Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 April 1

< 31 March	2 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 16:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anant Mathur (filmmaker)

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

A filmmaker that has done one 11 minute film, Rahul's Arranged Marriage (2005). Has a production company called Lucky Break Entertainment showing upcoming films. Site hasn't been updated in a year and cannot find if the movies are in production. Bgwhite (talk) 23:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 23:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 23:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON, as one minor film and lack of coverage fails WP:FILMMAKER. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable - SudoGhost (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 02:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Claude V. McKnight III

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

Contested prod - Article unreferenced by non-reliable, third-party sources about a non-notable singer that fails WP:MUSICBIO. Aspects (talk) 23:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Aspects (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Here's a USA Today article documenting that the subject is a member, if not the leader, of a Grammy-winning vocal group.[1] The group's article reports 8 Grammy wins and 20-or-so nominations, so there's no quibbling over notability. The question of whether to merge this into the group article or keep it split isn't a matter for AFD, and should wait until some folks who know something about gospel music take a crack at fixing the article, which is clearly not exemplary. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited, see WP:NOTINHERITED. Being a member of a notable group does not make each of the members themselves notable. Aspects (talk) 02:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has been noticed by the African American encyclopedia and Encyclopedia of contemporary Christian music. We should do no less. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep CW's sources are substantial and sufficient. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 20:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snowball delete. It's obvious this is not a real thing.

Assassin's Creed: Templars Virtue

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

Seems to be a bit too early - it is at best WP:CRYSTAL, and there are no current reliable sources for this so-called "upcoming game". Some Wiki Editor (talk) 23:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per WP:TOOSOON. - SudoGhost (talk) 21:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:HOAX, couldn't find anything, even forum posts, on this. --Teancum (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 19:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ordsall Chord

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

The subject of this article does not appear to meet the general notability guideline and is for a proposed short rail line which is WP:CRYSTAL. Even the name of the proposed line is Crystal Ball. The sources listed to support this article appear to be numerous, but actually fail to demonstrate notability because they are not independent reliable sources and/or do not provide significant coverage of the topic. Onthegogo (talk) 23:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Many users are under the mistaken impression that WP:CRYSTAL bans any topic that is proposed or planned. It bans "unverifiable speculation" of topic, not very verified proposals that have received very significant coverage as this topic has. The link between Manchester Piccadilly station and Manchester Victoria station has been bandied about for decades. This proposed link, even under this rather new name, easily passes WP:GNG. [2][3][4]--Oakshade (talk) 01:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this was extensively discussed at WT:UKRAIL#Ordsall Chord (WP informed). There is ample evidence of coverage over a number of years, thus meeting GNG. Mjroots (talk) 08:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oakshade and Mjroots. There are discussions about this in reliable sources going back to the 1970s, so there is no failure of WP:V not WP:CRYSTAL. Thryduulf (talk) 09:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- per Oakshade and Mjroots. WP is doomed if the references for this are not considered reliable -- surely Hansard must be one of the most reliable sources possible? Do we discount newspaper and periodical coverage? For its size, this is one of the most-referenced articles in the wiki. As for the name, this can be corrected if it changes in the future: High Speed 1 is, or was, known by 3 different names. -- EdJogg (talk) 09:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:CRYSTAL applies to speculation that the subject of the article will become notable later. In this case, there is already enough coverage in the media for this to be notable. In the event that this project gets cancelled at this late stage, it will remain a notable cancelled rail project (and it is quite normal for cancelled projects to be on WP). Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just because it doesn't exist yet does not mean it fails WP:CRYSTAL, which applies only to rumours and unsourced speculation. With references spanning over 30 years, offering coverage of anything up to 1,000 words a time and including such sources as the Financial Times, BBC News, Hansard, The Independent, RAIL (magazine) and Manchester Evening News among others, there is no way this fails WP:GNG, however you choose to interpret it. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well referenced, been in the news. A topic that people will want to look up. As far as I know, funding has been given to build it, so it has moved beyond something that is merely proposed into something which is almost certain to happen, so that would rule out WP:CRYSTAL as a reason to delete it as that states "1.Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place.". So it doesn't really count as speculative. Even if it doesn't happen, the proposals for it are worthy of an article. G-13114 (talk) 16:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well referenced and relevant. Scillystuff (talk) 18:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This looks kinda WP:SNOWy, but if (as seems extremely unlikely) deleted, the content should be preserved in some form so as to form the basis of a "History of rail transport in Manchester" or equivalent. The project has been on the go, under varying governments, for at least 33 years. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 19:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mass Hysteria (band)

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

Another admin restored this after deletion but seems to think that references are unnecessary. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep. There are multiple reliable sources covering this, and verifying their claims of releasing music on a notable independent label, which WP:MUSIC considers evidence of notability. You should know this better than anyone, RHaworth; after all, the multiple, reliable sources were left on your talkpage. A pity you didn't think to do anything about it, or even acknowledge the receipt of the message. Ironholds (talk) 01:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I wonder why the nominator didn't just add the sources that he had access to? Wouldn't that be a better solution than deleting a viable article? Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not have access to the sources at the time I deleted it and I did acknowledge receipt of the message. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 03:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I worded my question poorly: I should have said "Wouldn't that be a better solution than opening an AFD on a viable article?" Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 11:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you saw that there were references. Why, then, is this at AfD? Ironholds (talk) 03:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There appears to be plenty of coverage around to confirm notability, with several news articles found from a Google News search. The nominator should consider including an argument for deletion in future when bringing articles here rather than just criticising another editor. A lack of references can be fixed by editing and there is no other argument presented relating to the subject of the article.--Michig (talk) 06:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable band, the article being a stub is not a reason to delete it! Od1n (talk) 09:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I tried to improve the article by adding a short history of the band with some references... It's far from perfect but I think, with some time, I could add how they worked with Colin Richardson, when they recorded their third album in the UK, the evolution of their style, how they tried to record a song with Michel Houellebecq (and failed), etc Eleventh1 (talk) 09:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 02:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jungftak

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

Entry in a redlinked dictionary. Sources do not appear reliable; search shows <400 hits for the term, none reliable. Last AFD withdrawn because of source #2. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a perfectly cromulent word, but delete under WP:NEO anyway. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and add the definition to Fictitious entry (or maybe redirect?) - there are plenty of these mountweazels around, but they don't each warrant their own article -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: might be a neologism. Can't WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 02:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

YAK Films

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

Notability is dubious. Lone contributor Burnsinstitute (talk · contribs) likely in a conflict of interest. bender235 (talk) 21:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we, at wikipedia, are a bunch of assoholes. Deb (talk) 11:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability is, as the nominator says, dubious. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - potentilaly notable, but I can only see a single reliable source. The references' format confuses the situation; it appears that there are many duplicates of the same one good source. Bearian (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 13:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Multifonds

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

No evidence that this company meets WP:CORP notability criteria. Created by a single-purpose account. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC) First thing, every upcoming company is not known to many when its small. This is a rising company, though small yet known to most Investment bankers and people would surely like to know what this company does and who are the people associated with it? This is certainly an informative article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caashutoshsingh (talk • contribs) 19:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blatant spam, looks like speedy delete material:

From day one back in 1995, Multifonds has been committed to a unique 'one system, one database' philosophy. Multifonds' founding vision and ongoing drive for excellence has created an over-arching solution to replace expensive in-house platforms or the typical patchwork of third-party vendor systems operating in isolation.

Truly global: Enables different teams in multiple locations to undertake discrete tasks within the operational model Significantly reduces costs: A common processing model reduces the costs and risks of ownership of multiple in-house or third-party legacy platforms, while increasing process quality and control.

Multifonds Portfolio Accounting is the ideal solution to increase efficiency and transparency and provide comprehensive real-time information. (x2)

Your typical back office business: a financial software company ... specialising in investment funds. -75 (-25*3) notability point penalty for "solution", -200 for "truly global", and -500 for "founding vision and ongoing drive for excellence". - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Probable spam - creator and main contributor are Single-Purpose Accounts; insufficient refs to establish notability. Dialectric (talk) 12:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tupper the Bulldog

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

Does not meet general notability guidelines...article is an extensive fluff piece about a mascot with no citations from independent, reliable sources. I don't see a lot of appropriate sources here. May be a merge & redirect candidate. — Scientizzle 21:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Extraordinarily fluffy you could fix, but falls short on notability and ability to verify using RS. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bryant University - a delightful article. Sadly it fails the soulless standards of Wikipedia notability. :-) Nothing is sourced so there is nothing to merge. I notice that the editors of the University page don't regard Tupper as being notable enough for his own section. However, he is mentioned as the mascot so a redirect would be harmless and could be useful. TerriersFan (talk) 13:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SOFTDELETE. postdlf (talk) 13:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Djgda86

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

Looks like an autobiography by Creativehop (talk · contribs). Unsourced, no notability per WP:CREATIVE. bender235 (talk) 20:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability given or found. (This is a new unreferenced biography so could have gone through the BLP Prod process.) AllyD (talk) 17:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G3) by RHaworth. Non-admin closure --Pgallert (talk) 11:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daubism

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

Unsourced article. Notable, or hoax? bender235 (talk) 20:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 13:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Fenny

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

There are no signs of notability about this footballer, has not played in any romanian league games Wrwr1 (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence that he has actually played in a fully-pro league, failing WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As it stands, he fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 22:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deletion, complete copyright violation. — Scientizzle 19:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Destorm

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

Biography of questionable notability. This has been speedily deleted several times, but it's probably worth a discussion. The subject claims to be a YouTube celebrity (presently found at List of YouTube personalities as DeStorm Power). Searching for sources[5][6][7] finds some trivial mentions (e.g., [8][9][10]) but not much substantial secondary coverage in reliable sources. This may count: he won a small rap contest and received some coverage (more here & here). — Scientizzle 19:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC) — Scientizzle 19:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peta Todd

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

non notable former model WuhWuzDat 19:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

But she still a notable model and radio personality here in the United Kingdom. She has appeared several times on the BBC radio and television (including the Newsnight programme) to talk about the merits of glamour modelling and to defend Page 3 British tabloid feature.

