Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 November 1

< 31 October	2 November >

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 Speedy keep and expand. Nominator has withdrawn listing because there is clear evidence that a biographical article is merited on this topic although it needs to be expanded with more references. For further reasoning on this non-admin close see also the essay Wikipedia:Snowball clause. Closer undertakes to add the references referred to into the article. TS 17:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Robbins

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

Withdraw.~~Non-notable per WP:NBASKETBALL. Stub article relies exclusively on obituary column for sourcing.~~ Uncle Dick (talk) 23:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The obituary was by BBC Sport, so I don't see a problem here. According to another article he "was a professional player in England, Germany, Belgium and the USA before his move to Ireland." (Western Mail). There are similar announcements in the Irish Times and other papers. I just don't see any circumstances under which we would want to delete this. He made a big splash in several countries and died suddenly. --TS 00:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way I'm not a fan of the concept of "notability" or of the notability guidelines, but this chap seems to amply fulfil the requirements of the cited guideline, to wit criterion 1: "Have appeared in one game in the original American Basketball Association, Asociación de Clubs de Baloncesto, Euroleague, National Basketball Association, National Basketball League (Australia), National Basketball League (United States), Serie A, Women's National Basketball Association, or a similar major professional sports league." The main basketball league of the United Kingdom is the BBL. He went on to play a season in the Irish Superleague, another qualifying premier league. And with the Belgian team, Bree, he played Euroleague Basketball. So to say he doesn't make the guideline is wrong on at least three counts. This chap qualified at the highest professional level in two different countries and across the continent of Europe. --TS 14:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point. I would like to withdraw this Afd per TS. The article still needs some cleanup work to improve its references and make clear Robbins' claim to notability. Uncle Dick (talk) 16:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Gebreezgiher

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

Non-professional footballer who has not played internationally at senior level or professionally in a competitive match per WP:NSPORTS guidelines fr association football players and achieved nothing significant enough to warrant inclusion. Has had a newspaper article about him, but that is his 15 minutes of fame to date. ClubOranje^T 23:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —ClubOranje^T 23:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ClubOranje^T 10:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 12:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. J Mo 101 (talk) 11:32, 5 November 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 as g7 per the author's comment here (non-admin closure) Terrillja _talk 03:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Spring Baseball League

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

Non-notable league per WP:ORG, has not actually played any matches yet, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Top Jim (talk) 23:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related article because it similarly fails WP:ORG, and has likewise not played any matches yet:[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Top Jim (talk) 23:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead IMO. As long as we keep a note of them somewhere. IF they begin play though, the article can be re-added, right? Jntg4Games (talk) 23:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If they become notable, an admin can recreate them. I have tagged both as g7 per the above comment.--Terrillja _talk 00:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slaughter Massacre

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

A film that has no presence on imdb. Its youtube and facebook campaign show that it's something being done independently by no notable people. See http://ja-jp.facebook.com/SlaughterMassacre and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4euGs6xgmQ "Coming winter 2010". Corvus cornix_talk 21:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent sourcing. The film doesn't even seem to have been shown anywhere; all the excitement at the facebook page is about the possibility that one theater might show the trailer. --MelanieN (talk) 14:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The addition of 142 sources (although not the best)...and I learned unsourced isn't a reason for deletion...plus, it's Madonna! (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 03:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of unreleased Madonna songs

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

Extremely undersourced. I can't find a single source to verify about 3/4 of the content here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - It's just a list of unverifiable songs, mainly edited by IP addresses. A page full of fluff. Ga Be 19 23:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - Consider also there are similar pages on Wikipedia for ABBA, Prince, Pink Floyd, Cher, Michael Jackson, Lennon/McCartney (with various verified and unverified sources). Additionally i have found hundreds of articles that list unreleased songs (with various verified and unverified sources) throughout Wikipedia including Westlife, Ace Of Base, Christina Aguilera, Brandy Norwood, Paramore (the list is quite endless). This is actually the ONLY complete list of Unreleased Madonna songs on the net (believe me, i have looked - if you don't believe me, please feel free to look for yourself.). The article lists genuine Madonna recordings. Of the songs listed here, I have over 80 of them as they have leaked in some form over the years. These songs are real and Wikipedia has long been the only place to group together and give specific information about these songs. Wiping this article i believe would be a dis-service to music history just because someone considers it a page "full of fluff" - which it is certianly not! The article often lists the songs with the verified ASCAP listings and United States Copyright Office listings! Please do not delete this unreplaceable article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spacedub (talk • contribs) 05:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I understand your argument here, but the reason I support deletion of this page is because of its size and its amount of sources; there's only 8 sources. Michael Jackson's, ABBA's, and Brandy's articles list several sources, enough to know that the songs listed in the article are verifiable. As for Prince's, Pink Floyd's, and Cher's pages, those are lists that should also be removed.

You say "This is actually the ONLY complete list of Unreleased Madonna songs on the net (believe me, i have looked - if you don't believe me, please feel free to look for yourself.). The article lists genuine Madonna recordings", but how do you know these are genuine Madonna recordings if no sources are listed? You also claim that "The article often lists the songs with the verified ASCAP listings and United States Copyright Office listings!", but the problem here is nothing here is verified. And of course, this is the "ONLY complete list of Unreleased Madonna songs on the net", it's Wikipedia, anyone can edit it. Many if not all edits are from IP addresses, further adding to the suspicion of the song added. And as for Westlife, Ace Of Base, Christina Aguilera, or Paramore having such lists on here, I don't see them. Ga Be 19 08:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I am trying to add as many sources as i can myself and have been corresponding with Madonna web site owners to see if they can help with adding verification. This may take a little time as it's a little bit of a task. "And as for Westlife, Ace Of Base, Christina Aguilera, or Paramore having such lists on here, I don't see them" - their unreleased songs are listed within their discography pages or main article pages, mostly unverified. T'm guessing that no one wants to lump Madonna's unreleased songs in with her discography as the list is so long for her unreleased material. I know i said "it the "ONLY complete list of Unreleased Madonna songs on the net", and you said "it's Wikipedia, anyone can edit it" - but consider the historical impact of for second, rather than just thinking about Wikipedia policys (which i KNOW whe have to adhere to - what i'm saying is just think for a second HISTORICALY) - because what i said is TRUE. If you delete this in a hurry without giving time to add sources then the whole planet loses out on the only listing i can find that documents these tracks. As i said - these songs are real. I HAVE a lot of them, as do thousands of her fans due to them leaking. I know you will consider it silly, but all you have to do is look on Youtube or any file sharing network or most Madonna blogs or fan pages to hear the MAJORITY of the songs listed in the article. Please give me time to try and add verification for the tracks. I really think it's a mistake to get rid of this so quickly and i'm going to try my hardest to supply as many sources as i can during my non work hours and ask others to do the same.Spacedub

Thanks Spacedub. Good work. I have gone through the article and deleted the entries that I know are pure speculation on fan sites, and added ^{[citation needed]} to other entries that claim reference to interviews or articles but I am not sure about (if these cannot be verified I suggest deleting entries, or the sentences to which they relate). I have also made a few other tidy ups. Everything else in the list I am satisfied can be verified by reliable sources. (Noting that reliable sources need not be public sources). On a separate note, Ive never understood why the 'officially commissioned remixes' is on this page - Im happy for that whole section to go. JKW111 (talk) 10:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Yes, the article needs improvement to remove clear junk and more sources, but this does not mean it should be removed. Very premature. Also, the verifiability policy emphasizes verifiability, not necessarily whether every stated is verified within the article. The policy requires that "all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source." Generally accepted content does not need specific sources listed. There are many many articles on wikipedia that do not provide a source for every sentence. It is the job of editors to weed out things that are not considered established. In short, people need to put a bit more work in to this article but there is no basis for deletion. JKW111 (talk) 09:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response - "verifiability policy"? What policy are you talking about? Also, unlike other articles on Wikipedia, this is a list of information, which means each entry here should have a source; not necessarily each sentence but each entry needs a source. Also, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, there it states "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation", which is what the entire article is compiled of, unverifiable speculation.

Wikipedia:Verifiability specifically states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. [...] All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source to show that it is not original research, but in practice not everything need actually be attributed. This policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question. This is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, sections of articles, and captions—without exception, and in particular to material about living persons. Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed, and unsourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately."

Yes, that's the wikipolicy i was referring to, which you then quote what I wrote. While not true for every entry, this is not a list of mere speculation - the songs exist and it only takes a little work to actually find the songs, and many listed have catalogue numbers which can be looked up. Articles on movies do not include independent sources for description of plot etc, its enough that people can watch the movie to verify. Same here in most cases. Verifiability does not mean it has to be proven right here in the article, only that it is possible to verify, which need not be easy to do for everybody. If you consider particular entries cannot be verified, point those out and see if anyone else can verify there existence. You may be surprised how many of these songs can be verified. (Having said that, there are some clear entries that should be deleted immediately). JKW111 (talk) 06:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Undersourced" is not a reason for deletion, especially since, by the nominator's own account, there's more than enough sourced content for a legitimate article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Would you say the "Bible" is also unsourced? There's so much work in this article, it's rather impious to say "Extremely undersourced. I can't find a single source to verify about 3/4 of the content here." Espacially "can't find a single source" You just got to employ, and you'll find you'r so desperately needed sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.172.163.144 (talk) 20:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response - As I previously posted, Wikipedia:Verifiability states "All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source" something this article has nothing of.

Why quote selectively? The policy also says "but in practice not everything need actually be attributed". This is a clear application of ignoring the headline rule (all material attributed to source) to improve wikipedia. Again, point out any information you challenge and let others discuss whether the information is verifiable from other sources. That's what article's discussion pages are for. This should be done before suggesting an entire article should be deleted.

