources. Abductive (reasoning) 12:30, 13 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keep voters unable to show that the criteria of WP:NF are met. MrDirector may have a COI and should be advised to comment, not vote EdJohnston (talk) 04:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gone (2007 film)

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

Non-notable film lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:NOTFILM. ttonyb (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The only sources for Gone that I can find is for a notable movie with the name and released the same year. Fails WP:NF. Joe Chill (talk) 00:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: sources have been added to the movie, its IMDB page, its official website, etc... Furthermore, the film is mentioned on Barbara Tarbuck's wikipdeia page. MrDirector (talk) 02:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment To User:MrDirector... IMDB and film's website are not appropriate as sources, so I moved them to external links. However I was able to find and include a lengthy French interview of the filmmaker. The film's reviews still need to found and sourced, as well as any awards or nominations. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A level of notablity has been established. Jim Heaphy (talk) 04:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Can you be more specific and show how? I do not see how this meets the criteria in WP:NOTFILM. ttonyb (talk) 05:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to evaluating Articles for Deletion so I could be wrong. If so, I apologize. I see that the film stars two notable actors, has shown at several film festivals, and there is an interview in a Belgian publication that discusses the film, though that interview is in French. Jim Heaphy (talk) 04:18, 7 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miles Holmwood

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

Unreferenced and aparrently autobiographical article about a member of Stereos. WP:MUSIC states that "members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles" but does allow exceptions to this when "they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article.". I do not believe the individual notability is met. The article shows The Artist Life as a associated act, but the association is not disclosed; he certainly does not appear on the page for that act so he was presumably not a member of that band. None of the other associated acts are notable. The article also states that he was a boxer and won 12 Golden Glove championships but the subject does not appear in List of US national Golden Gloves champions. This champtionships has many regional groups so if there were any wins they were at a local level and - coupled with being amateur rather than professional - are again non-notable. I42 (talk) 08:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the Golden Gloves thing can be sourced, that would be sufficient to indicate some notability, at least to me. The music acts add to that. But again, we need to get sourcing, which may be problematic if there are conflicting reports as you suggest. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and fold content that can be referenced into his band Stereos. When I Googled "Miles Holmwood" and Golden Glove, almost everything that came up was Wikipedia related, and nothing was a reliable, independent source. Jim Heaphy (talk) 04:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Jim Heaphy. -RobertMel (talk) 04:54, 5 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.

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

The result was delete. I agree with the unanimous deletes, & see no reason to continue further--looking closely at the wording of article, appears not to have actually win any awards DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Byfield

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

This article appears to have a conflict of interest and seems to have been set up for personal promotion. The tone of the article is biased and lists the author's personal achievements. The author in question has published one chapbook of poetry and hasn't yet published a full length collection. For these reasons the page should be deleted. Jamjamthankumam (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a strange one. On the one hand, I'm not sure that the subject does meet the notability criteria. On the other, I'm very suspicious of an AFD nomination by a user who has never made any contributions to anything else. Don't know. Chris (talk) 23:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Suspicious as the nomination may be, there are no reliable sources writing about this person or his poetry. -- Whpq (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His works do not come up in either the US, UK, or Australian national libraries. He returns no verifiable hits, I can't find any other reliable references to the author. Does not meet WP:AUTH. avs5221 (talk) 02:04, 5 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Kordyback

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

Member of the band Stereos but with no notability outside of that band. Fails WP:MUSICBIO: "members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article" as individual notability is not shown. I42 (talk) 09:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stereos per I42. Well explained. avs5221 (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as his claimed notablity is only as a member of a single notable band. Fold useful content that can be referenced into article on his band Stereos. Jim Heaphy (talk) 04:33, 5 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble On a Plane

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

Non-notable film lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:NOTFILM. ttonyb (talk) 07:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I cna't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this article has plenty of valid references to IMDB pages, official websites, online articles and interviews. MrDirector (talk) 03:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – the references fail to provide "non-trivial" coverage of the film and fail to meet the criteria in WP:RS. ttonyb (talk) 06:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per previous users, refs on page are trivial and do not meet WP:RS. Movie does not have significant or verifiable sources. avs5221 (talk) 02:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Film does not meet the standards set in WP:NOTFILM. Jim Heaphy (talk) 04:37, 5 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.