The current article requires a number of citations and hopefully both I and others will be able to fill the gaps.

--Whohe! (talk) 19:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She's not a "former" model at all, she's active and well known in the UK - better sourcing is needed -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better sourcing from where? Everything I found was a tangential mention at best. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better sourcing from wherever anyone can find better sourcing from, that's where - I don't need to do the job myself to suggest that it needs doing. If you have done proper research and can't find anything, then please feel free to !vote Delete -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see the same thing in every AFD: "Keep but source" gets piled on, and everyone expects everyone else to do the sourcing. As a result, nothing gets improved ever, and the whole Wiki might as well be locked up. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's because AfD is for deciding whether an article gets deleted, not for ordering volunteers around and demanding they do sourcing work. There is absolutely no obligation to do any sourcing work in order to opine that an article should not be deleted. But you already know that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep borderline embarassing AfD or poor attempt at an April Fool? Either way, she's still a model, still doing Page 3 and still notable. Silly, silly AfD. --82.41.20.82 (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Finding only trivia mentions by sources that would not pass WP:RS. Being able to find lots of nudes of her online doesn't by itself make her notable. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment You need to take off your blindfold when at your keyboard. 1,540 Gnews archive hits - many from 3,000,000+ daily-selling and 7,500,000+ read The Sun, many of these stories with her breasts covered, too. Neither trivia nor RS; you don't appear to understand internet basics. --82.41.20.82 (talk) 08:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Noted; please comment on the content and the article, rather than the nominator. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I hear ya, but Dennis wasn't the nominator and he/she backed their !vote with a rationale which simply wasn't accurate - downright lies in fact. --82.41.20.82 (talk) 19:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I'm seeing quite a few more hits than I would expect for a non-notable, active model, and there's indications that she is notable. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 13:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Denning

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

non notable former model WuhWuzDat 19:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, She's not a "former" model at all, and she also has TV credits - WP:BEFORE needed -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - reliable sources refer to her as a "glamour model". Bearian (talk) 20:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 without prejudice. CSD G7 may also apply. However, if someone wants to write a sourced article on this subject then go for it. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Salih Debbah

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

WP:V, WP:N: Can't find reliable, secondary sources documenting the name of this putative mayor of a town of just shy of 30,000 people. It's not clear from population that the size of that city that a mayor would meet WP:POLITICIAN, but notability aside, I'm more concerned with the lack of verifiability, everything in English on this individual, and everything I can find in Arabic, is a wikimirror. joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Created this article (two sentences actually) a while back when I first started editing on wikipedia. Its entirely based on my original research not RS's and I'm not even sure if he's currently the mayor anymore. Notability isn't really an issue here since the Shaghur is considered a city in Israel. However, no citations, ext links, nothing, so yes, I support its deletion. --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You can probably then CSD:G7 this. Yossiea ^(talk) 02:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 02:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Welch

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

non notable former model WuhWuzDat 19:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not "former" at all - she's a current model, and has made some TV appearances. There are GNews hits. Looks like another case of WP:BEFORE needed -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per previous rationale. Not all models are Naomi Campbell, but she is still a current model, and the article contains relevant and recent references. a_man_alone (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - she is a socialite and "wannabe" who seems to be in the news a lot: see Metro UK, The Sun, MTV UK, and Daily Star. Bearian (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC) P.S. We usually have kept the more regular Page Three models. Bearian (talk) 21:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 16:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charmaine Sinclair

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

non notable former model WuhWuzDat 19:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep entirely notable former model. Another mystifying AfD. --82.41.20.82 (talk) 22:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies GNG. Her article cites an interview in The Independent, and she was the center of media attention—most of it off-line—when word of her affair with De Niro broke. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Easily passes GNG after reviewing the gnews and gbook hits. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article does not meet WP:PORNBIO.--יום יפה (talk) 20:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 19:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Marsh

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

non notable former model WuhWuzDat 19:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a "former" model at all. Also a TV personality with a number of TV credits to her name, and has had a single make the top 100 in the UK singles charts -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Her career obviously goes well beyond being a former glamour model, and she is notable.--Michig (talk) 06:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, she's notable for more than being a glamour model, she's starred in a number of reality TV shows such as CelebAir, Trust Me – I'm a Beauty Therapist and The X Factor: Battle of the Stars, as well as a number of more minor rols in TV and film. Plus, she had a top 100 single. That might not seem like a major thing but it still charted, which is another thing that adds to her notability. –anemone projectors– 13:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She's been one of the most prominent glamour models in the UK for most of the last decade, has featured on quite a few TV shows, and is notable enough to have been featured as a celebrity contestant on programmes like The X Factor: Battle of the Stars and Celebrity Four Weddings. She has recognition in the UK beyond just being a topless model and should have a Wikipedia entry to reflect that. Carton828 (talk) 22:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mandsford 23:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Lusardi

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

non notable former model WuhWuzDat 19:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is, in fact, so notable that she even appears in The Railway Magazine. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She is a very well known former model, has had a number of TV roles since her modeling days - including popular soap Emmerdale, does stage work, and is a well known UK "celeb". I'm sure there are enough good sources amongst the 506,000 GHits on her quoted name, including 505 GNews hits (from the links above). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List of her TV appearances at IMDB -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have added more sources -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--woman is clearly notable. I've added a few references to the article. Colonel, no need for that ARS tag in such clear cases. Drmies (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Quite plainly meets the requirements of WP:ENT. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Think this afd is a rather lame April Fool. --82.41.20.82 (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wish it was... Rmzadeh ► 21:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep IDONTLIKEIT, but in Britain she's been almost impossible to avoid noticing for the past 30 years. 00:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PWilkinson (talk • contribs)
Keep She was in Emmerdale for ages and was never off Light Ent TV in the 80s. Some of the other noms in this slew might be worth deleting but never in a million years on this one. Keresaspa (talk) 01:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Even a cursory Google search would make it obvious that she is notable.--Michig (talk) 06:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Always check the Google news archive search BEFORE nominating things, and if the person is famous remember to check imdb. Dream Focus 07:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Of course she's notable. You couldn't get away from her in the 1980s as she was everywhere!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above; added sources and body of work demonstrate notability. I almost closed this one as WP:SNOW, but will defer to the next admin to wander by. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 16:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vicki Hodge

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

non notable former model WuhWuzDat 18:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Probably meets WP:ENT, apparently meets the GNG through connections to two royal sex scandals. Nowhere near the Lewinsky level, but more well-known than Judith Campbell Exner. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are news hits, and she's known for those sex scandals too. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deletion (WP:CSD#G1). -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rosie cheeks

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

No need to be here. The Master of Mayhem 17:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn nomination, NAC, Thanks (non-admin closure) Gigs (talk) 13:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Latin American subaltern studies

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

An academic group that published a single book and then disbanded. Was speedy deleted a few times, probably incorrectly, but I don't see much evidence of external coverage, other than a single book review of their book, and the OSU writeup that is linked at the bottom of the article. Gigs (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, based on the hundreds of book references to this.[11] A merge to Subaltern Studies might be appropriate but I'd leave that to post-AfD editorial discussion.--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per Arxiloxos. Also they were a significantly influential and intellectually interesting group. FiachraByrne 23:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep. Disclosure: I am the person who created this article, though I'm quite aware it could be improved. The group may only have co-authored one collective book, but the individuals involved wrote many under the same banner. Moreover, I think there are by now at least a couple and probably two books *about* the group. To add to Arxiloxos's link, check out this. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 19:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Astrology and the bible

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

This seems to be mostly original research and WP:SYNTH. The article starts out with the uncited claim that there are "striking" parallels between the Bible and astrology, and follows largely along those lines, with syntheses from the field of astrology. Kansan (talk) 17:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mostly original research. De728631 (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost proselytizing. This is written as a point of view - in no way encyclopedic. Nothing factual - mostly inference. Mark^Dask 18:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources given don't seem reliable. WP:SYNTH. Mark Shaw (talk) 18:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OR/SYNTH, almost entirely unsupported (and almost certainly unsupportable) by references -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research using unreliable references. An article on the topic using truly reliable sources could be written, but this one is hopeless. Cullen328 (talk) 00:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Revisionist Christian astrology. There are only weak and superficial correlations drawn here, in particular the 12 disciples-12 signs correlation. Virgin-Virgo, Sun metaphors-Sun, and Fishes-Pisces are not much better. Even if it came from a scholar in astrology, it would not be worth much. Not that I have to say so; WP has a knee-jerk reaction to delete everything about the several millenia of astrological philosophy. But even the uninformed opinions are right this time. Anarchangel (talk) 08:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Already just in the first image caption, there are big problems. There's no valid evidence that I'm aware of that the whole "age of pisces" thing goes back any further than late 19th-century mystical speculations, and it's quite problematic that the standard accepted origin of the Ichthys symbol isn't even mentioned. It's also rather odd that clearest reference to astrology in the New Testament -- the Magi -- is given short shrift. Some of this material could be incorporated in a different form into an Esoteric Christianity-related article, but only if it were properly sourced to 19th or 20th century works of mystical speculation, and not presented as basic fact. AnonMoos (talk) 13:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Three Wise Men are related to astrology? Anarchangel (talk) 09:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely -- the word "magoi" pretty much meant "dream interpreter, astrologer, magician" in Greek, and they're said to be following a star... AnonMoos (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. We have an article Christianity and astrology which has some discussion about it, but it seems to need work... AnonMoos (talk) 15:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Cullen328 says, an article could be written with this title but right now I am not able to identify even a single claim with backing from a reliable source. Blue Rasberry (talk) 09:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Bellinda Myrick