KEEP - I see as one of the references there is a link to an interview poblished in Goldmine Magazine, a legitimate publication, given by Stephen Bray - Madonna's one time co-writer and producer. As he, the writer and producer has specifically mentioned and verified many of these unreleased songs in the article, this is proof that they exist. This page must be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.144.40.146 (talk) 05:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's Madonna. -- œ ^™ 15:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have tried to add references, but one of Wikipedia's moderators has deleted references i have just added without giving any explanation. The sources were from Madonna's own website, some news web sites and Song registration databases. I have given up several days of my time to add these as this article has been said to be without sources, and when i provide sources they are deleted. Thanks Wikipedia. That's just great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spacedub (talk • contribs) 03:30, 7 November 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 Patriarch of Alexandria. /delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pope of Alexandria

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

Delete. This is essentially a copy of Patriarch of Alexandria with a nice picture. The article properly redirected to the above for the past several years until fairly recently when it was co-opted by WP:FRINGE theorists. The new name destroys the concept of Pentarchy along with the template at the bottom and is not used in English. The copied article correctly notes that "contrary to the Pope of Rome, the Pope of Alexandria had no distinction in his Papal/Pontifical and Patriarchal titles. They were used together in the same capacity and this dual title did not put him on a higher ecclesiastical/hierarchical level than the other Patriarchs of the Pentarchy." Also note that one of the editors recently deleted the original article without discussion.Student7 (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/ Merge to Patriarch of Alexandria per Student7. In addition to other conerns, the "Pope" title seems to be used much less (if at all) than the "Patriarch"-- except for the Coptic Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria. The other four Patriarchs of Alexandria are:

--^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 22:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The above info is totally erroneous. The first person to carry the title of Pope was the 13th Pope of Alexandria, hundreds of years before the Bishop of Rome assumed that title as well. And since that time, the head of the Seat of Alexandria has been called "Pope of Alexandria". This does not only include the Pope of the Coptic Orthodox Church, as one of the editors above claims, but also the Pope of the Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria. The other two (the Latin Patriarch who does not even exist anymore), and the Patriarch of the Coptic Catholic Church, do not carry the title "Pope" because they follow the church of Rome. Both of these did not even exist 200 years ago, while both the Pope of the Coptic Orthodox Church and the Pope of the Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria continued to exist since the time of Saint Mark in the 1st century, and continued to carry the title "Pope of Alexandria" since the time of Pope Heraclas, 13th Pope of Alexandria, in the 3rd/4th century, long before the title "Pope of Rome" existed. That's why the title "Pope of Alexandria" is much more correct than the title "Patriarch of Alexandria". --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ ^[talk] 04:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I contacted John Mcguckin, Professor of Byzantine Christian Studies at Columbia University and author of "St. Cyril of Alexandria: The Christological Controversy". He had this to say:

The ancient title was Pope of Alexandria. Patriarch was attached
to the Sees (Rome,Alexandria, Constantinople, Antioch and Jerusalem) after Chalcedon in 451 - so technically Pope is the more correct, though patriarch
is also generally used.

Also, please see Wikipedia's naming conventions. Specifically:

For popes, whether Roman Catholic, Coptic, or otherwise, use the format "Pope {papal name} {ordinal if more than one} of {episcopal see}". Popes of Rome should not be linked with their episcopal sees; Rome is understood. Also, do not use a pope's personal name. For example, use Pope John Paul I, not Albino Luciani or Pope John Paul I of Rome.

Popes other than Roman (specficially Coptic Popes) are explicitly mentioned. --Sсοττ5834^talk 18:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These "keep" votes misunderstand or misrepresent the situation. There is already an article on the Coptic Orthodox Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria; it is "Pope of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria. This article-- Pope of Alexandria-- is about all the various Patriarchs of Alexandria (Coptic Orthodox, Latin, Greek Orthodox, Coptic Catholic, and Melkite Greek Catholic) and thus exactly the same subject as Patriarch of Alexandria-- but some of these Patriarchs of Alexandria use only the term "Patriarch," not Pope. At the very least the two identical articles need to be merged! ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 20:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scott, your notes only apply to articles on individual Popes, such as Pope Demetrius of Alexandria. This article, Pope of Alexandria is about neither the Coptic Orthodox Pope in general, nor a particular Coptic Orthodox Pope.

If anything, the articles need to be merged under Pope of Alexandria and NOT under Patriarch of Alexandria. Your request is like saying that the article "Pope of Rome" should become "Bishop of Rome" or "Patriarch of Rome"!!! The head of the Sea of Alexandria is known as Pope of Alexandria and the article must reflect this. The fact that the Catholics in Egypt follow the Church of Rome and thus only use the term "Patriarch of Alexandria" is irrelevant in this case because the article is about the term Pope of Alexandria and not about these uniate Christians who did not even exist 200 years ago. For 1800 years, the Church of Alexandria has been headed by the Pope of Alexandria (longer that the usage of the term "Pope of Rome" for the Catholic Church), and this fact must be reflected in Wikipedia. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ ^[talk] 05:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Patriarch of Alexandria has plenty of space to be expanded to include more info if needed. A redirect from Pope of Alexandria to Patriarch of Alexandria should be enough for people searching using the "Pope" title. • Astynax ^talk 01:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore to redirect - Acknowledging that there is some validity to the title "Pope of Alexandria", there seems to be very little content relevant to it that does not also relate to the "Patriarch of Alexandria" article, which seriously weakens the apparent need for the article. The relevant information about the use of this title could easily be fit into that article, with the redirect reestablished. John Carter (talk) 21:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Patriarch of Alexandria. Unnecessary fork. PhilKnight (talk) 00:29, 9 November 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. Meets coverage (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 04:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Dreamer (comic)

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

Fails to meet web notability criteria. Nakon 20:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per multiple independant sources found: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] -- œ ^™ 15:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dilithium Networks

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

Delete. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "Just not notable" is not a very helpful nomination statement. Could the nominator please explain how the independent sources in the article are insufficient for notability? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CORP insists on more than simply having sources as a means of establishing notability. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't, as long as the sources are independent and reliable and have significant coverage: "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject". Please explain how the sources in the article fail to meet this criterion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taking away all the dodgy sources such as blogs, forums, home pages and sources from the company itself leaves very little "significant coverage". -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Delete. This text is unambiguous advertising and should be deleted, indeed speedily deleted, no matter how notable this apparently failed and bought-out business might be:

....provides mobile video solutions that enable delivery of multimedia services over mobile and broadband networks to any device including mobile phones, smart phones, settop boxes and PCs. Its video technologies are deployed by network operators, content owners, aggregators and equipment providers. Today, the majority of Dilithium’s solutions are IP based, so they can run on a large number of networks.

...provides a multimedia solution for cellular, IP, and PSTN convergence as networks evolve towards the IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS).

is compatible with all major voice and video standards used in 3G mobile and IP networks and provide a SIP-based environment enabling access to hosted applications from any SIP device

As usual, much of this text resists editing by strategic meaninglessness. And at any rate, it isn't notable: the references are all to its own sources or to announcements of minor trade awards and the like. I found nothing better. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:36, 2 November 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brian T. Skala

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

Contested prod, no good coverage in reliable sources. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I was the one that asked that the article be reinstated. Obviously the article is in very bad shape right now I can why it was deleted in the first place. Give me time so I may work on it. Quasy Boy 18:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have since updated the page by adding a filmography table and more categories. If anything the page could use a {{BLP IMDB refimprove|only=yes}} tag, not to be outright deleted. Quasy Boy 19:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The current tag already says pretty much the same thing, that it's unsourced to any major sources (though no mention of imdb). My deletion request stands. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 00:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, I added a couple of references. Most of his roles were minor but he was the lead in Just Deal, that combined with his other roles particularly in The Basket may just qualify him for criterion 1 on WP:NACTOR. J04n(talk page) 00:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY and J04n's reference to WP:NACTOR. Not a famous actor, I'd not yet heard of him, but certainly one notable enough based on past outcomes for actors. His roles are of supporting, middling types, with one star turn in an indie film. That's good for me. Bearian (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nom after glancing over the sources currently in the article, keeps are more convincing now that I've slept on them. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ultrathin laptops

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

Pure OR, neologism, entirely congruent with the legitimate category ultraportable Sumbuddi (talk) 17:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a catalog. --MelanieN (talk) 14:33, 7 November 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 -- œ ^™ 14:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel toilet paper folding

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

What the... HOTEL TOILET PAPER FOLDING? What's gotten into this wiki? BwburkeLetsPlays (talk|contribs) 17:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Sumbuddi (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Keep. I'm as surprised as you are, but this seems to be fairly well referenced; some of the sources given are unreliable or primary sources, but there are quite a few legitimate ones as well. I can't think of any other article where these details would fit. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the nom hasn't cited a single reason as to WHY this should be deleted. Ignoring that, the article is fine and has many real-world cites to meet general notability. Lugnuts (talk) 18:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no reason given for deletion. Kuru (talk) 18:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into toilet paper. Just because something can be sourced doesn't mean that Wikipedia should have an article about it. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fold into toilet paper? Sumbuddi (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep no reason for deletion only a WTF? comment. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 01:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No sound rationale for deletion so far. The practice exists, the practice can be referenced (and the "hospitality industry", indeed, takes it seriously). Merging upward is not a good choice (you will have to either cut the whole story to one line, or load the target article with a lengthy and WP:UNDUE text on a fringe issue). "What happened to this wiki"? It thrives owing to unusual articles. East of Borschov 07:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An excellent article - kudos to the author. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yes, the title invokes in me a "what the..." response in me too. However, the sourcing indicates that the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources which substantiates this as an article topic. -- Whpq (talk) 20:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep several reliable sources show notability. Also to the nominator: "WTF?!" is not a valid rationale for deletion. TomCat4680 (talk) 09:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 22:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason given to delete this. Just because you don't like something, doesn't mean you have the right to delete it. See WP:IDONTLIKEIT Dream Focus 10:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' Article has enough reliable sources to pass GNG for this strange topic. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 15:11, 4 November 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. Courcelles 01:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

League of Legends Patch v1.0.0.103

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

An individual patch to a game does not seem to be sufficiently notable to me, especially as they are apparently weekly. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete At least some of this content is copied and pasted, see [9], I suspect the vast majority of it is, regardless a single patch does not need an article. Someone another 18:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of no interest to anyone but players of the game. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. has little to no encyclopedic value Morgankevinj(talk) 23:15, 1 November 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 --Mike Cline (talk) 23:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ousterhout's dichotomy

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

This page is based off of only one source (in the IEEE magazine, but not their scientific journal). Does Wikipedia really support pages for low impact magazine articles? Tt's low impact in the sense that no external references besides the original article are provided. If you 'google' Ousterhout's dichotomy the major results are this wikipedia article and other public editable sources.

Moreover, it include a significant amount of research not in the original article viz. - How is Java compiled to machine code? In fact, it compiles to object code. But, so does Perl, Ruby (as of 1.9), and Python. - How do any of the scripting languages mentioned not support advanced data structures? Perl, Ruby, and Python all support any data structure that you can contrive in C.