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

The result was deleted—copyvio. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Muhsin Khalid

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

Completing unfinished AfD. I can't find any reason why it's been nominated, but I'm willing to bet that being an unreferenced BLP is up there. For this reason, I am 'neutral'. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete without prejudice to recreation. This appears to be the only readily available reliable source. Even if he actually meets WP:AUTHOR, the article would take far too much effort to fix, and the fact that it has been tagged for 18 months without any attempt to fix it suggests that it's not worth the candle. THF (talk) 04:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. December21st2012Freak ^{Talk to me} at 01:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Of course, the article needs references and a lot of work. However, the article seems to be written in good faith, and the author has had many works published in both Arabic and English, as a Google book search shows. Jim Heaphy (talk) 04:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A Google Books search shows nothing of the sort - it only finds the one sub-sentence mention linked above. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a copyright violation of [57] and the following pages found by clicking "next". I'll tag the article accordingly. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:05, 6 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.

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

The result was Redirect to Pilgrims of Arès, since it has the most sources. Only one article appears needed on this subject. Revelation of Arès is redirected also, to the same target. Editors may undo this merge plan if they wish, but consensus does not favor three separate articles, and the !voters believed that the Michel Potay article was weakly sourced. EdJohnston (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Potay

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

Delete because there is no significant coverage in secondary sources. There is one brief mention (one sentence) in an article in the Atlantic Monthly. All the rest is blogs and internal sources directly related to Michel Potay. Fails WP:BIO. --Bejnar (talk) 04:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this and Revelation of Arès to Pilgrims of Arès which is probably notable as a new religious movement. While there is no indication that Potay is notable enough for his own article, he is a likely search term and should redirect to his movement. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (but i'm biased). While i agree that the article currently offers little, i predict that, with time, if removed, the page will end up re-done anyway, and will grow. Currently only two links to it: theophany and prophet, but two biggies IMO. The topic is of rather great importance, wouldn't you agree? Hopefully one of these days i'll take the time to get to it properly. I propose to just leave it there and give it some time. --Jerome Potts (talk) 07:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this article has had time. It was created 17 November 2005. --Bejnar (talk) 04:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless a reliable source other than that one sentence in the Atlantic Monthly can be provided. Jim Heaphy (talk) 04:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this article, Revelation of Arès and Pilgrims of Arès under one title. There is some book coverage of Potay, for example [58] and [59], but there's no reason why we should split our coverage of this general topic over three articles with pretty much the same content. In technical terms I suppose I mean that this should be closed as a keep and a merge discussion started to decide which title would be best for a combined article. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:44, 6 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spinner (website)

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

Non-notable site, unsourced article. The one claim to notability is unsubstantiated and can probably be placed on some other article; it's not justification for an article about this site. Either way, Spinner.com is far more notable and since it bills itself as "Spinner" rather than "Spinner.com", it should probably be moved to this name. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Current content does not show any notability of the subject. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Spinner.com After correcting two musician-related articles which linked to this article instead of the AOL Music site, this is an orphan article for a local satirical website with little notability. Nate • (chatter) 02:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article claims that a satirical article on this website caused "panic" in the Kiribati Islands, but there is no reliable source provided showing that "panic" occurred. There are no reliable independent sources showing notability. Jim Heaphy (talk) 04:54, 5 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.

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

The result was Oops Redirected these boldly, then forgot to close the afd. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gonard

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

Non-notable characters, unsourced since 12/06 at the worst. Too much unsourced fanwank, nothing worth merging. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Kappa Mikey characters. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would have, but I don't like making redirects with qualifiers in them, and someone might easily undo my work. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:36, 5 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.