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

This person is not notable. The sources provided fail WP:GNG in that they are only passing mentions of the topic and not about bellinda Merrick herself. The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity.Mark^Dask 23:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As mentioned in the article, she was Miss Texas 1970, but it should be noted that she was actually runner-up and took the title when Phyllis George won Miss America. There's been some discussion over the years that winning a state pageant (of which Miss Texas is certainly one of the most prominent) is a reasonable indicator of notability, and the qualification note at Category:Beauty pageant winners seems to say as much, but having said that, she didn't compete at the Miss America contest and there seems to be very little other coverage of Ms. Myrick-Barnett's career. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question: This is listed as a "2nd nomination" Is there an earlier one?--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I prodded this article - that was the first nomination. This is the first time it has been listed at Afd. Mark^Dask 18:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for the purpose of being 1st or 2nd time, this article would be considered 1st time. You only consider it a 2nd time if it has actually passed though the AFD process previously. Anyone can prod or de-prod an article, which doesn't have the same peer review. I've removed 2nd AFD tagging. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on her being Miss Texas. There was a lot of press about the win in the 70s (gnews via the link in the AFD itself), so she got substantial coverage at that time. It is a little bit borderline, granted, but she seems to pass on general notability because of the win and the coverage it generated, much being hard to find links for considering it was over 20 years before the net was widely available. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being Miss Texas almost 40 years ago is not notability. WP:GNG asks for "significant" sources - the Miss World concept has been globally discredited since 40 years ago. This is a hangover from the sexism of the fifties and should be disregarded. Mark^Dask 15:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being Miss Texas almost 40 years ago is notability, because notability is not temporary. Personal feelings on the validity of Miss World and how sexism might figure into this is all irrelevant. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 23:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Dennis Brown. The article also mentions that, as an actress/singer, she worked with some legendary figures, and that has to count for something. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 23:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to the latter comment, I would guide you to WP:NOTINHERITED, and in particular, the very first example. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 23:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep - If her USO touring as a singer can be proven by good sources, she probably passes WP:MUSICBIO under note 4. Bearian (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment re USO: [12], [13] -- the second one is press releasey, but the first is coverage pre-tour and looks solid enough. The Google search snippet for this LA times article suggests that they have a picture of her captioned "Bellinda Myrick center. dances with a soldier during a USO show at fire. bose Mace 35 miles northwest of Saigon" --joe decker ^{talk to me} 05:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - while cleaning up and referencing this article I was surprised by how many sources were actually available on Myrick given that most of her notable activies took place in the 60s. The major pageant win and USO work just squeak her over the WP:GNG bar. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 14:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Dennis for setting me right on the 2nd nomination issue - this is my first nomination so I'm learning. So far there are weak nominations - like real people cringe at the idea of an august entity like wikipedia might perpetuate a moral absurdity. Where is Wikipedia going? I suppose such absurdity as Miss World deserves to exist - as an absurdity - therefore I withdraw my delete - with great misgivings. Mark^Dask 19:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:CRYSTAL arguments fail for the reasons set forth by ClubOranje below, regardless of whether the article is "atrociously titled." postdlf (talk) 03:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of English football transfers summer 2011

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

Crystal ball material at its finest. Even with pre-contract agreements, it is impossible to write anything resembling a sensible article on this event three months before it happens. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:CRYSTAL, and it's not unheard of for pre-contracts to be broken/changed etc. Giant Snowman 15:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:CRYSTAL, the title of this page basicly says it all summer 2011. –LiamTaylor– 10:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the rationale for deleting this list is crystal-clear! (sorry, couldn't resist it...) —BETTIA— ^talk 13:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per List of English football transfers summer 2010 and 2009 and 2008 and... Despite the title, which is mainly to distinguish it from the winter window, the opening paragraph clearly states the criteria for this list "This list includes transfers featuring at least one Premier League or Football League Championship club which are completed after the end of the winter 2010-11 transfer window and before the end of the 2011 summer window." Each and every transfer listed has actually taken place already (with the possible exception of Mason Springthorpe), nothing CRYSTAL about them. Each and every transfer listed is verifiable. Many have inline references and the few I followed the link on had relevant references in the player article. Labelling this CRYSTAL because there are a bunch of transfers to come (which are not yet listed) is akin to labelling 2010–11_Premier_League CRYSTAL because it is not finished yet. This article is only waiting for a Wikignome to add the missing references.--ClubOranje^T 11:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with ClubOranje on this. The article may be lacking some references, but it is certainly not speculative. The transfer agreements listed appear to have already been completed. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has anyone who !voted "delete" actually read the content of the article? This list contains a lot of loan transfers that have already occurred, since by our definition "summer 2011" runs from the close of the winter transfer window to the close of the summer window. There is nothing speculative about the vast majority of the content of this article. – PeeJay 11:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is therefore atrociously titled. While the introduction explains what the inclusion criteria are, calling it "summer 2011" when we actually mean "after winter" is extraordinarily confusing. Furthermore, it was my impression that a "transfer" meant the formal transference of player registration from one club to another. Players who aren't on any club's books wouldn't be transfers. If, as it appears, we've got a series of these articles, then those areas need to be clarified at WikiProject level at the very least. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 17:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - February is not "summer" - especially in England! GiantSnowman 18:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're right, but we had to have a cut-off at some point, and somewhere along the way it was decided that transfers from February to August should go in the "summer" lists and those from September to January should go in the "winter" lists. It was either that or put the end-of-season to December transfers in the "summer" lists and the January to end-of-season ones in the "winter" lists, but that wouldn't really work either. – Pee Jay 21:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jay --Dweller (talk)
Keep. Not an area that I have dabbled in, but it appears that consensus was reached somewhere because there are many here that use the same format. The titles are confusing though. Transfers that occur in September are included in the winter article and ones made in February go in the summer article. It would make more sense to have two articles for every year, each covering six months. For example, 2011 English football transfers (January–June) and 2011 English football transfers (July–December). People read the title and immediately know what they're going to get. Argyle 4 Life^talk 22:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 19:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Syed ali akhtar rizvi

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

I find no matches in GBooks or GNews and only circular matches or matches to other people with (apparently, if 2002 as year of death is correct) the same name in a general Google search. If the "60 books" mentioned were notable, then independent reliable sources should be available to support the claims made rather than being limited to dubious uploads on scribd or equally dubious Facebook links. PROD removed without explanation along with all past improvement notices, so raising for wider discussion. Fæ (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. In addition, it also appears, by the editing history and web results, this biography may be entirely factitious. Lord Arador (talk) 18:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - problem here might be more to do with lack of English language sources not to mention the variety of ways his name can be transcribed into English. Anyway, slight adjustment of his name produces more favourable results on google books and google scholar. Plenty of notability also.
- Delete - As Fæ has clarified that Sa'id Akhtar Rizvi and Syed ali akhtar rizvi are distinct from each other and the google search links I found above relate to the former I don't feel notability has yet been established in this instance.FiachraByrne 20:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Strong Delete This article has no references and that violates WP:BLP Ryan Vesey (talk) 23:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article says the person died in 2002, so it can't possibly be a BLP violation, because that policy applies only to articles about people who are living. Cullen328 (talk) 00:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google Books shows a number of books by Saeed Akhtar Rizvi translated into English in Tanzania. I assume this is the same person. Cullen328 (talk) 00:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, your assumption appears to be wrong. Sa'id Akhtar Rizvi was born in 1927, this article is about someone born in 1948; 21 years later. Fæ (talk) 07:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V--Sodabottle (talk) 06:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Fæ mentioned the links scribd and Facebook, I know that both of these sites sometimes copy text from Wikipedia (i.e. they are Mirror sites), which may be the reason why links like these are not reliable for most Wikipedia articles. Other than that, I agree that this article doesn't meet the verifiability policy. Minimac (talk) 08:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a reason why they're not reliable, but not the only reason. Even when those sites don't copy the text from Wikipedia, much of their content is self-published and therefore most likely unreliable. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant and notable person - ramansoz (talk) raman 04:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 02:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Green

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

non notable former model WuhWuzDat 15:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - she does not appear to be a regular Page Three model, nor has she gotten other major covers or endorsements. Bearian (talk) 21:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing the coverage required to establish notability - Usual Caveats apply, of course. Also, note that the first AFD listed above was for an unrelated fictional character sharing the same name as this subject - this article and its subject have not previously been reviewed at AFD. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 16:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Cooke (glamour model)

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

non notable former model WuhWuzDat 15:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Apparently still a model, not "former" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - assuming it can be shown true, winners of the Page Three annual poll in The Sun would be considered notable as models. Bearian (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearian. Obviously, we do need to source that, but it would lend sufficient notability to keep. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 16:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Carter