Finally, it has been cited as having problems, that haven't been resolved, since 2008.

This needs to be removed.

Sirmacbain (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's two sources. The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing, as cited in the very first revision of the article, is the other. Uncle G (talk) 10:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- The second source you mention is also a publicly collaborated site. Seriously, this only exist in its original article and on publicly collaborative sites. I wonder if the reason it's on FODC is because it has a Wikipedia page - ad nausea.Sirmacbain (talk) 22:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - FOLDOC is not user-created content. And the article's history page indicates it was copied from FOLDOC, so your second accusation is incorrect. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nontrivial number of Google Scholar mentions. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Cybercobra's link appears to provide evidence of the depth and range of coverage required by WP:GNG. Together with the two sources already in the article, there seems to be enough. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:57, 9 November 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) 14:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Milkshake (artist)

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

Reason Shotalot (talk) 16:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Very uninformative, more like an advertisement, and is not internationally recognized.[reply]

Delete. A few mentions found, but insufficient coverage for an article.--Michig (talk) 06:47, 2 November 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. Courcelles 01:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Abd AlGhafoor

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

WP:V. Language barriers may be partially at issue, but I've had success sourcing footballers from Arabic countries with Arabic sources before. This one I'm having quite a bit trouble with, no success locating him on the web site of the Al-Arabi (Kuwait) web site, attempts to find sources in both English and Arabic via News, Web, Books have failed (discounting Wikimirrors, which in this case include 3 books from "Books LLC" that simply republish Wikipedia.) if the claim of playing for Al-Arabi can be verified that would be enough to get this putative player past NSPORT notability guideline, but with absolutely no references, this fails WP:V. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence this player meets WP:ATHLETE or WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 21:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - With no professional appearances or other significant coverage, this player fails both WP:ATHLETE, and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - information is unverifiable. The only athlete I've found with this name was a Yemeni basketball player. I cannot find anything about a Kuwaiti footballer. Jogurney (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, band with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boy of the afterthought

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

Another band article. Unreferenced. Makes no claim of notability. TenPoundHammer's Law. Nolelover^{It's football season!} 15:43, 1 November 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. Courcelles 01:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yusuke Maroke Madokoro

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

no assertion of notability, no external sources, appears heavy COI autobio Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 15:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Madokoro is my former colleague, but he doesn't contribute to it..--Shishike (talk) 22:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC) — Shishike (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

DO NOT Delete Please don't delate this article, and he act whole our city and prefecture..--Shishike (talk) 09:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self-released singer with no indication of notability or references. Link to own website doesn't count. May have a future, may not. When/if he does, try again. Peridon (talk) 11:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V - I literally found zero Ghits with his name. Under his nickname, I found things online that are unprintably racist. Bearian (talk) 19:38, 3 November 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Field (programmer)

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

Appears not to meet criteria for notability under WP:GNG, WP:PROF and WP:NRVE. There is also COI - User talk:JulesFM is the creator and major contributor to the article. Kudpung (talk) 15:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Kudpung (talk) 15:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Kudpung (talk) 15:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Kudpung (talk) 15:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Failed to find significant coverage in sources independent of the subject, under WP:BIO. Ray^Talk 16:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly above. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - author of a notable software system. —Tim Pierce (talk) 03:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting. Can you give sources? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Here are a few: [10] [11] [12] —Tim Pierce (talk) 16:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid these are totally inadequate. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

You are of course entitled to your opinion. I think that they are sufficient to confirm that Julian is the principal author and maintainer of MailScanner, which is evidently notable. —Tim Pierce (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the notability categories is satisfied? None of the WP:Prof categories are. The MailScanner page looks like an advertisement itself. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, totally inadequate as per WP:RS. They were already examined and immediately discounted before this AfD was posted. The sources are clearly neither independent nor biographical of the subject.--Kudpung (talk) 06:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xxanthippe: I think it passes WP:GNG. I don't believe that WP:PROF applies here; Julian Field does not appear to be an academic. He works at a university, but not in a research capacity. You may be right that the MailScanner article is overly promotional, but that seems to be a separate matter from establishing notability for Julian Field. —Tim Pierce (talk) 18:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung: IMHO the sources are sufficient to confirm that Julian Field is the author of MailScanner, and by that metric I recommend "keep." I agree that more reliable sources are needed for any meaningful biographical information. —Tim Pierce (talk) 18:37, 3 November 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 UNESCO#Prizes, awards, and medals. JodyB_talk 17:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Picasso Award

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

Can find no significant coverage of the award, no useful information in archive searches other than info related to the actual work by Picasso, the UNESCO website gives no list of recipients, only a few press releases and no significant information to ascertain notability. Hekerui (talk) 09:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, possibly rename Picasso Medal or Picasso-Miro Medal. References for verification at [13] and [14]. I would suggest that an award given by an organisation as large as Unesco is inherently notable. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, those two sources offer almost nothing. I can't find something about a ceremony, a list of recipients, a cash award. Hekerui (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was more offering those sources as proof that the award exists, didn't make that clear sorry. Like I say, my keep !vote is based on an assumption that any Unesco award would be notable. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep and rename Picasso Medal. The bios of the various winners seem to consider it prestigious enough to mention (e.g. Alicia Alonso, Mohammad-Reza Shajarian, Augusto Boal, [15]). Clarityfiend (talk) 21:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to nag but Wikipedia bios are not reliable sources and in the linked source the medal went to a National Park Board of Management. Hekerui (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are sources for Alonso[16][17], Shajarian ("Golden Picasso Medal (1999), one ofUNESCO's (sic) highest honors") [18], Boal [19]. Also, if the Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park site considers it a point of pride to announce that the park was so honored, is this not significant? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, This is a link from persian BBC website which is translated using google translator about Mohammad-Reza Shajarian receiving this medal.Macromediax (talk) 09:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A source like this exists in English, too. We have to prove the award is notable, and notability is not derived from a recipient. Hekerui (talk) 10:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Verified, but not notable. As Dylan says, one would expect that any award presented by UNESCO is notable, and indeed most (but not all) of the awards listed at UNESCO#Prizes, awards, and medals do have Wikipedia pages. But each medal should have to qualify under the usual guidelines, and this medal doesn't. A Google search mostly finds individuals bragging that they won the medal (which they claim was awarded by "UNESCO in France" whatever that is). Google News search for Picasso Award or Picasso Medal finds nothing at all. UNESCO itself doesn't seem to make much out of the award; it doesn't even maintain a list of winners. As for the fact that the recipients are notable, that means nothing. I could invent the MelanieN Medal and present it to famous people; that wouldn't make it notable. Could be redirected to UNESCO#Prizes, awards, and medals; it should at least be added to the list there. --MelanieN (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very week keep or redirect per MenanieN. I could create the "Ron Ritzman" award and award it to famous people and that in itself would not make it notable but if the recipients brag about getting it or it gets some minor press coverage, that might make a case for notability. However, the sources provided so far only demonstrate that the award exist. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to UNESCO#Prizes, awards, and medals, per MelanieN and Ron Ritzman. T. Canens (talk) 02:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per those above. Coverage isn't all that substantial and there's no reason why UNESCO awards should be inherently notable. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:15, 1 November 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. Courcelles 01:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal Activities (Animals) Act 1875

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

Article ineligible for prod due to previous prod in 2007. Completely unreferenced article that has been tagged as a hoax. Hansard comes up with no mention of this Act ([20]). —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"speedy delete": Under G3 as a blatant hoax — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morgankevinj public (talk • contribs) 1 November 2010
Delete as hoax - no source cited, none found, fails WP:V. JohnCD (talk) 19:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Concur with above. If this was a real act of parliament, a search of Google Books or Google News Archive would come up with something. Safe to say it doesn't. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 23:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete = no refs The Eskimo (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The UK Statute Law Database doesn't have it in either the A–Z index or the list for 1875. Uncle G (talk) 11:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On the other hand, that only means it wasn't in force in 1991 (see [21]). For example, you won't find the Offences against the Person Act 1875 in the Statute Law Database, but that doesn't make that Act a hoax. Gabbe (talk) 11:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed. Please point to the part of my sentence where I said that this made it a hoax. That's your argument. I merely added another datum of where this had been looked for and not found, so that the holes in the Swiss Cheese don't all line up. Uncle G (talk) 12:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - (edit conflict) But you do find references to the Offences against the Person Act 1875 in the Hansard database, e.g. here (top entry) is its second reading on April 14, 1875, whereas you don't find this; in my book that makes it a hoax. Also, you find the Offences against the Person Act in a general Google search, whereas the general Google search results for this, where they have any content, are all in the same form of words as ours, and are clearly mirrors or copies. It is alarming how rapidly misinformation that gets into WP is propagated across the Internet. JohnCD (talk) 13:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We haven't quite proved the Act doesn't exist, but the onus is ultimately on the article creator to prove the Act does exist. Delete as unverified. This is one of the reasons why I've never been too happy with WP's practice of allowing uncited information in. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hansard is the official record of the proceedings of Parliament. If there is no record there of this Act in the year it is supposed to have been passed, that is pretty conclusive proof it never existed. Not that that matters - as you say, fails WP:V anyway. JohnCD (talk) 18:52, 5 November 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) 14:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AirCab

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

Proposed air taxi operator. As long as no operations start, the content is pure WP:CRYSTAL. Originally (in 2007), the start date was given as 2010, but since then, nothing has changed (website was not updated a single time), so it is dubious whether the company is still around at all. A non-existent company without any impact surely fails WP:CORP. All references of this article date back from 2007, maybe it all was just sort of a marketing effort to push ultra light aircraft. The article here on Wikipedia was created by a single user (who does not have any further edits - so it might be based on a conflict of interests), and has not changed since then. Also, there is no AirCab article on the German Wikipedia Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 13:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unverified, possibly nonexistent. Wikipedia search finds only a similarly named company in Kenya. --MelanieN (talk) 14:44, 7 November 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) 14:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Anstruther-Gough-Calthorpe