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

The result was Redirected Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LilyMu

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

Non-notable in-universe fanwank, unsourced since forever. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kappa Mikey, where it's mentioned. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect:Per Starblind, this is much better suited to Kappa Mikey. Does not meet WP:N on its own merit and succumbs to increasingly minute detail. avs5221 (talk) 01:05, 5 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sanderson Jones

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

I've tried to find reliable sources to document notability but there is very limited information about this person. All I can find are references to him being in a commercial for Ikea. It appears he isn't quite notable enough yet for a Wikipedia entry. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 03:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no prejudice to recreation if he does become notable. It appears that the Ikea commercial may be the big break fort his comedian. The London Evening standard is provided as a reference in the article, and I can find no other sources writing about him. The Standard article describes him this way: "It has been a long and hard bid for success for the 28-year-old from Clapham, who often worked seven days a week to make ends meet." That seems to indicate that his career to date has not been notable. Maybe the Ikea commercial will turn his career around. If so, then he will gain the coverage and an article in Wikipedia would be appropriate then. -- Whpq (talk) 17:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until and if notability is shown. Until then, good luck to Mr. Jones. Jim Heaphy (talk) 05:00, 5 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. EdJohnston (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shine Fights

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

Articles cover a relatively non-notable, local/regional promotion. Offers no suggestion as to why Shine Fights, or its three events, are more notable than the hundreds of other regional promotions around the U.S. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are, IMO, about non-notable MMA events run by a non-notable promotion:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —TreyGeek (talk) 03:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It was on my watchlist. It fails WP:Directory among other things. I am not sure even the individual fights or even competitors would be notable on their own standing either. Shadowjams (talk) 11:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The promotion has some top talent signed onto their roster such as Jeff Monson, Din Thomas, Micah Miller, Nick Thompson, Danillo Villefort, Ricardo Mayorga and so many more. They are being covered by all the major MMA sites, so you can't say that it isn't a big or notable promotion. The promotion is also a lot bigger and more well known then some promotions that are currently on the Wiki. So if this one goes down I hope to see the other ones go down as well. RapidSpin33 (talk) 02:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The single reference is an article on a mixed martial arts blog. That one reference isn't enough to establish notability. Jim Heaphy (talk) 05:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

. Jim Heaphy (talk) 05:03, 5 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

War Nurse (My Story)

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

This looks like a non-notable children's book by Sue Reid. There aren't any hits in Google News and I've been unable to find a review. The link to the author is actually to a former Olympic hockey player. AniMate 02:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 05:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and as WP:SOAP. Bearian (talk) 02:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing provided to show notablity. Jim Heaphy (talk) 05:06, 5 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take This Job and Love It!

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

Doesn't meet general notability for TV episodes. I'm sure there's more of this ilk. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable episode and the article merely contains plot. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 14:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing provided to show notability. Jim Heaphy (talk) 05:08, 5 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something Evil, Something Dangerous

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

NN film per WP:NOTFILM. Article creator removed prod, so here we are.-- Syrthiss (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A college film that fails notability under WP:NOTFILM. The article was created by the film's director. Jim Heaphy (talk) 05:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability under WP:NOTFILM. Mootros (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Perhaps this should serve as a good example for WP:NOTFILM.
Delete Search for title + director finds nothing to show notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:03, 5 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (X! · talk) · @106 · 01:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vahishat bharti vidya mandir

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

I cannot find any information on this vaguely-described "educational institution" through Google, under multiple variations of the name, possible alternate spellings, etc. The Wikimapia link provided in the article appears to point to some open fields. If anyone can find substantial information about this subject, so much the better, but otherwise it severely fails WP:N and WP:V. Contested PROD. Glenfarclas (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd tag it with {{wp:g3}} but there is a chance that the name is misspelled. No results on Google. The image from wikimapia shows . . . Well, I don't know what exactly it shows, but it certainly doesn't look like "the oldest educational institution" described by the article. Fails WP:V, WP:N. — Rankiri (talk) 02:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references. Seems like someone started an article and lost interest. Jim Heaphy (talk) 05:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources or references whatsoever and only a vague description why this school should be notable. The author started the article over a week ago, writing "Updating..." and hasn't edited the article, or Wikipedia at all, ever since. JIP | Talk 06:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 08:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 08:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - About an empty field pretending to be the oldest school in India. Astronaut (talk) 09:40, 10 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.