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

non notable former model WuhWuzDat 15:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no verifiable and reliable sources to indicate she has done anything notable. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep verifiable and reliable sources indicate notability. Well-known cameo in very famous movie, ex-Rockstar squeeze and subject of extensive and recent piece in 2,000,000 daily-selling national newspaper which has the second most-visited news website on the planet. All of this fully cited. Silly season comes early. --82.41.20.82 (talk) 22:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A cameo part in a movie doesn't establish notability (see Wikipedia Guidelines on Entertainer Notability). There is also the question if Page3 would be considered a reliable 3rd party source under the policy on reliable sources. Being listed in IMDB, for instance, has historically been held to be insufficient by itself to establish notability. For example, I have a friend listed on IMDB: He's a great guy, done some cameos in movies but he is not notable. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I hadn't intended that each assertion of notability be considered on an individual basis to the exclusion of the others, rather that they be considered collectively, but you knew that. You may question the reliability of Page 3 as a source, but consenus is heavily against you. I'm uncertain what relevance the mention of iMDB has to this AfD? Also, you neglect to mention the hefty Daily Mail piece from nine months ago though, not surprising, as it's injurious to your argument, no matter how many times you make it. --82.41.20.82 (talk) 07:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - this one is going to be hard to prove one way or the other. The Daily Mail article indicates that she was notable, and once notable, a person is always notable. Bearian (talk) 21:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You don't have to do anything notable, the guideline says If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. We have the recent Daily Mail article (significant coverage), and here's another in the Sunday Mirror of 19 November 2000. Edgepedia (talk) 17:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Ghadames

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

Simply put, there was no battle. Protestors took over the town for a few days. And than government troops moved in back into the town without any resistance or at the very least minor resistance. The event is non-notable, and no sources calling the event Battle of Ghadames so in essence it is Original research. EkoGraf (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Skirmishes there may have been, though there seem to be few sources on the net for even this; either way, to refer to the re-occupation of the town as a battle seems completely disingenuous. Ynyrhesolaf (talk) 18:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly rename, i think this should 100% be kept, there's no reason not to, but to lead on from Ynyrhesolaf's idea, maybe move to Re-occupation of Ghadames. Swalgal (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More info will come as the situation clears up. --Yalens (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to clear up. First of the article was not written per the sources. Totaly original research. The article claims the battle happened on March 22. Quote on 22 March, Gaddafi sent a group of mercenaries to Ghadames, retaking it within the day. However the source doesn't say this, it says mercenary reinforcements were sent FROM Ghadames to Zintan or whatever. So this part of the article is false. By all accounts the loyalists reclaimed the town at the very beginning of the war a month and a half ago. And there was no battle, we can not just make up a battle where there was none. Wikipedia is based on verifibility. EkoGraf (talk) 12:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there was no battle. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:V and WP:GNG because it lacks "significant independent coverage" in WP:RS. Anotherclown (talk) 02:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There was no battle. This article is completely made up. --Rafy talk 12:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Notability has been established beyond the one event, though the article needs work as described by Arxiloxos. postdlf (talk) 02:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Sobel

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

Delete, subject is notable only for a single unencyclopedic event due to illness, speculating on subject's illness violates WP:BLP and nothing more is really possible here. Yworo (talk) 14:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clean up. The current article has a rather unsavory weight, but I find substantial evidence of his prominence. There's more than 150 hits at GNews[14] and 50 at Google Books[15] and most of them have nothing to do with the unpleasant incident that currently dominates the article. One good example: a 1993 New York Times article about a controversial interview he gave in Brazilian Playboy.[16] My suggestion: keep this, add some sources to show his notable activities, cut the bit about his arrest/illness to a couple of sentences.--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with Arxiloxos. He's been the subject of several articles, and mentioned in many others across several reputable news organizations like the "New York Times." It is evident that his position as, "Chief Rabbi of Brazil," has led to much notability, for example his comments as an authority figure to a case about Albert Blume, NYT Article. Lord Arador (talk) 19:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No reason what so ever to delete this article.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I understand the nominator's BLP concerns. However, this is the Chief Rabbi of Brazil, who has gotten international coverage from the New York Times to the Jerusalem Post, and had an audience with the Pope to discuss Jewish-Catholic relations. Bearian (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Due to WP:BLP1E. --יום יפה (talk) 11:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 this should not be a standalone article on WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E grounds. I've used the references in the article to source the mention of the incident at Freedom of speech versus blasphemy, and a redirect can be created editorially if deemed necessary. Sandstein 06:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tatiana Soskin

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete Only known for 1 time event Jude Mountains (talk) 13:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Subjects notable only for one event - Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them

Keep. So what if she is only known for one event? There is no separate article on the event, so it is described in her article. Googling shows her case drew significant international attention. —Lowellian (reply) 20:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Which is, of course, the whole point of NOTNEWS. Hundreds of thousands of fleeting "news events" will gather multiple press mentions at the time of the event. Wikipedia should not be randomly collecting these, it should be writing on valid historical events and encyclopedic topics. Carrite (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Freedom of speech versus blasphemy, where the case is already mentioned but needs more accrate detail and better sourcing. That will satisfy the WP:BLP1E concerns while preserving and putting into a meaningful context the information about the notable incident. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The issue here is soruces. But that can be fixed. Until then I say Keep.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Arxiloxos. Very little stand-alone notability, some notability when considering the greater context. Rami R 17:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the cited article, and other readily available sources such as NY Times (More commonly spelled as Tatiana Suskin), are sufficient to establish notability. Marokwitz (talk) 11:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out the alternate spelling, which produces more news coverage of the event. I added the NYT reference to the article. I agree that the notability of the event is clear, but still think this is more appropriately treated as a BLP1E, better handled by a merge to an article with more context.--Arxiloxos (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Due to WP:BLP1E. --יום יפה (talk) 11:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC) Striking !vote by confirmed sockpuppet. Gatoclass (talk) 02:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC) [reply]
Delete - nothing notable about either the crime or the perpetrator. Fails WP:BLP1E. Gatoclass (talk) 01:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems more like pure speculations from Gatoglass she doesnt fail WP:BLP1E actually. By life history.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you think there is something notable about this person, feel free to add it to the article. At the moment we just have an article about some woman who threw a rock at a car window and got some jail time for it. That is classic BLP1E, except that even the 1E is dubious. Gatoclass (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, she does not fail BLP1E, which says to avoid creating articles for individuals known only for one event if the event has an article. The event does not have an article, so therefore the article for the individual meets BLP1E criteria to keep. —Lowellian (reply) 01:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge per Arxiloxos. Neither particularly interesting nor notable. Snakeswithfeet (talk) 05:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Interesting" is inherently POV (what subjects are "interesting" will vary from reader to reader) and irrelevant to deletion discussions. "Notability" does matter for deletion discussions, and it is established by the many international media articles for either "Tatiana Soskin" or the alternate spelling "Tatiana Suskin". —Lowellian (reply) 01:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:ONEVENT. take away the crime and she's unknown. LibStar (talk) 06:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well take away the politics and Barack Obama is non-notable. Same thing.. No reason to delete in my opinion.,--BabbaQ (talk) 08:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, take away Barack Obama's presidency and he is still notable. it is a ludicrous suggestion to compare the US president with a one time criminal. LibStar (talk) 08:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - One-event buffoonery run through the superheated distillery that is the Israeli-Palestinian Civil War. Wikipedia is not a news summary service. Carrite (talk) 16:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 02:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soumabha

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

I'm not sure if this falls under the category of a dictionary definition (if the definition of the term is correct) or as an attack page if the definition is just an underhanded way of calling somone a know-it-all. In either case, it's pretty clear this page has no place on the encyclopedia. May well be a speedy-delete candidate, but I wouldn't know what criteria to use. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dicdef move to wiktionary or delete. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 13:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced dictionary entry. De728631 (talk) 16:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Soumabha seems to be fairly common as a name, and as the definition given is not on usually found as a name meaning (in my experience...), I would think it's an mildish attack. I'm not sure enough to delete it out of hand, though. Someone else might be. I don't think Wiktionary would welcome it with no references. Peridon (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment unlike wikipedia, wiktionary seems to have almost no references... 65.93.12.101 (talk) 11:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A9 JohnCD (talk) 13:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Garudarajane saranam

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

No indication of notability. No artist article linked. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 12:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mordecai Tendler

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was nominated for deletion in 2007. In those days when we were somewhat less careful with BLPs, the article was kept, but the closing admin gave careful comment about BLP1E.

It is clear from the article that Tendler is not notable in his own right. He has illustrious forebears, which don't convey notability to him. He has a sub notable level of prominence as a rabbi. And he has been involved in a case that gained a lot of coverage.