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

This was an article, it was redirected to Anstruther-Gough-Calthorpe Baronets, the article has been restored, it should be redirected again so bringing it here for wider discussion. Baronets have no presumption of notability, and this article asserts zero notability and is little more than a family tree pretending to be an article. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with nom. There's nothing notable here. I think saying that his father-in-law's grandfather was "somehow related to Jane Austen" is scraping the bottom of the notability barrel a little too much. This is the sort of content and writing that really this project does not need as a page. Lump him together with his relations by all means, but a page of his own? - well there is no justification and it's embarassing to read. Giacomo 08:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect. fails WP:ARBBUTHNOT--Scott Mac 13:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim of notability. Hans Adler 22:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Questions - why is only the second baronet nominated? In what ways is the article different to that of his father or his grandson? What is the particular policy that says that "baronets have no presumption of notability"? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although this does not affect the notability of the article neither of the two accounts that have done the most work on the article will be participating in this discussion as User:LoveActresses is a sockpuppet of the indefinitely blocked user User:G.-M. Cupertino. Further the edits on the 5 November by the IP address 85.177.165.196 seem to me the work of the same person (is using the same references as LoveActresses has been placing on other pages). -- PBS (talk) 01:56, 6 November 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 as per Uncle G's suggestion Catfish Jim & the soapdish 12:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stoush

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

The initial sentence appears to be correct, but that's about it. The remainder of the article is an attempt at humour, redefining a slang term as a martial art. Ivan Poddubny was a real person, but appears to have been chosen to illustrate Stoush purely on the basis of his moustache. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 12:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or complete rewrite, this is mostly vandalism. Hairhorn (talk) 01:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only part of the article with any validity was a dictionary definition, and the rest has now been removed. The definition is duplicated at Wiktionary. It comes close to being speedy-deletable under WP:CSD#A5 (an article that consists only of a dictionary definition that has already been transwikied e.g., to Wiktionary). JamesBWatson (talk) 11:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or you can redirect it to Digger slang#First World War where it can be found in context. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 12:23, 5 November 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) 14:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jumunjy

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

This has been unreferenced since 2008, and I can find no evidence of a "pro nature recycling movement" by that name - all I can find is a bar by that name on the island, which appears to hold some sort of annual party. There's Facebook and MySpace stuff too, but both of those are also just plugging the bar. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources to verify that it even exists. Even if it does exist, I'm very skeptical that an organisation that claims to have been founded just a few years ago, will ever meet our notability guidelines.--hkr Laozi speak 15:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons above. This could have easily passed WP:PROD. JFlav (talk) 03:59, 8 November 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) Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitris Froxylias

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

Youth footballer who has a squad number at AEK Athens but does not appear to have played a competitive fixture for them. Fails NSPORTS guideline. Does not appear to be any coverage that says he has done anything particularly worthy of note. ClubOranje^T 10:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw per debut 4 November 2010.--ClubOranje^T 23:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —ClubOranje^T 11:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ClubOranje^T 10:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 12:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has now made his professional debut. Giant Snowman 15:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - without a first team appearances, he fails WP:ATHLETE. He also fails WP:GNG. Recreate if and when he makes his debut. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Made his debut today in a match for UEFA Europa League with R.S.C. Anderlecht.--77.49.89.188 (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per above as nominator ;-) --ClubOranje^T 23:29, 4 November 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) 14:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Syndesmosis Procedure

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

Non-notable per WP:GNG, evident WP:Conflict of interest by creator (see comment here), only reference in medical journal is written by owner of clinic where procedure is performed. Even with link to clinic's sales site removed article is still borderline WP:SPAM. Prod contested by creator. Top Jim (talk) 10:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Top Jim (talk) 10:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be a neologism used only by this one doctor for removing bunions. Sources are self-referential, and there is no evidence that this "procedure" has passed into the medical mainstream. The word Syndesmosis relates to a way that bones are connected. At Google it is mainly used in reference to ankles and ankle injuries, not bunions. --MelanieN (talk) 15:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Angina (song)

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

Song for which I can find no significant independent third-party coverage, fails WP:NSONG. Hekerui (talk) 10:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Simply can not find this, so notability is an issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenOneHundred (talk • contribs) 11:48, 1 November 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) 14:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amberair

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

Another short-lived airline with a marginal impact, so likely failing WP:CORP. It was only around for half a year, and there is no reference about the extent of its operations, so the article does not state why Amerair should be notable. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 09:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing of significance here. Need to see more evidence as to why this is notable.--BenOneHundred (talk) 11:47, 1 November 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 as wrong venue. Redirects are discussed at RFD. (NAC) Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Dhéry

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

Wrong redirect - different actor, different person; I was several times confused by this redirect page Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 09:46, 1 November 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) 14:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tristania (EP)

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

Demo EP for which I can find no significant independent third-party coverage, fails WP:NALBUMS. Hekerui (talk) 09:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not established so far. More evidence is needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenOneHundred (talk • contribs) 11:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD G7. Original author has blanked the page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Legal personhood and the humanity of chimeras

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

Essay / original research. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom andy (talk) 09:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Non-sensical.--BenOneHundred (talk) 11:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yep, very much a personal essay/synthesis. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Personal essay, OR, etc. I can see the subject being notable, perhaps, if given some dedicated coverage in reliable sources. But even then, it would be a topic under some article such as bioethics or the like, rather than an article at this title. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:19, 1 November 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) 14:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Astravia–Bissau Air Transports

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

Non-notable airline, completely fails WP:CORP, as the article does not state why it shall be considered notable. There are nearly no references to be found that this airline exists or existed (there aren't even any dates given, so not even the time period we're talking about is known), so it's significance for this encyclopedia seems to be quite low. Non of the external aircraft fleet directories that are included as a reference in nearly every airline article shows any airplanes listed for Astravia. Therefore, it never operated any Airbus/Boeing/Canadair/Dash/ATR/Embraer/Douglas/Lockheed... aircraft, only small planes remain. Thus, I doubt that the airline has/left any impact which is necessary to claim for an Wikipedia article. I have nominated this article for deletion once before, then the result was keep due to a "tiny snippet" in a Lonely Planet Guide someone dug out (see this discussion). Still, IMO it is just wrong to assume that an airline should be notable just because it once operated a passenger flight. There is no information given about the extent of this service, it might well just have been a one-time flight. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 08:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article doesn't even claim notability, much less demonstrate it. --MelanieN (talk) 14:47, 7 November 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) Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kilburn Priory

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

~~Unless I haven't seen a policy, this isn't notable.~~ Person removing prod tag didn't give a reason for doing so. Alex Muller 08:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No source. Unref blp and a bit of skepticism is in order. Shadowjams (talk) 09:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Given the references. Shadowjams (talk) 21:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, unreferenced BLP? Its about a priory... Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whatever happened to WP:BEFORE? Description at British History here, here and here, with map. - Pointillist (talk) 09:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another good source is The topography and natural history of Hampstead, in the County of Middlesex by John J. Park (1814) (Google Books - there's a picture of the remains opposite page 202). - Pointillist (talk) 10:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still no context, clear delete. If half the ink spilled here was spent on the subject this issue wouldn't even exist. Shadowjams (talk) 10:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's down to the nominator to do the searches and attempt to improve the article. You can help. - Pointillist (talk) 10:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pot, kettle. Kettle, pot. Now that we're done with introductions, can we get some work done? I added a ref, but have no opinion regarding notability at this time. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Our notability guideline states, "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Notability requires only the existence of suitable reliable sources, not their immediate citation.". This does not seem to have been followed. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it's now well-referenced. The central arguments for notability seem to be (i) religious institution in continuous operation for 400 years; (ii) the origin of the village that became Kilburn and the Abbey Road (which gave its name to The Beatles' album and the Abbey National); (iii) once thought to have been the place where the Ancrene Wisse was authored. That should be sufficient. All the references were easily found online and IMO the nominator should have looked harder. - Pointillist (talk) 17:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment User:Bali ultimate is correct: '"Before" is just some guy's essay. Ignore it at leisure.' also no notice to article creator. AfD all of Starzynka's work, it can be referenced faster than you can delete. Accotink2 talk 01:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball keep, notability established by refs. Article could be further improved by the addition of {{Infobox monastery}}. Mjroots (talk) 21:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{Infobox monastery}} has now been added. - Pointillist (talk) 23:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys, looks good. Do the coordinates I added look like they're in the right place? Seeing as that's how I came across the article in the first place - Alex Muller 16:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a useful map on commons File:Westbourne-route-1790.jpg, though it doesn't look accurate enough to take co-ordinates from! - Crosbiesmith (talk) 19:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coord need to be both the same number of decimals, either 3 or 4, but not a mix of the two. Mjroots (talk) 14:17, 3 November 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. Courcelles 01:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carbonated.TV

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

Only reference is a Business wire article that I think is a press release. No other outside coverage Shadowjams (talk) 07:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although the article contains a ton of references (there's a term for that here - swamping the article with references in an attempt to make it look notable - but I forget it), most of them do not mention the subject at all. The only ones that do seem to be press releases or self-referential links. --MelanieN (talk) 14:52, 7 November 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) 14:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Huggett

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

Article about a non-notable local councillor which does not assert any other notability than the fact that he is chairman of a small rural council with 57000 people. Huggett fails all notability criteria in WP:POLITICIAN He hasn't held international, national or sub-national office nor is he a major local figure under the criterion which says: "mayors of cities of at least regional importance are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city." Fermanagh is certainly not any of those. Routine news coverage covering his work as chairman will therefore not be sufficient for establishing notability. Valenciano (talk) 07:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think being a Chairman of a nationally notable council makes him satisfy WP:POLITICIAN, especially point number 1. "Politicians who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature and judges." Minima c (talk) 14:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It most certainly does not satisfy that criteria. An international office in this case would be the European Parliament for example. National means the Parliament of the United Kingdom or Parliament of Ireland. The relevant sub-national entity is the Northern Ireland Assembly. SeeList_of_subnational_entities. Huggett doesn't belong to any of those so fails the notability criteria for his profession. Valenciano (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Head of a district of 57,000 people, no significant coverage passing WP:GNG. Ray^Talk 16:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His position does not make him automatically notable, so sourcing is required - and none could be found. Google searching mostly finds a mathematician of the same name, who appears to be far more notable than this councillor. --MelanieN (talk) 14:57, 7 November 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 take to RfD, please. T. Canens (talk) 05:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Conley