As such, this article should now (finally) be deleted. Information about the case can appropriately be recorded in an article about the case, if that stands up to our notability criteria, and in passing in the article about his father. Dweller (talk) 12:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because there's only one Mordecai that's notable anymore. In all seriousness, fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:BLP1E. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 12:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguments of Dweller and Ten Pound Hammer. Yworo (talk) 13:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An article about a defrocked cleric only "notable" because he was defrocked. Agree with other editors, particularly WP:BLP1E.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - clear WP:BLP1E. ukexpat (talk) 15:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As WP:BLP1E. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is really a WP:BLP1E. Avi (talk) 17:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Run of the mill WP:NOTNEWS, not an important/notable enough crime to satisfy WP:PERP either. Tarc (talk) 18:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sadly the article is apparently used as a tool for biased reporting WP:BLP1E. Koltorah (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. No need for an article. MacMed^talk _stalk 00:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I think it should be noted that this living person has not been convicted of any crime either, as far as I can see. (Or even charged, I think?) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks for mentioning that. Caused me to go back to the article and change the word "charges" in the context of the civil suit against him.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Due to WP:BLP1E.--יום יפה (talk) 11:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scott McKay Gibson

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

I can find no sources for this person at all, thus failing WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE #1. Additionally, the article makes no claim that he ever did anything really important. Reaper Eternal (talk | contribs | block) 12:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a vanity piece, and a poor one at that. Can't WP:V with WP:RS, so must not be WP:N Dennis Brown (talk) 18:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Getlenses.co.uk

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

Spam. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Show evidence? Ironholds (talk) 13:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Covered in multiple, reliable sources. I also found additional articles in the Mail on Sunday, the Independent and the Belfast Telegraph Job Finder. Strong keep. Ironholds (talk) 13:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two of which are identical and don't contain significant coverage about the subject.--Pontificalibus (talk) 13:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete from reading Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) it doesn't sound like the company is really worthy of a separate article. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Aditionally, it does read very much like an advertisement ("A common complaint is that the prices UK high street opticians charge for contact lenses are too high. GetLenses.co.uk attempts to undercut high street opticians by supplying contact lenses at a lower cost." - if that doesn't read like spam then I don't know what would) Coolug (talk) 13:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a single sentence. The Mail article, in addition, is entirely about the company. Ironholds (talk) 18:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not entirely about the company though is it? That source article is about the price differential of contact lenses between online and high-street shops. The article is based on research conducted by Getlenses.co.uk, and so could easily be viewed as a thinly-veiled promotional piece, and unsuitable as a source for the purposes of establishing notability.--Pontificalibus (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

message from Linz

I am completely new to Wikipedia page making. I took wording which had been accepted on other pages. The spam sentence in question was taken from Glasses Direct (Glasses Direct attempts to undercut bricks and mortar high street opticians by supplying glasses at a lower cost). We are very happy to change what is necessary, get advice from yourselves and ask for help from people you recommend. Please do not delete us, we have high hopes for our page to incorporate more from our investors and we have many articles to upload in due course.

--Linz131313 (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Linz1313[reply]

Hi there, Wikipedia has criteria with regard to whether or not a subject is notable enough for inclusion, the criteria for companies and organisations can be viewed at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Have a read through the guidelines and you should be able to get an idea of what the article should contain to be eligible for inclusion. The most important thing in an article (in my humble opinion) is that information should be backed up by reliable independent sources. Therefore things like a press release from the company itself or something similar aren't really suitable. Deletion discussions are open for at least a week before they are closed, so there's time for you and any other editors who want to get involved to save this article from deletion (and just because I don't think it's strong enough yet doesn't mean that's the consensus). Good luck with the article. Coolug (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

message from Linz

I have now been asked to add articles/pages for Simon Murdoch, Octopus Investment and all the people involved with Octopus investment. These pages/articles will link to each other so none will be orphans. Also they will add credibility and encyclopedic value to all articles including GetLenses.co.uk. Please be patient with me.

--Linz131313 (talk) 10:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you wait until the conclusion of this deletion discussion before considering creating any more articles. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, before writing articles about your company and employer, you should definately check the notability guidelines to make sure they actually are notable enough as to warrant having their own article. Reading Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view may be of use too. cya Coolug (talk) 13:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linz, welcome to Wikipedia. Do make sure to check the policies pointed by Coolug, since they are the meat of the grind at AfD. You can find the notability guidelines at WP:GNG (general notability), WP:CORP (corporations and organizations), and WP:PEOPLE (individuals). Also, based on your comment, check WP:GARDEN and do note that having one article wouldn't add "credibility" to another article that it is linked to, since Wikipedia itself is not considered a reliable source - patitomr (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promo article. —Lowellian (reply) 01:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is consensus that the article should not remain the dictionary definition and semi-fork of Terrorism that is is now. But there is no consensus what it should become (a redirect or a dab page, to where, with or without merging). These solutions can all be implemented without deleting the page. Nobody can reasonably want this article to become a red link, so deleting the article would not help solve the disagreement about what it should become. This needs to be resolved editorially on the talk page, perhaps via an RfC. Sandstein 06:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Terror

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

Pov fork of Terrorism Tentontunic (talk) 10:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Terror" is an emotion, this article has absolutely nothing to do with it. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 11:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POVfork of massive proportions with absolutely no individual notability for its status on Wikipedia - the dab page Terror was usurped for this - while we already have several hundred articles with "terrorism" in their titles - as well as the specific article Terrorism. No need for the two articles whatsoever. Oh - not to mention the "terrorist" articles to boot. I can hardly think of a less necessary new article than this one. Collect (talk) 12:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Terror practiced by a government in office appears as law enforcement and is directed against the opposition, while terrorism on the other hand implies open defiance of the law and is the means whereby an opposition aims to demoralize government authority". (R.Thackrah, my emphasis)[17] We have articles Reign of Terror, Red Terror, Red Terror (Hungary),Red Terror (Spain),Red Terror (Ethiopia), Red Terror (China), Red Terror (Finland), White Terror, First White Terror, Second White Terror, White Terror (Russia), White Terror (Hungary), White Terror (Spain) and White Terror (Republic of China). This is a significant subject that requires its own main article. TFD (talk) 12:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Then why did the original Terror page state Terrorism, the fact of performing acts of terror, as defined above.? That is, defining terror as a verb, and terrorism as the act entailed by the verb? Collect (talk) 13:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am more concerned with how these topics are discussed in reliable sources than how a Wikipedia editor described them. TFD (talk) 14:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would US court decisions be "reliable" as far as definitions are concerned? [18] And UN treaties defining "terrorism"? Yet you place Forte well above such minor things as treaties and legal definitions. All of which, I assure you, are not simply the wandering thoughts of WP editors searching for ways to define the deaths in Hungary in 1956 as due to the insurgency. I believe you have been well apprised of all the definitions in the past ... but [19] should refresh your memory. Frankly, "tendentious" understates the way this has been handled by folks who find US law, British law, International law, and legal dictionaries, and treaties to be somehow "unreliable". Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The court decision you mention uses Forte's book, Terror and Terrorism: There is a Difference for its definition of "terrorism". (See II Scope of Review, E Political Offense Exception, 1. Definition) TFD (talk) 16:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read the decision, and not just the footnotes. The decision itself relies on the legal definition of "terrorism" and does not adopt a different definition. Collect (talk) 18:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of reading between the lines, read what the court wrote. They use a definition that distinguishes between terror and terrorism. Anyway, you brought up the example. You should have read it first. Next time, find a source that supports rather than contradicts your view. TFD (talk) 02:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Word "terrorism" originated from Reign of Terror in France, and many authors (like Karl Kautsky) do not make any distinction. Assuming that you are right, this is fork of political repression. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 13:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right, these two article tell essentially the same. To merge them would be a correct step, that would differentiate the contemporary meaning of the word "terrorism" (the acts of NGOs against some state) and "terror"/"repressions" (the acts of some state against its own or foreign civilians).--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Perez Hilton --TitanOne (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a dictionary definition and a needless fork of terrorism. Carrite (talk) 15:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dictdef and fork of terrorism. —Lowellian (reply) 19:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article describes terror/terrorism by state. Therefore, this is fork of state terrorism. For example, bombing of Korean Air Flight 858 by Korean state agents was described as "terrorism" rather than "terror" by every source. An act of terrorism, such as blowing airplanes or city buses, remain an act of terrorism, no matter if committed by "lone wolfs" or governmental agents. Besides, "war on terror" and "war on terrorism" mean exactly the same. Terror also means "fear". This should be in a dictionary. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 01:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a POV fork, it should be merged to the terrorism article. However, this proposal seems to be unsupported by consensus.
It cannot be deleted due to low notability (for obvious reason).
It cannot be deleted because the term "Terror" is emotionally loaded: "terrorism" is equally loaded term.
To merge it with Perez Hilton is also not a good idea, although it sounds not too unreasonable when compared with other proposals.
The article cannot be deleted just because "War on terror" and "war on terrorism" mean exactly the same: these two phrases are taken from contemporary propaganda articles, and we cannot build WP based on what propaganda says, even when it is democratic propaganda. My conclusion is: to delete the article you must provide some more serious arguments.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fear which is the same topic, so far as the emotion is concerned. The political noise should be left for the terrorism article. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and remake Redirect to Fear as CW. However, I disagree completely about the nature of this disagreement. The court case is a possible source toward the creation of an Apolitical terror article. The court case bases its examination of the defendant's right to extradition under the Convention on Extradition Between the Government of the United States and the Government of the State of Israel on the issue of whether his killings were perpetrated to achieve a political end. The definition of political offence adds to terrorism a dimension that is not found in terror. The court also considers Forte's book, among others, when defining what it calls the "Political Offense Exception". Anarchangel (talk) 10:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Convert into a disambiguation page with the possible targets of Fear and Terrorism. Both targets are very likely so choosing one over the other makes things more difficult on our readers. Kansan (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dab per Kansadn. Qrsdogg (talk) 03:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: "Support" above appears to be "support deletion." Several editors appear to use that term. Collect (talk) 21:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For the reasons described by me earlier. In response to "POV FORK" rationale: I would like to see what concrete POV this article pushes, otherwise we can hardly speak about any POV Forking.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion. is clearly the case at hand, as Terrorism was listed on the Terror dab page. WP has no history of allowing two articles which are essentially on the same topic. The guideline uis crystal clear. Collect (talk) 23:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and recreate as a Dab page, merge various bits into Fear and Terrorism. I tried to save this article but I realise that this is not a dictionary. --Martin (talk) 23:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Horror and terror and discuss as a valid psychological phenomenon. bd2412 T 00:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See Murder Act 1751 Here is an example of the use of terror but not terrorism: The Murder Act started: "WHEREAS horrid crime of murder has of late been more frequently perpetrated than formerly, and particularly in and near the metropolis of this kingdom, contrary to the known humanity and natural genius of the British nation: and whereas it is thereby become necessary, that some further terror and peculiar mark of infamy be added to the punishment of death, now by law inflicted on such as shall be guilty of the said heinous offence". The wording is specific the British parliament were not trying to frighten people but to terrorise them, as at the time it was a common belief within the Britain that without an intact body it was difficult to impossible to rise on judgement day. Given this information I think that some of the opinions expressed above are off target.-- PBS (talk) 16:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While the idiomatic use of the term "terror" in the 18th century is certainly interesting, I think WP:NOT#DICTIONARY would apply. --Martin (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Mayer (political scientist)

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

The article doesn't indicate that this person meets WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR, and I was not able to find any sources that would support either claim. bonadea contributions talk 09:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only tiny amount on GS. Other notability not apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Looks like self-published content. Although his work on loan sharks is an admirable pursuit it is unlikely that the work is notable enough to meet WP:GNG or any other kind of notability. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 12:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 02:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Config cisco 1800 router

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

Wikipedia is not a how-to manual - Philippe 09:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pretty clear and obvious case of Wikipedia not being a how to guide. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per [[WP:NOTGUIDE]. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 12:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Big Dom 16:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Francesco Pompei

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Non-notable person. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete. In opposition to the request for deletion the subject, Dr. Pompei, is a subject matter expert in the fields of temperature sensing and thermometry. His development of the temporal scanner was a significant advancement in the field of medical thermometry. The article was updated on March 29th to include only a sampling of the 60 patents Dr. Pompei holds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VaughnSmyth (talk • contribs) 14:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seriously, just using the provided links in the AFD makes it pretty clear this individual is notable. Perhaps the article needs work, but not deleting. Scientists who is a a prolific author and inventor, with plenty of ghits for news and such. Try looking him up on Google Books and Google Scholar. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing on GS except Patents. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. These are not patents. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dennis Brown. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 12:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient sourcing appears to exist. The GScholar results by themselves wouldn't necessarily manage WP:ACADEMIC, but looking at that holistically with what I see available on Gbooks, etc, it seems plausible we could write a good encyclopedia article here--and in the end, that's the most important bar. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 20:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 16:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That Girl (David Choi song)

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

Song was released only on Youtube, and doesn't even appear to be very Youtube popular. No independent sources. Artist is currently under AfD; if artist survives, a redirect can be left. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why should this be deleted? It is a real song, and it was NOT only released on YouTube (iTunes, Album: By My Side) and it is notable. Wikipedia, Qwyrxian is not resourceful. ONLY YOUTUBE? NOT THAT POPULAR? Check out our iPods, iPhones, handphones, Androids, computers! David Choi IS notable, IS good, IS famous, IS on Wikipedia (and will forever be), has HIS songs on Wikipedia (and will forever be) and IS #7 most subscribed musician on YouTube. YOUTUBE. It's hard to achieve this, so please recognise this song, him, and HIM! Wikipedia, I trust you and if you let someone as unresourceful as Qwyrxian delete articles like that just because she's good, you will lose a lot of WikiReaders like me. - TorresAndChicharito — Preceding unsigned comment added by TorresAndChicharito (talk • contribs) 10:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC) — TorresAndChicharito (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please review WP:MUSIC. No one is denying the song exist. No one is denying that Choi is well-recognized on YouTube. I haven't commented on Choi's article, and Choi may very well qualify for an article. But even the best musicians almost never have an article for every single song they've ever written. We have a principle on WP, called WP:GNG, which says that only things which have been discussed by multiple, independent, reliable sources can have their own articles. If you know of such sources for this song, please add them to the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced article on self-released recording by "unsigned" musician. no evidence of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge - Fails notability as per WP:NSONG. There are no reliable sources to demonstrate the significance of the song and no claim of notability. The info, if it standup for WP:VERIFY as it appears to be original research, can be merged into either the main article for the album.--Michaela den (talk) 15:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What can I do to save this article? How do I save it from deletion? Tell me how I can edit it, then I WILL. Just don't delete it... Give the ol' boy some time... — Preceding unsigned comment added by TorresAndChicharito (talk • contribs) 09:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced article by relentlessly single-purpose fan on self-released recording by unsigned musician. No evidence whatsoever of notability for this song; author seems to feel that all songs by his/her beloved artist must be notable because they are by David Choi. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google news archive search at the top of the AFD, can be pressed, and you can then search for "That Girl" AND "David Choi" and find results. This [20] article is about the song itself. Elsewhere on that site, which covers Asian American news, it mentions in a concert review [21] David Choi further warmed the hearts of everyone at the concert singing three of his hit songs, “Won’t Even Start”, “ By My Side”, and “That Girl". So they mention its a hit song of his. He uses this song to audition at America's Got Talent but it doesn't say if he got on or not.[22] The other two news sites that show results are both hidden behind a paywall. Hopefully my Credo 250 account will be approved soon, and I'll be able to access it. A hit song from a notable musician, this article should be saved. Dream Focus 03:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"

Comment: Last point first: being a song from a notable musician does not automatically make a song notable; WP:MUSIC even says that most songs are not notable enough for their own articles. Channelapa is not a reliable source, nor are they a "news site" in the sense that Wikipedia means. Per their About page: "In a nutshell, we want to help Asian American artists out there" and "We’re a small, but growing crew. We volunteer our time to increase the visibility of Asian Americans in entertainment cuz we’re passionate about it." Just showing up in a Google News search doesn't actually guarantee the source meets WP:RS. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no indication that topics meets either WP:NSONG or WP:GNG (none of the meagre Google News hits appear to be "significant coverage in reliable sources" -- Channelapa certainly appears to fail as WP:RS). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under criteria G7

Lego Harry Potter: Years 1-4 Character Tokens

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

This is beyond scope of an encyclopedia. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Game guide. OSborn^arf_contribs. 16:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Pure game guide information. IMO it should have been instead PRODded, but oh well... –MuZemike 03:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Creator has now blanked the page and requested deletion. Katharineamy (talk) 10:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ziad K Abdelnour

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 02:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ziad K Abdelnour

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

There is no evidence that this person is notable. This article was created by him. It is nothing more than self promoting and self agrandizing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldedixor (talk • contribs) 02:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed malformed nomination; no opinion from me. Stifle (talk) 07:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Article has been speedily deleted 3 times in the past under different name (Ziad abdelnour, ZIAD K ABDELNOUR and Ziad Khalil Abdelnour). This version was created on the same day as the 3rd speedy deletion. My searches turn up nothing that proves notability in any variant of his name. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick Delete and salt. There is no concrete and convincing evidence that this person is notable. Not everyone who has a server with a bunch of websites promoting himself becomes notable by Wikipedia standards. This page was created by him (DreamMaker). It is nothing more than self promotion and self agrandizing. Worldedixor (talk) 13:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or anything else. Ambitious enough to become notable one day so I think it is unfair to salt. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 12:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your Delete vote, Nipsonanomhmata. We hope to get more salt votes. Ambition alone does not compensate for alleged traits in his personality as evidenced by him coming back from the back door every time he gets deleted. Worldedixor (talk) 03:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 02:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Larry D. Lucky

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

Non-notable, recently-created company mascot. E Wing (talk) 07:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable mascot for a non-notable company. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable. Spam with some gems like "Through the representation of Larry D. Lucky, Dhr.com makes online hotel booking more fun and interactive." OSborn^arf_contribs. 16:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: lacks significant coverage in third party sources to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Burlington USD 244. Jujutacular ^talk 12:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Burlington Elementary School (Burlington, Kansas)

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

An elementary school with no claims to notability. Kansan (talk) 05:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to school district, per standard practice. Carrite (talk) 05:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Burlington,_Kansas#Education unless a better target can be found. No claim to notability made. OSborn^arf_contribs. 16:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per SOP for non-notable primary schools. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Create and merge into Burlington USD 244. TerriersFan (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Create and merge into Burlington USD 244 with Burlington Middle School (Burlington, Kansas) and perhaps Burlington High School (Burlington, Kansas) seems acceptable. Metatron (talk) 22:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Create and merge - another vote for creating the school district, which includes Burlington High School (Burlington, Kansas) and Burlington Middle School (Burlington, Kansas). I would also suggest that the latter article be merged and redirected to the district article. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 22:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge after creating Burlington USD 244. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Create and merge - as above. Neutrality^talk 21:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 02:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Karpen

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

Minor party candidate for state legislative office, who ran and lost. He fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Lincolnite (talk) 04:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's probably only coincidence that this subject always appears in my watchlist just before he's about to run for an election. The sources provided are:

Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Kudpung.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN and no other claim of notability is made. Cullen328 (talk) 00:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: never-elected candidate, and on a relatively small ballot item at that. (If a person actually becomes a state rep with power to craft legislation, that might be a different story.) No evidence that this person has any more coverage than comes from being given somewhat equal time with others on the ballot in a local state House election (11,188 votes counted on this ballot item in the 2008 election; 16,013 in the 2010 election, of which Karpen received 5,526). --Closeapple (talk) 01:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Kumioko (talk) 22:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 02:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Impraim Godfred Attah

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

There are no signs of notability about this footballer Wrwr1 (talk) 04:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as unverified. The Ghanaian and Malay leagues are both fully pro, and would confer notability, if there were sources to verify that he actually played there. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence that he has actually played in a fully-pro league, failing WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can only find sources to show he played for KL in their Malaysia Premier League days. At the time that was second tier and I don't believe it was fully professional at the time. A couple of mentions in match reports but no in depth coverage as far as I can see. Delete per WP:NFOOTBALL as not having played at required level with no GNG qualifying coverage--ClubOranje^T 10:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As it stands, the article fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 22:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 02:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redline (drink)

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

Created simply to remove the content from redline, this product is not actually notable. Note that it appears to be maintained by interested parties (check history and talk page). ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 04:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed; non-notable drink in a crowded market with little discerning features. The provided material is unreferenced, and ref tags have been removed by the interested-party editors. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing turns up in news, book or scholar searches using Google. Standard search turns up mirrors of the article, blogs, opinions and promotional sites. No verifiable sources appear available. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 23:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article does not meet general notability criteria--יום יפה (talk) 14:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vaca toposa

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

Several people have suggested that this article might be a hoax. Punting to AFD on that question. NW (Talk) 04:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is a bad sign when BooksLLC and Wikipedia mirrors pop up at the top of Google searches. This is either a hoax, or something so obscure that it is non-notable. Cullen328 (talk) 00:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I asked a Spanish friend about this. Although she lives near Barcelona, quite far from Alicante, she said that she has never heard of such a tradition, and that the word toposa doesn't mean anything in Spanish. Elizium23 (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not a hoax, just dumb (like many things that are still common), and may possibly be widespread enough for an article under some different title, but not for sure. I talked about this article with a friend who lives in Murcia municipality, close to the Vega Baja del Segura over the Alicante border, which is the area described in this article. She hadn't heard the phrase "vaca toposa" itself (appears to be local slang), but the concept is widespread — these cows are usually called "vaquillas" (little cows), at least in Murcia. Apparently, a bunch of rural types ride and otherwise harass this kind of small bull or cow as if they were bullfighters, until the cow gets tired of it, and then they try to dodge the cow when it comes after them. (She compared these people to the type of American who spends a lot of time at monster truck rallies.) This sort of thing tends to be a feature of small village festivals. The word "toposa" itself a very silly word she's never heard before, but is probably real: it gives the impression of a cow that tries to hit things with its horns a lot — almost certainly because the humans are harassing it all the time. ("Topar" is "to hit" in Spanish.) So "vaca toposa" appears to be an Alicante/coastal colloquialism for what other places call a "vaquilla" (little cow) that gets treated like this. She also mentioned that cajoling cows into chasing you is now illegal in Catalonia (another area of Spain). --Closeapple (talk) 04:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Closeapple (talk) 04:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as deeply non-notable at best, hoax at worst. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 19:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 11:58, 7 April 2011 Graeme Bartlett (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Johnny Pufferson" ‎ (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content)) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Pufferson

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

Article about a musician, that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. France3470 (talk) 03:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication he satisfies WP:MUSICBIO -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Big Dom 16:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2002 Mitt Romney residency issue

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

Was apparently an issue for a short time, but WP is NOTNEWS. No inline references, which is a big no-no as it is mostly about a BLP. Suggest deletion, or at least merge to Massachusetts gubernatorial election, 2002 or to Mitt Romney himself Purple backpack89 03:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The question isn't "news". This article was created in 2005, not 2002, and the residency issue got a lot of play in the Boston Globe's 2007 biographical series on Romney as a significant episode in the election. A later instance of the residency issue was still coming up in 2010, see this Globe story. The question is whether this needs a dedicated article to cover. Summaries of different length are already given in Mitt Romney and Massachusetts gubernatorial election, 2002. The first can't be expanded due to weighting concerns, but the second probably could be. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Heaven knows I'm a Massachusetts resident with no love for Flopper Mitt, but as Wasted Time accurately states, the main article and the 2002 gubernatorial race article has all the information required on this minor, ephemeral flap. I don't even think it's worth a redirect, given the unlikelihood of users hitting upon that precise search term, as opposed to looking under Romney's main article. Ravenswing 15:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since "Massachusetts gubernatorial election, 2002" seems to address the matter sufficiently enough already. A whole article devoted to this controversy seems a bit over-the-top. I'm neutral on whether a redirect should be created, however. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 14:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Big Dom 16:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Willcox

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

Blatant advertisement for a possibly notable subject, full of fulsomeness like completely refurbished charming hotel, remnant of a fabulous era. Decided to bring it here rather than speedy. Orange Mike | Talk 01:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Listed in "1,000 places to see in the USA and Canada before you die By Patricia Schultz" and more than a couple other books. Over 100 year old hotel with a lot of history, a historical landmark, was host to FDR, etc. The article definitely needs tagging, cutting and general work, but the subject matter is notable and poor content isn't a reason to delete. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)*[reply]
keep I would like to throw myself on the mercy of the court. I've just never done this before and it was much more difficult than I expected. I haven't figured out how to do some of the required things. I'm freelance writer and this is an exerpt from a story I did about my hometown. I'll happily take out the frills if they seem like advertisement ... completely refurbished, etc. ... The reason for most of that is that the place was abandoned for 25 years and the refurbishment restored one of Aiken, S.C.'s most cherished icons. I would welcome whatever suggestions I can get on how to fix the inadequacies of the article to save it. Also, when I pasted it in, the second half didn't affix. That is a list of about fifty highly prominent people from the first half of the 20th Century who stayed there, with short biographies of about 25 of them, including: The Winston Churchills, Count and Countess Bernadotte of Sweden spent their honeymoon at the Willcox, John Jacob Astor, Evelyn Walsh McLean (owner of the Hope diamond), makeup queen Elizabeth Arden, singer Andy Williams, dancer Irene Castle, Doris Duke, Bing Crosby, John Jacob Astor, IV, New York Governor W. Averill Harrimn, W.R. Grace, both Teddy and Fraklin Roosevelt (Lucy Mercer Rutherfurd lived about a mile away) and many more. I'll do whatever someone can teach me to save the article. Thank you, Stephen D. Hale, Haleifiknow (talk)
- comment As with any article, it has to be written from an independent point of view. In the case of this article, it would be difficult (but not impossible) for you to do so because you are so close to the subject matter. Keep in mind that the goal is provide information about what makes the subject notable, ie: historical references and such. How "great" it is doesn't matter, as that information is not encyclopedic. You might take a look at similar properties for inspiration, and read up on the actual guidelines on what notability means to Wikipedia. Remember, if you are promoting any aspect of the hotel, that isn't encyclopedic. It actually sounds like a perfectly fine article to cut your teeth on, the key is to find references in mainstream publications and books, and incorporate those into the article. Just stand back a bit when writing it, as if you don't have any emotional ties to it. Good luck. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Famous guests don't matter; notability is not contagious; it cannot be "caught" by interacting with a notable entity. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite from the neutral point of view. These sources can be used as references: [23], [24], [25], [26], [27] Cullen328 (talk) 00:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is this editing thing that some people can do, which can fix the content of articles. It is required that rationales mean something, such as N or RS would be, when applied to this article. And OrangeMike? You say on your user page, and I believe you, that you are concerned about storage space. So take a look at this. Articles are not the problem. Media is not the problem. Edit histories aka revisions are the problem, by a 40 to 1 ratio. If you want to put a dent in WP data storage hogs, get articles locked and bots blocked. Deleting articles will not help much. Anarchangel (talk) 10:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It appears as though this article has been vastly improved since it was nominated and therefore the deletion rationale provided is a bit outdated. There is also sufficient support for keeping the article as well from the looks of it. (non-admin closure) Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed cinemas in Kingston upon Hull