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

there was recent consenus to delete and also not to redirect. this has been recreated in violation of this. see previous AfD finding. if a user is not happy with recent AfD, they should contest in via deletion review. LibStar (talk) 07:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Close as invalid. First of all, this should be at RfD, not AfD. Second, the consensus was against a MERGE not just a plain redirect, read it again. And I'm perfectly fine with the outcome of the AfD, the article was deleted without a merge as per consensus and that's still the case, all I've done is simply created a new redirect to an existing section of an article. If a user is not happy with the redirect they should take it to RfD and not bring up an irrelevant AfD discussion. -- œ^™ 08:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - This is g4 material. If there are objections to that they belong at deletion review (but why waste our time with that too) Shadowjams (talk) 08:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to reread G4. This is a new redirect. -- œ^™ 08:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. I see now that we're playing games with whether or not this is G4 or RfD material. If it should have been a redirect that issue should have been brought up at the AfD. The fact that this is renomed within 30 hours (or less) and you want to kick it around to other forums is not really encouraging. If this was an issue overlooked at the AfD I guess I'm ok hearing this here but it's out of bound a bit, and certainly there's absolutely nothing wrong with what's been nominated here. Shadowjams (talk) 08:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly what? Not a redirect? No games here, G4 just does not apply, this is out of process and the prior AfD discussion is irrelevant to this case. And the issue wasn't brought up at the AfD so I'm free to resolve it now. -- œ^™ 08:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD covers a range of outcomes, including keep, redirect, merge, and delete. If on the delete option came up, then perhaps that reason hasn't been raised below. If you want to talk about the actual content of this AfD, then delete seems the clear (already endorsed) option. I'm not trying to be difficult, but why draw this out procedurally without discussion the merits? Shadowjams (talk) 08:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one dragging things out, I'd rather not have to go through any deletion process at all and just leave it be. But if we're to discuss this then we should be discussing the merits of the redirect and not in the context of an already closed prior AfD. -- œ^™ 09:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one dragging things out. I'm bothered because I know and generally agree with you... but the previous AfD was delete, and I am of the opinion the same reasoning still applies to delete. The "merits" in this case is people deciding to delete. Shadowjams (talk) 09:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the previous AfD does not apply here because that was an article, this is a redirect, the same reasoning cannot apply here because that reasoning was based on that article. And noone has yet given a valid reason to delete this redirect. -- œ^™ 09:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think your procedural argument is fundamentally flawed: namely, AfD discussions are precedent for other deletion discussions. Shadowjams (talk) 09:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so what/where in that prior AfD discussion does it provide justification for deleting this redirect? All the arguments there were against a merge (which btw doesn't make much sense itself since the content was already existing in the Dexter (TV series)#Conner Conley murder article). How does it not help Wikipedia for readers entering "Andrew Conley" into the search box to not be taken to relevant existing information? -- œ^™ 09:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the observation by DGG in the AfD that was supported by several other editors: "this would imply a judgment that the show was actually responsible for the killing, which seems a judgment we should not be making." VQuakr (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but a simple redirect does not imply any judgment, if anything that argument would apply to the content already existing at the show's article, not this redirect. And the title of the redirect is simply "Andrew Conley" not "Cause of Andrew Conley's death". See WP:RNEUTRAL. -- œ^™ 16:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Close without prejudice to opening a discussion at RfD. The suggestion that this redirect was created because the user was unhappy with the first AfD result seems unnecessarily incendiary. VQuakr (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
close agree with vquakr Aisha9152 (talk) 17:56, 2 November 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin J. Sullivan

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

lack of notability per WP:ACADEMIC

Comment He has a few articles in Google Scholar which are cited by ~180. Does it qualify for significant impact in WP:ACADEMIC? Ipsign (talk) 05:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 13:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep He is only an associate professor, so he is not notable for his position, but he has so many articles at Google Scholar and they are cited so heavily that I think he may meet WP:ACADEMIC. The article is admittedly a mess, full of redlinks. --MelanieN (talk) 00:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added a few things to the article. I thought this was interesting, though I did not add it: In a 2007 article in "Communications of the ACM" [22] which ranked computer scholars nationally, he was ranked #24. However, I did not add this to his article since the only full text of the article I could access was from his university homepage. It appears to be an actual copy of the article, but I don't know if articles sourced to the person's homepage qualify as "independent" - even if they were originally published by an independent source. He also holds an endowed fellowship at the university, but that is not the same thing as an endowed professorship (which would be automatically notable). --MelanieN (talk) 01:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an academic field often very difficult to judge, because recognition as an expert is sometimes not done in the formal ways other fields of study use. But for him, Scopus shows 53 published papers (including published conference proceedings, which is the field of computer science count equally). The highest citations are 103 ,99 ,66 , 53 which is very good in any of the engineering sciences, and enough to establish him as an expert in his subject. DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC) .[reply]

As I understand, being an expert is not necessarily enough to satisfy WP:ACADEMIC (see note 5 on WP:ACADEMIC). My feeling is that if everybody with 50 articles would be listed in Wikipedia, it will equal to listing at least half of all the professors in the world (especially older ones), which is probably not an idea of Wikipedia, so sheer number of articles shouldn't count much. I certainly agree that citation count of 100 is worth something, but is it enough for inclusion to Wikipedia for the field of computer science? Let's take a look at citation metrics for those computer scientists who're certainly notable (I will use numbers from Google Scholar, but for CS it still should be rather relevant, I think picture in Scopus will be similar): universally recognized Bjarne Stroustrup's book citation number is 7000+, but even much less commonly known Douglas C. Schmidt has a book cited by 4300 and articles cited by 700+. While comparing to them is not per se an argument of non-notability, still IMHO it means that citation count of 180 doesn't look that good for computer science, does it? Ipsign (talk) 05:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Interestingly, the paper which ranks Sullivan #24 is a paper entitled "Automatic and Versatile Publications Ranking for Research Institutions and Scholars" which might be useful for future AfD discussions. Abductive (reasoning) 05:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that findings of this article can be considered authoritative for two reasons: first, it is based on publications (which are already took into account by Scopus etc.); second, rankings within the article has been provided only as examples of applying methodology described in the article (to prove it is viable), and particular table is based only on 2 journals + 2 conferences, which IMHO cannot be considered really representative for the purposes of notability. Ipsign (talk) 06:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making that clear. Abductive (reasoning) 07:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is a concurrent AfD on Bruce Eckel, which is IMHO substantially more notable (one of the books has 900+ citations per Google Scholar, etc.). IMHO if Kevin J. Sullivan stays, Bruce Eckel should stay too to ensure consistent application of notability criteria. Ipsign (talk) 06:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep h-index is 24. I believe we have a rough consensus that any author/academic with h-index > 10 meets #1 for WP:PROF. By that count Sullivan qualifies easily. (disclaimer: came here through a notice left in my talk page by Ipsign, who had noticed i had commented in the Bruce Eckel page and invited me to comment)--Sodabottle (talk) 05:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The h-index for unanimous consensus that an academic is notable is considerably higher than 10. Check through previous AfDs to find other regular participants' numbers. Some don't like using the h-index at all. Abductive (reasoning) 06:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks; I will withdraw my nomination based on this finding. Ipsign (talk) 05:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination. Discussion here and especially findings of Sodabottle convinced me that the article should be kept (though any help rewriting it will be greatly appreciated - it is a mess). Ipsign (talk) 05:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on h-index. There's apparently a name coincidence with someone from another field. It seems unlikely the same person wrote articles on computer science and also medicine, such as Low exhaled nitric oxide and a polymorphism in the NOS I gene is associated with acute chest syndrome. This results in an inflated h-index for both. I don't think there's a way to separate them as long as Google Scholar is used as basis for the calculation. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See also comment by Crusio here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Eckel. As I understand, he says that h-index is highly dependent on the field, and that h-index 10 as such is often not enough to satisfy WP:ACADEMIC; combined with name clash with somebody from another field (see comment by Tijfo098 above) it might easily mean that Kevin J. Sullivan is not really notable. Ipsign (talk) 06:53, 6 November 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) 14:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

County Road 507 (Brevard County, Florida)

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

Non-notable roadway What makes this road special compared to the thousands of roads under county jurisdiction in the country? Imzadi 1979 → 04:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. – T M F 07:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of county roads in Brevard County, Florida, route can easily be covered there. Dough 48 72 19:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. –Fredddie ™ 23:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Dough4872. ----DanTD (talk) 15:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Folks, as a courtesy, could you please refactor any Brevard County deletion content to the Space Coast Wiki? Otherwise this kind of content is a complete waste of someone's time and effort.Greg Bard (talk) 03:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. We're supposed to let an off-wiki site know when Brevard County content is nominated for deletion? –Fredddie ™ 04:14, 6 November 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) 14:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

County Road 503 (Brevard County, Florida)

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

Non-notable roadway What makes this road special compared to the thousands of roads under county jurisdiction in the country? Imzadi 1979 → 04:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to county roads list or delete. --Rs chen 7754 04:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. – T M F 07:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of county roads in Brevard County, Florida, route can easily be covered there. Dough 48 72 19:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Dough Admrboltz (talk) 22:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. –Fredddie ™ 23:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Dough4872. ----DanTD (talk) 01:06, 5 November 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) 14:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

County Road 342 (Leon County, Florida)

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

Article does not demonstrate notability. What makes this road special and unique from the thousands of miles of roadways under county jurisdiction in the country? Imzadi 1979 → 04:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak reference and keep. As part of a bypass of a major downtown area, it may be notable as such? - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 04:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. After looking at a map of the Tallahassee area, I wouldn't consider CR 342 a bypass of the city: it's a good 10 miles north of the city center and is little more than a residential street. If there's a northern bypass of Tallahassee, it's I-10, not this road. – T M F 07:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's not an encyclopedia worthy road. It's a 3 digit (that has a meaning with the highway system) road for a metro area that's already covered. Shadowjams (talk) 08:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if proof can be found that this is a former state highway, otherwise delete as there is no place to merge to. Dough 48 72 19:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Where does it say it was a state highway? Imzadi 1979 → 19:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - From my knowledge, most CRs in FL are former state highways. If that was the case here, which is not known based on this article, the article may be able to be kept based on that fact. Dough 48 72 19:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, nothing in the article says that, and I'd be surprised if most CRs in FL are former state highways were the case. Several are, but not most. Imzadi 1979 → 20:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - If this route was not a former state highway, I will advocate deleting the article as being a CR alone does not prove notability. In addition, there is no relevant list to merge this article to. Dough 48 72 20:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. –Fredddie ™ 23:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Has anybody considered a List of county roads in Leon County, Florida? If so, perhaps it should be redirected to that, once the list is written. ----DanTD (talk) 15:34, 4 November 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 (A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, Privacy and freedom of speech, which is also the subject of an AfD.) JamesBWatson (talk) 10:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Privacy on internet mediums

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

Looks to be a personal essay, also the same content under different article name already has AfD here. Bhockey10 (talk) 04:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a personal essay or soapbox post. JIP | Talk 06:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Another creation by PrivacyandFreedomofSpeach. Shadowjams (talk) 08:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under criteria #A10 - "recently created article that duplicates an existing topic." Tagged as such. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:45, 1 November 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 Porin (protein). Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Porins and LPS

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

This article is a mess. We already have an article called Porin (protein). I have no idea what "LDS" refers to, but I imagine we already have an article on that that doesn't suck as well. This isn't even a legit search term as far as I can tell. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"LPS" is lipopolysaccharide, for what it's worth. The article as it's currently written is a complete mess - a collection of undergrad lecture notes rather than a story. It's hard to even guess what the point of the article is although maybe the original author had something like this review in mind:

Outer membranes and efflux: the path to multidrug resistance in Gram-negative bacteria.

I suppose the question is, what did the original author intend, can we fix it and if we fixed it, would it be appropriate for Wikipedia? I'm going to drop a note at WikiProject Microbiology and WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology in the hope someone from there can help. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 12:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I'm not sure if there is anything that can actually be merged into the porin article, but if there is it should be added there. Judging by a quick look at the literature, there are a lot of papers discussing Porins and LPS, (e.g. [23] [24] but they all seem to be directly related to LPS being bound to porins, rather than a distinct subtopic. SmartSE (talk) 13:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – seems to have come from the title of this PMID 10361234 publication. There is no reason to have an article about porins AND lipopolysaccharides. Boghog (talk) 13:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or even delete. As per Boghog! As Smart SE implies, it doesnt seem to be rich on information, which would be easy to extract into the two articles. What information to pass into lipopolysaccharide and Porin (protein) then? If there is missing something from this stub, then the interaction of the two components maybe. (If anyone is proficient enough to make up for the character of the relation there) Reo ^ON | +++ 13:51, 6 November 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 (A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, Polychrotidae). JamesBWatson (talk) 10:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pet anoles

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

Pretty bad article. Also it looks like an Instruction manual. Inka888^Contribs Talk 04:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is more like a personal essay or how-to guide than an article. No references or sources. JIP | Talk 06:09, 1 November 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. Courcelles 01:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Privacy and freedom of speech

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

Seems to be just a personal opinion attempting to be an encyclopedia article. E. Fokker (talk) 03:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like an opinion/essay. any notable info on internet privacy is already in the internet article. FYI user created a new article with the same content I put up for Afd here!

Above posted by Bhockey10. Don't bother going there - it's already deleted. Peridon (talk) 14:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a personal essay or soapbox post. JIP | Talk 06:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's an essay. A thousand articles have been written on this subject but we cover it amply elsewhere. This adds nothing. This is a great example of "Articles" for deletion rather than topics for deletion. Shadowjams (talk) 08:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not worthy of a single entry.--BenOneHundred (talk) 11:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POV, soapbox, etc. Hairhorn (talk) 11:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Furthermore, the Fourth Amendment (for U.S. Citizens) is not violated by "using MySpace and Facebook for employee background screening." lol. --Milowent • ^talkblp-r 12:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essay etc. Peridon (talk) 14:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an essay, not an encyclopedia article. --Elassint (talk) 20:15, 1 November 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 Please can you go and discuss this somewhere policy related and come back to AFD when there is a clear view on what the policy should be? I recall my school encyclopedia had a gallery of flags and I'm sure we kept something similar at DRV as being clearly encyclopedic. AFD is not the forum for making policy and that is what is required here. . Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flags of stateless nations

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

This article is essentially an image gallery with almost no text content, with original POV judgements about which "nations" should deserve states. Quigley (talk) 21:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image gallery should be moved to Wikipedia Commons and the rump page deleted.--Christian Lassure (talk) 22:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment I stopped the recent PROD of this article and asked the nominator to list all of the Flag and Coat of Arm Gallery articles as one AfD so that the Gallery aspect of these similar articles can be discussed and policy applied equally. Those articles are Gallery of sovereign-state flags,Gallery of dependent territory flags,Flags of unrecognized and partially recognized states,Flags of micronations,Gallery of sovereign state coats of arms,Coats of arms of dependent territories,Coats of arms of unrecognized states. Personally I believe that as Christian Lassure says they should all be moved to Commons including the two articles already deleted , Coats of arms of micronations and Coats of arms of stateless nations however policy is being unfairly targeted at these smaller articles whilst larger are left untouched.

On the nominator's assertion that POV judgements are being made on the content, I contend that the UN [25], US congress [26], The New Yorker [27] as well as various reliable political and sociological texts are far from POV even if not directly cited in this article. Whilst these three links are for Kurdistan, substantial numbers of research papers from worldwide educational establishments can be found for the other entries as well. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want, you can initiate concurrent deletion discussions on the larger articles. I think the dynamic in a combined discussion would be different, though; as you well know, because for example, proposing the deletion of the micronation flags gallery would probably attract the protestations of micronation enthusiasts, who by sheer force of numbers could at least force a no consensus result regardless of policy. Proposing deletion makes it easier to argue each case on the merits.

As for Kurdistan, the UN is not making the designation; the UN is hosting a PDF from a political NGO that is making the judgment, the US congress is not making the judgment; some Congressman is quoting the New Yorker article you include separately into the Congressional Record! And the New Yorker article uses the weasley "some say" that Kurdistan is a "stateless nation"; it is not making that claim itself. It is a term used by political campaigners to advocate for ethnic nationalism and against inclusion in a multi-ethnic state. Naturally, it is contested. Wikipedia should not make that judgment. Quigley (talk) 00:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to initiate the concurrent deletion unless I have to, and I do agree the discussion would be different we may actually get some debate into the encyclopaedic value of these types of article and as per other AfD's likethis the outcome of a bulk delete doesn't have to be a no consensus it can be a combination of deletes, merges, and transwikis. There may be some merit in merging stateless nations with either Micronations or unrecognised states or both - but as a picture gallery all of the articles should reside on commons not in wikipedia. The problem at the moment is that people may support you because it is a Picture Gallery whilst disagreeing with the POV argument, to consistently apply policy we should be consider all of these picture galleries together with each article's merits discussed individually as part of the overall debate.

My point with those links was that those organisations are representing those facts and can be reasonably regarded as having fact checked them. The UN refers to stateless Kurds in other places as well[28] (Based on Canadian Government documentation) but we can also take other sources as well "Human geography: landscapes of human activities" By J. Fellmann, A. Getis, J. Getis, "Modernity and the Stateless: The Kurdish Question in Iran (Library of Modern Middle East Studies)" By A. Vali, "Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations" By J. Minahan, "World Politics in the 21st Century" By W. Duncan, B. Jancar-Webster, B. Switky, "The complete idiot's guide to geography" By J. Gonzalez, T.E. Sherer; some of these books also cover Tibet and other stateless nations not yet covered by the article as well. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 09:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

move to commons galleries go on commons. 76.66.196.13 (talk) 08:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Commons as Wikipedia is not a repository for images. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 02:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Commons. --Elassint (talk) 20:18, 1 November 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. Courcelles 01:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outsourced (2008 film)

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

Not particularly notable. A film project that appears to have never really gotten off the ground, despite having some notable names briefly attached to it several years ago. — Bdb484 (talk) 01:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hank Azaria - All of the relevant info is already there and indeed this was already a redirect before somebody recreated it for some reason. Gran² 01:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I restored (not recreated) the article as it had never been nominated for deletion, nor had a definitive decision been made about where to redirct it. Instead, it was redirected to Outsourced (film), a wholy different film. I had no personal knowledge about the project to know if it were truly defunct, so I restored it so others who know more about films could have a chance to weigh in. Thast's the best I know how to do, sorry if you would have done it another way, but at least this way the result has some real teeth, unlike undiscussed redirects. - BilCat (talk) 02:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Probably not a likely target for a search, so a redirect is not needed. - BilCat (talk) 02:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We could probably leave an entry at the DAB page Outsourced, pointing to the Hank Azaria article, with a note on the talk page as to why this is there. - BilCat (talk) 03:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:NFF, articles should not be created for future films until they are confirmed to have begun principal photography. —97198 (talk) 03:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn And yet, if I hadn't AFDed this, it would still be a one-sentence, unsourced stub. Funny how you sometimes have to rock the boat to get something done... Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 16:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ace in the Hole (Cole Porter song)

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

No reliable sources found anywhere. Prod declined without comment. The fact that multiple artists recorded the song is immaterial if none of their recordings achieved any attention. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm inclined to delete until someone can provide sources. The statement 'a popular song' is meaningless without evidence. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 01:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, speedy close, and since trout slapping obviously has no impact on the nominator, whack him with something carrying the heft of a manatee. A simple,limited Google Books search turns up over 400 hits/sources [29]; Google News has dozens [30]; even a simple Google search shows strong signs of notability (even given that quite a few entries in each class are cataloguing). Even given that the song comes from a 1941 "smash hit" musical, making it highly likely that the bulk of available sources aren't accessible online, it almost impossible to escape the conclusion that the only reason the nominator reports that no sources can be found is that he simply couldn't be bothered to look for them. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems more likely that the nominator made a naive search on the exact article title, such as is done by the templated searches above. He should please observe the way in which your more intelligent and effective searches have been constructed, separating the phrase "Ace in the Hole" from the other keywords, "Cole" and "Porter". It is better to teach a man to fish than to give him a fish (or manatee). Colonel Warden (talk) 06:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After the number of times the same issue has come in similar deletion discussions started by the same nominator, and his refusal to address the issues involved, it's clear to me that the nom is a chronic violator of WP:BEFORE with no interest in changing his behavior. The fact that the nom's principal response is to make profane posts and spurious ANI complaints about me colors my opinion, I'm sure. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I rewrote the stub and added a few references. This is a very well-known Cole Porter song: it's included in just about every comprehensive collection. SteveStrummer (talk) 03:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously a notable song for a notable artists. And having notable artists cover a song, adds to its notability. Dream Focus 05:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable song that stands alone on its own. Shadowjams (talk) 08:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As creator, I strongly believe this song is notable. It's a well known song by Cole Porter, 'nuff said. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 08:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not so much a WP:SNOWBALL, but a river of fish heading to the sea. Thanks to those who actually improved the article. Obviously no country version, eh TenPound? --Richhoncho (talk) 13:51, 1 November 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. policy is quite clear in these cases Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Herbert

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

This is an article for a person who is a candidate for office but otherwise lacks notability. WP:POLITICIAN criteria #3 addresses this point specifically, that just being a nominee does not automatically confer notability. This article also fails the general notability guidelines, as the coverage is either a) name-drops within an article about their more well-known, notable opponent b) simple voting/registry directory of who is running for this seat, or c) on the local level only, with no national interest. Per the further explanation at WP:POLITICIAN on what to do with failures, a merger to the appropriate district page is a viable option to deletion. Tarc (talk) 18:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IMO, Bad faith nom. Tarc has been involved in an ongoing dispute with another editor who started an ANI debate related to politicians who are running for office and the election is a week away. That editor left Tarc a snarky comment notifying Tarc of the ANI discussion. Tarc response is to open this AFD with a comment at ANI saying, so off we go with a few trial balloons. In 8 days we will have a better understanding as to whether or not these candidates win or lose and thus deserve an article or not. Anybody who casts an !vote now, which is supposed to give guidance to a closing administrator, is doing so via a crystal ball. It doesn't matter if they meet Politician today, what matters is will they when this is closed? Thus, in light of the ANI discussion, I consider this (and all other nominations made by Tarc on the subject to be POINTY.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious delete - fails notability here and now. Period. Should have been left as a redirect in the first place, and I see nothing POINTY in the nomination. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at this point, just another nn candidate running for office. As per repeated precedent, being a candidate does not pass WP:N, and I see nothing else here that argues notability at this time. Reso lute 19:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending election With the election in a week, zero damage is done to WP by allowing the discussion to run the full course until the election is over. This is not even an unreferenced BLP - for which 10 days would be normal for deletion. Collect (talk) 19:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOHARM is not a valid reason to retain an article, sorry. Tarc (talk) 19:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
but Collect is talking more in the terms of noharm than the guideline noharm---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- response - we didn't do this with the UK general election; ISTR that articles like this were routinely deleted a day or two before the election. Why do our American non-notable candidates get privileged in a special way? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bad faith. See the entire 'exchange' here. In the last couple of days I've stumbled across, by clicking a blue link, to other deleted/redirected articles done by other Wikipedians as well, with no discernible posting/discussion/consensus, which is why I became concerned enough to request a freeze until after the election. This is not the place or time, but eight days from now will be fine. If I had known of this Douglas Herbert article earlier, I myself would have marked it for Merge, but it linked to the 'total U.S. election' article/chart rather than the state's election article, which is what I've been working from. I simply don't have time to track every article every day from now until the election. Do I care about this article? Not particularly. I do care about Scott M. Sipprelle, more of a 'contender' and certainly a better article, which Tarc also deleted and redirected. Let Tarc get this article 'okayed', and I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts he'll take that as a license to delete the article of every candidate he doesn't like. I have no interest in watching the 2008 Wikipedia Campaign Wars repeat themselves. btw - 'redirect' is not a synonym for 'merge'. Flatterworld (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming bad faith is not a valid keep rationale. If this individual is notable, I am certain you can show that to be the case, rather than attacking the nominator. Reso lute 19:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, KEEP. First, he won the primary election, so in that sense he's already notable for winning an election. Second, the office is at the state or national level, so he's presumed notable. You want to tag the article with helpful suggestions (such as more inline citations, more coverage, whatever), knock yourself out. Flatterworld (talk) 21:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plenty of Google news hits. DC T•C 20:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to abstain from voting, myself. Though I did look over the 12 Google News hits. Only the first six seem to have anything to say about him. After that, other than the campaign press release, they only seem to mention him in passing as the opponent of the article subject. Hazardous Matt (talk) 20:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google hits is not a valid criteria. The "hits" should be evaluated for quality, not quantity. Tarc (talk) 20:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This individual has received sufficient coverage in independent sources, though some more of that material should be put into the article. By the way, in response to the nomination, I see nothing in WP:GNG that excludes "local" sources. I also think that an entire Congressional District transcends "local". Neutron (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:GNG#cite_note-2 and Wikipedia:GNG#cite_note-4 in regards to local sources. Even an election for dog catcher can expect a blurb or two in the local rag. To demonstrate notability, sources beyond the routine should be seen. Tarc (talk) 20:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did look at those, which is why I limited my selection of articles to one article per source (I could have provided numerous articles from the local papers) and I looked for articles that were beyond the basics (E.g. non-trivial in coverage.)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN POLITICIAN. :| TelCoNaSp Ve :| 21:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doug may not meet POLITICIAN, but let's see if he meets our GNGs? Here's some news on Doug (note no single source/magazine used more than once):

Daily Record article on Doug
Independent Press
NJ Herald covers him
Bayshore news
There was something in the National Register called "His and Herbert" which looks like it is about Doug Herbert, but you have to register with them and I don't register just to see pages.
World News
Star Register

None of these are trivial mentions or places where the candidate is covered as an aside such as the New Jersy Jewish News [31], they are all in depth coverage about Doug, which clearly establish him as meeting our GNG. There are sources that I could have added, but I'm not completely sold on their reliability.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect then restore if the guy does get elected. I agree with the arguments that he doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN just yet, but I don't see how a delete is better than simply redirecting the article to a more relevant entry.--Hongkongresident (talk) 22:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, obvious Bad Faith - This must be the fourth or fifth article I've seen where the challenger in a race is nominated for deletion. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 02:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
annoyed reply - That's because under WP:POLITICIAN challengers are not inherently notable; incumbents almost always are. I formally request that you withdraw this false and incivil accusation of bad faith on the part of people trying to consistently apply our guidelines. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Annoyed" Response - Withdrawal formally denied, it's in bad faith. A challenger in a race for a federal office is clearly notable. I'm sure the fact that the national election is a week away has nothing to do with these recent nominations. Nope, not at all. </sarcasm> --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 03:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you arguing for de facto notability for federal office candidates? The examples below are evidence that not everyone thinks challengers are "clearly notable". Location (talk) 03:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not like he's running for city dog catcher. In my opinion, a major party candidate in a race for a federal office is notable. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 03:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - There is no guideline that grants inherent or de facto notability to major party candidates for federal office. If it is the one event that makes the subject notable, then the article should be redirected to the event per WP:BLP1E. Location (talk) 03:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        While I agree that being a political candidate doesn't make one de facto notable, I would argue that this is not BLP1E... political campaigns are ongoing events. It would be like saying the 1990 NFL season was one event.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in New Jersey, 2010#District 11 per precedent in similar articles (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Weber, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rami Bader (politician), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naheed Nenshi, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billy Coyle, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Kelly (Pennsylvania), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Johnston, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ann Marie Buerkle (Politician)). I interpret routine election coverage to fall under WP:NOTNEWS. Also, the coverage about the candidate is in the context of the election, so (per WP:BLP1E) redirect to the election article. Location (talk) 02:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With elections upcoming it is a real bad time to nominate individual politicians for deletion. Wholly inconsistent with the spirit of our BLP policy. Unless they are unequivically unnotable (not this person), these afd's should be speedily closed per our BLP policy.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares? The tag will now stay until the election; I'll cast my !vote then. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has sufficient sources, meets GNG. Jclemens (talk) 05:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least temporarily. Man, what a waste of time and effort. There is merely ONE editor, Tarc, that wants to flat out destroy the work of many editors 7 days before Election Day. The information is going to be destroyed for no good reason other than Tarc wants to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. As to this particular article, just wait one week and then after Election Day there will be time to decide which articles are to be deleted and which ones will be merged. There is no harm to Wikipedia in waiting, but there is huge potential harm to Wikipedia in destroying editor's work prematurely. It makes Wikipedia look like a partisan free for all. Also, complete deletion is absolutely wrong. There are less destructive ways to handle these articles.--InaMaka (talk) 15:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Location, OrangeMike, etc, according to long-standing consensus at WP:POLITICIAN. Ray^Talk 05:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 05:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 05:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It;'s time we recognized that a candidate of a major party for national office will always meet the GNG, as this has shown among many others--it's just a matter of finding the sources. We should instead devote ourselves to keeping the articles free of promotionalism. Tht'swhat important. DGG ( talk ) 22:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. This one is not as clear cut as the others. Having this listed until after the election will be helpful. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 1 November 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. Courcelles 01:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alain Kanyinda

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:DIPLOMAT. looks like a resume and nothing in gnews [32], which is surprising because high ranking diplomats at the UN usually get coverage. LibStar (talk) 00:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like a job application. ("With a solid academic background and a wealth of professional experience mainly at the international level, Alain Kanyinda is one of promising African elite, who can make a difference at the highest level of responsibilities in public affairs and diplomatic services.") He is not a "diplomat", but a mid-level administrator at the UN. Has received no news coverage that I can find. --MelanieN (talk) 15:04, 7 November 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. Ged UK 09:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Nishimoto

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT. simply being a TV presenter does not guarantee notability. no real significant indepth coverage. [33]. LibStar (talk) 01:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Not notable for her TV work, but her fashion designing gets a lot of hits at GNews [34]. Most are about her designs rather than in-depth articles about her, but they occur in major sources all across the country, including the LA Times, the Arizona Republic, and the Miami Herald --MelanieN (talk) 15:11, 7 November 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 rename Courcelles 01:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Jefferson

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

No indication of notability for the subject, only for relatives. In fact, the article is almost more about the relatives than about Lucy herself. Article was previously prodded, then deprodded with the comment "immediate family of presidents usually have sufficient printed sources & are notable"; if that's true, then such sources should be cited here. Auntof6 (talk) 23:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Thomas Jefferson, as he had two children by that name also. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability is not inherited. Ravenswing 16:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I note that nobody above has offered any analysis of sources. Searching for the subject's full married name finds plenty of sources covering her sons' murder of a slave, which should be covered somewhere in Wikipedia but probably not under this title, and of her monument, which appears to be something of a Kentucky landmark. There's also some coverage of her as a poet, such as [35] and [36]. I'm not quite sure what to make of this publication, which appears to be self-published. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I found coverage of the murder under Slave George. At least one book about the incident, Jefferson's Nephews: A Frontier Tragedy, understandably gives plenty of coverage to Lucy. Location (talk) 05:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I expanded the article and added several references. Among other signs of notability, there is a bridge named for her on U.S. Highway 60, and the local chapter of the DAR was named for her. --MelanieN (talk) 19:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG. I think the sources that Melanie has added demonstrate some sort of notability outside of just being President Jefferson's sister. Without much work, I was able to find a bit stating that he named two of his kids after Lucy and another sister. There is likely much more. Location (talk) 04:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I now think it has enough references, and the focus is on the subject more than before. I don't know if I should withdraw my nomination, or just let this discussion play out. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A bridge named after her....I think that is notable enough.--BenOneHundred (talk) 12:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that is not a good reason to keep an article. There are various bridges in my area named after local councillors: it's a peculiarity of the local council. None of them are notable enough to have articles on Wikipedia. -- role^player 12:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

QuestionAre those bridges part of the U.S. highway system? --MelanieN (talk) 14:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: No, they're in the United Kingdom. May I suggest any further correspondance about these bridges, if necessary take place on my talk page? -- role^player 14:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep following the rewrite. I think the references and narrative that have been added clearly demonstrate that this individual meets the WP:GNG. -- role^player 12:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She seems to be better known as Lucy Jefferson Lewis, so maybe the article should be renamed if kept. Currently Lucy Jefferson Lewis redirects to this article. --MelanieN (talk) 14:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - agreed. That appears to be the name she is most known for. -- role^player 14:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. I would be OK with that, too. There really isn't much to say about President Jefferson's two children of the same name who died very young, so I'm not convinced a disamb page is needed. Location (talk) 15:01, 1 November 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. Courcelles 01:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aldera.net

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

Does not assert or demonstrate notability. Received momentary coverage for leaked material; seems not to meet threshold for inclusion. --EEMIV (talk) 02:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:WEB. No significant coverage found about the website - just passing news coverage due to legal action taken against the site by Lucasfilms. --MelanieN (talk) 15:17, 7 November 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) Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Switch adapted toys

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

Concept which does not seem to be in widespread use, or at least there is not independent recognition of it. Few relevant Google hits. Article seems to primarily promote two companies that make such products. (Contested speedy and PROD.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I agree that this was likely created for promotion and google news just gave a few meager reports, google scholar had one or two papers dealing directly with the subject matter under the same name. There were also a few mentions in google books, but they appeared brief. But I tagged this for rescue as it may be up to notability standards based on academic sources. Siawase (talk) 14:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Click the Google news link at the top of the AFD. The first one is from San Diego Union - Tribune - Mar 4, 2005, and covers this topic quite well. The article should be expanded, but no reason to delete a notable topic. Dream Focus 02:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to verify, as article is behind a pay wall. Only six Google news hits total, not much there. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 09:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep gnews didn't convince me but gbooks [37] has enough coverage. LibStar (talk) 03:52, 1 November 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 Touchpad. Ged UK 08:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edge motion

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

I really don't think of this as significant at all. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to touchpad. It's a real feature for the touchpad, but a very minor one. Shouldn't have a separate article, but wouldn't mind a redirect to a more relevant one.--hkr Laozi speak 03:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to touchpad (and source, for what it's worth). Sensible enough as a topic, but there's not much more to say, so it'll fit better as a small section as a larger article. --ais523 11:44, 28 October 2010 (U T C)
Keep I don't care whether we add more information here, or in the merge target (Touchpad). But the page should not be deleted. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to touchpad; the topic is not significant enough for its own article. There's really nothing else to be said about the topic other than what can be said in the touchpad article where it nicely fits, considering that it is a not-so-significant component of it. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: I already copied the article text of edge motion to touchpad. May I go ahead and replace the article text with #REDIRECT [[touchpad]], or must I wait for the "process" to play out? --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd wait until this discussion is re-assessed at the seven-day mark for consensus, for the sake of procedure. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per the discussion here, this appears to be the best option. ----- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that there are no, or insufficient, reliable sources to verify and establish notability. Davewild (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Ephgrave

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

I'm not totally sure if this person is notable enough. The merge to Sargent Pepper may be appropriate, but perhaps this would be deleted from that article anyway. I'm trying to run down whether this guy is alive or not right now. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to his grand-daughter, he is dead. However, I know of no WP:RSs that say anything about him other than giving him credit for painting the drumskin; as such, that fact should be recorded on the Sgt Pepper page and this page should be deleted. — 93.32.149.93 (talk) 05:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It seems very strange that the creator of a piece of artwork that is familiar to probably hundreds of millions of people, and has sold for over half a million pounds, wouldn't be considered an appropriate topic for an encyclopedia article, but that's what the rules say. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His artwork is famous by association, not in its own right. In any case, WP articles must compile information from published WP:RSs of which, for this man, there are none known. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 20:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the conspiracy factoid to Sgt. Pepper and delete the rest. One piece of work (and not even the whole cover) doesn't make a noteworthy career. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The conspiracy factoid would belong on the Paul is dead page if anywhere; however, it has been deemed that that page already has enough 'clues'. Joe is (now) mentioned on Sgt. Pepper page; the drumskin sale at Christies is also there. Joe is also known for his work in the fairground and the film industries but unfortunately, I don't have RSs. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 13:43, 1 November 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. Courcelles 01:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dina Rae

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

This person appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO because her only claim to fame seems to be having sung on a few Eminem (or Eminem-related) songs. The article lists two albums for her, but I sure can't find any info on either one of them. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (for now) I'm unable to find any real independant information on this person, the majority of mentions are either promotional pages and blogs. If her album is successful it may warrant an article, but at the minute I can't see anything that sets her apart from all other session musicians and backing vocalists. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 01:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She gets mentioned for her singing, she notable enough to be mentioned. [38] Dream Focus 11:18, 1 November 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. Courcelles 01:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CollegeBlender

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

Non-notable website. Current references are primarily blogs, and I am unable to find others to show this meeting notability guidelines (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-- Keep this page! CollegBlender is significant in that it is the only blog network for college students in existence on the internet. The page has been edited to meet Wikipedia guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kynikos the great (talk • contribs) 01:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC) — Kynikos the great (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Fails WP:WEB. Sources provided at the article or found on searching are self-referential, or social media sites, or otherwise not Reliable Sources. The article as written doesn't even assert notability, much less demonstrate it. And the claim that it is "the only blog network for college students in existence on the internet" is hard to justify [39] [40]. --MelanieN (talk) 20:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 1 November 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. Davewild (talk) 19:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Myles Ferguson

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

Does not meet WP:NACTOR. No reliable sources are provided to support notability. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 11:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the article itself. When the subject's "best known role" appeared in 2 episodes, that's a clear argument for non-notability. Edward321 (talk) 14:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The author's judgement call making special note of the 2 episodes of Highlander: The Series aside, it seems he is also "known" for 2 episodes of The Odyssey, 2 episodes of The X-Files, 3 episodes of Poltergeist: The Legacy, and his having been a series regular in the initial 13 episodes of Edgemont (TV series) (these last filmed before his untimely 2000 death and subsequently airing in 2001), as well as one-of roles in multiple other notable series, and named roles in several notable films. It can be seen that as with all actors, his career began with small roles and built to better and more significant ones. While sad that he'll have no futher opportunities to build his career, and even with his death 10 years ago, one might consider his career as meeting WP:ENT. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Substantial body of work. We can't all be Tom Cruise, but this actor certainly seems to have had enough screen time to be considered notable. Ebikeguy (talk) 03:21, 1 November 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) 01:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Gleeson

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

Long time journo in the mainly pre-web days who apparantly covered lots of big stories on everything but himself, but now is a (non-notable) PR guy. Has written one book, and shouldn't be confused with the Melbourne sports reporter born 1969 of the same name who's written lots of books and newspaper stories and could almost have an article on him. The-Pope (talk) 15:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 15:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nomination shows a lack of sources demonstrating this Michael Gleeson is notable. LibStar (talk) 07:28, 1 November 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) 01:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Bass (director)

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

Non-notable director and non-notable production company started by same. Claims to notability include films "which have been featured in every major film festival" without specifying any of them and, apparently, without winning any awards. He received one Golden Globe nomination and won a "Circle of Excellence" award for one film. Claims to notability seem to be related to notable people he has "produced along side" (sic) and notable people "involved in his productions". Frank | talk 21:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral no opinion on this yet, but his IMDB page doesn't confirm the claimed Golden Globe nomination, in fact it doesn't list any awards at all. There also appear to have been a total of 12 producers on that movie. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As IMDB is never suitable for sourcing assertions of notability, their not listing an award nomination is an invalid argument. For notability, we look elsewhere.[41] Further, guideline acknowledges that a creative team might be found notable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As far as I can tell, the claim of a Golden Globe nomination is based on the subject's having been a producer of Bobby (2006 film), which was nominated for a Golden Globe as Best Motion Picture -- Drama. However, the Golden Globes' web site does not indicate that individual producers are credited with receiving nominations in this category. I also don't understand the claim that the subject has produced "along side Stanley Kramer". IMDb shows no producer credits for Kramer after 1979, and he died in 2001. Bass has no producer credits before 2005. I'm sure there must be some explanation for this claim, but I have no idea what it is. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:31, 1 November 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 D. Woods. /ƒETCH COMMS / 17:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

D. Woods discography

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

There was originally a studio album that was "released" in April. But a fairly comprehensive search revealed this to be fake. Also, there was an EP whose release date was not confirmed anywhere notable. Right now, there is not enough information for a standalone discography. Also, Danity Kane info does not belong here. Fixer23 (talk) 11:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 18:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the artist's article. Nothing here worth spinning out into a separate article. Jclemens (talk) 16:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Jclemens. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:14, 9 November 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) 01:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vicky Hernandez (producer)

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

Serious verifiability issues. Just about everything I'm finding in google is related to the actress and the two IMDB links in this article point to the actress. Not finding anything about a producer with this name. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice to recreation if verifiably cited - I looked up various of the claimed accomplishments. The author wrote this article and wrote nothing else [42]. At creation it was a promotion article [43]. Turning to evidence, the two IMDB links show "Bananas" and one other film from around 1970 - 71 only. "La piel desnuda" lists a different person as producer on IMDB [44] (1966 and cited by the creator hence surely the "right" film by that title). And so on. hence concur with nominator. Until any of this (or some substantial basis for notability) is verifiable we have nothing. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:55, 1 November 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.