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

Essay, all taken from the same website. Orange Mike | Talk 01:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is impossible to prove a negative (ie: cinemas that are not in biz), and per nom. A bit of an indiscriminate list as well. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are serious weaknesses in this article. I'm not clear what is intended except to duplicate a list that already exists in a more useful form on the web. Keep on the basis of the helpful changes already made. ~~But w~~With respect to both the nominator and to the comment above, I'm not sure that the grounds for deletion are the correct ones. A great many articles in Wikipedia are founded initially on a single source and personal knowledge. Anyone writing an article about a ___location they know does and should draw on their own knowledge if only to ensure that they have a logical and coherent content. And contrary to the comment above, the information will almost certainly be verifiable even if not necessarily readily accessible. The topic could be notable in that there is a lot of interest in the history of cinema buildings in towns and cities in Britain, at least. But I would suggest to Elrooj that he or she expand on their comment on the talk page that the finished page is not what I intended and asks for advice. AJHingston (talk) 11:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added more information to start addressing the articles weaknesses. Just a start and is very much work in progress. More references now included. Hull, hell & happiness (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No satisfactory reason to delete is provided as essay format is expected of our articles and provision of a source is a good thing, not a bad. The article is capable of further improvement as the topic is notable and it is our editing policy to do so. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No good reason to delete. The article needs some work doing on it but there are areas for expansion into a useful article. The National Picture House building is one notable entry that could be expanded on as it is thought to be the last remaining unchanged civilian building bombed in WW2. Keith D (talk) 13:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Excessive citations from one source and a number of subjective opinions, but if a list of cinemas in a town now would be considered encyclopaedic, then so would a list of former cinemas. There is a case for heavily pruning this article and merging it somewhere else, but it's not quite material for outright deletion. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment Sources certianly exist. There is Robert Curry "Last complete performance : in memory of Hull’s cinemas" book.©Geni 19:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that, initially, I could only find one major reference source. Other contributors/editors are now starting to correct that weakness. Today I came across, and added, a further reference source - "Social Institutions|British History Online" - which details more than the cinemas I had originally listed (from memory). Two printed/publishes works have been inserted into References. This is a work in progress. To Orange Mike, I would say that I began the entry and then realised I needed references - and found these were scarce. I repeat - it's my first attempt at creating an entry, but it is NOT all from one source.Elrooj (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. An article with local interest that can be considered to be encyclopaedic. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 12:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - needs some cleanup of style, and tidying of refs (have done a bit), but there's no valid reason to delete. PamD (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Big Dom 16:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NBA Draft Combine Whole Body Strength Test

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

Failed to find a single reference to this (at least under this name). Orange Mike | Talk 01:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is unsourced and is not entirely clear. There is no proof of notability, and all it is is an isolated body of text. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 05:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to NBA Draft Combine. That article can be properly sourced Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 22:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in the article is verifiable. I'm pretty sure this is just made-up. Zagalejo^^^ 03:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spam for a future event is as good a reason as any. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 02:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boolean SAT/SMT Solver Foundational Lectures 2011

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

Obvious WP:NOT#WEBHOST violation, with a side of WP:NOBLECAUSE. Orange Mike | Talk 01:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy / transwiki - if they want to contribute to articles based on the material covered at the lectures / conference, they're welcome to do so, and if they'd like to organize it, it should be done through a page outside mainspace. If they want to write a textbook on the topic, it sounds like just the thing for wikibooks. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- reply "This Wikipedia page will act as a knowledge-base of all the lecture materials provided by over 40+ top-class researchers in SAT/SMT solver research and related areas. Lecture materials include title/abstract, lecture notes and video. Each lecturer is free to upload any relevant biographical information including, but not limited to, links to their research websites. Lecturers may also add additional materials such homework assignments, projects, and information about future research directions. This page will be maintained communally by the lecturers." There's no way to permit this casual use of us as their webhost and data storage facility. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. I have to agree with Orangey on this one. This isn't a Wikipedia article. Also I think CSD G11 may apply but instead of closing it that way I'm going to speedy tag it and see what another admin has to say. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Josiassen's matrix

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

Brand-new concept; way too soon to see whether it catches on. Orange Mike | Talk 01:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This Matrix fails Neo (sorry, couldn't resist, and yes, it does fail it) Dennis Brown (talk) 01:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability. This is from 2011, but the newest third party reference is from 2008. Hairhorn (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 02:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Visualistics

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

Non-notable neologism. Orange Mike | Talk 00:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just wow. The first line of the article says what the word is "supposed to mean". Bad form aside, nom is correct in the term being something someone made up recently and isn't notable, common or much of anything else at this point. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BALL, Dennis Brown and nom. —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 02:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a poorly written unreferenced article on a non-notable neologism. We need not have it. LadyofShalott 16:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NOTICE - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medical Visualistics. I also just restored all the AfD and other notices, which the s.p.a. author had removed. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)--Orange Mike | Talk 20:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of 1st century B.C.E. Muslim history

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

Invented topic; Islam is based on the prophecies of Muhammad, who stated he began receiving communications from God (via the archangel Gabriel) in the 7th century, 800 years later. This seems to be some sort of odd revisionist WP:POVFORK. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It doesn't bother me that the subject at hand is 800 years before Muhammad (The Koran itself covers some), but it does seem to serve little purpose than to be a povfork that is unreferenced at this stage. There is little information in the article and nothing to potentially salvage from it in its current state. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We've suggested userfication or something but the article creator doesn't seem to want to engage. Nobody else can really work on it because it's not clear what the article is meant to be or what it's supposed to be about. No prejudice against creating an an article that has some referenced research on whatever it is that mainstream Muslim theology maintains occurred before Muhammed (if that is indeed what the article is supposed to be about - not clear), but this ain't it, and we can't just leave it hanging around in this state. Delete. Herostratus (talk) 06:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We should accomodate two kinds of articles about religions - factual historical articles that document the development of religions, and articles that describe their beliefs. A pre-Mohammed article about Islam would not fit with the former, but would fit with the latter. But this is really neither one nor the other - it's kind of documenting a part of Muslim belief, but it's also linked into a factual historical article. Clearly Islam accepts some OT and NT accounts (I don't know enough to know the extent), but this set of selected events seems unacceptably arbitrary. I think something that documents a timeline of Islamic beliefs would be good, showing that Muslims accept pre-Mohammed events as being part of Islam. But this article is a long way from being it, and in the described circumstances I think it's best deleted. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete classic povfork -- Y not? 20:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fork/ synthesis.--Yopie (talk) 14:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax. POV is mildly putting it; it's plain WP:OR. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Coment. It's now been turned into a list of events in the 1st century BCE, with no apparent connection to Islam. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it's now a completely different article from the article that was nominated for deletion... which is a little odd. It's one thing to add sources etc. to an article under AfD, but to completely rewrite it to something else? This presents rather a moving target... I hate to throw away all that work, but... the article would need to be renamed to something like just Timeline of 1st century B.C.E. history or something, but don't we probably already have an article like that? I note that it includes an event in Ireland for instance, so it's pretty broad... not sure what to make of this. Herostratus (talk) 18:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I see that 1st century#Events is pretty much the same as this article (but more complete, although also not referenced)... do we want two copies of the same thing? I would say no, and am not changing my Delete vote. Herostratus (talk) 18:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've reverted it to the article we're actually discussing here. An IP had blanked it as the dates were all unsourced, which was pre-empting what we are trying to decide here, and then added some valid 1st century events which we already have elsewhere and which were not related to Islam, so that was definitely not a valid version for this article. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - And he blanked it again, accusing me of vandalism. This is the same editor who has been blanking it right from the start and refuses to wait for discussion to achieve a consensus -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I already nominated it for deletion before but wasn't bothered to go through the whole unautomated process Pass a Method talk 10:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a nonsense "article" with no sources and no explanation as to even what it means. Corvus cornix_talk 03:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article does not meet general notability criteria.--יום יפה (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; while merge might be an option, just about all of the referenced and therefore mergeable information covers scandals involving officials which, in some cases, don't even involve the Iranian education system. Ironholds (talk) 11:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Corruption of science and education in Iran

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

It's basically an essay and has insurmountable NPOV and OR issues. A reasonable, balanced article could be created at "Science in Iran" or "Education in Iran" (etc.) or the criticisms of Iran could be merged into the main Iran article. Nominated for PROD but the article creator removed the tag. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. ——Tom Morris (talk) 00:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The title makes it perfectly clear that this article has no potential to be anything other than an NPOV issue as long as it exists. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The information provided is to some extend reliable, however the title is problematic, I think it should be merged with Higher education in Iran. The information is well sourced. I would not like to see it deleted for one. Rmzadeh ► 02:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a POV catastrophe. The Islamic regime of Iran, relying on the oil revenue, is viewed as one of the most corrupted states in the world. Carrite (talk) 15:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That comment about their corruption is sourced to a major newspaper, so its fine. Many reliable sources quote the organization that determines the corruption level of countries. There is an article called Corruption in Iran. Dream Focus 19:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Higher education in Iran. That's where there should be mention of what is going on there. I don't see anything about science in the article. If information is found on them outlawing scientific research, banning scientific books, rounding up scholars and researchers, book burnings, or whatnot, then an article can be made for that. Dream Focus 19:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support the merge to Higher education in Iran, as was already accomplished. However, I would suggest moving the new subsection "Fraud, Ideology and Politics in higher education" into its own section down to "Iran's Brain Drain problem", and turn the latter into a subsection of the former. A hatnote on the issue should also be added to Corruption in Iran. Nageh (talk) 08:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all for the comments. Although I agree this entry is slightly shorter than a full wikipedia article, I don't think it must be totally removed. I found most of the comments fair and contructive so decided to merge this to Higher education in Iran as a subsection of "Iran's Brain Drain problem" with the new name "Fraud, Ideology and Politics in higher education". Further suggestions and comments are appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aramian21 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it's not just length, and it's not that you haven't added sources. The problem is that the article as written plainly has an axe to grind against the current Iranian regime. The article fails to demonstrate its "thesis", that the current Iranian regime's corruption has led to academic corruption. You've cited articles saying that Iran is corrupt, you've cited examples of academic corruption in Iran, but you have not demonstrated that a body of neutral, third-party scholars have identified a clear relationship between the two, and an overall trend of academic corruption in Iran, not just a series of cases. If you're an academic and want to research that, that's fine, but Wikipedia is not a place to publish Original Research. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As others have stated, this article is full of POV and always will be per the title. I oppose merging as the article contains nothing of value that is not in other existing articles. Passionless -Talk 18:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with education in Iran.--RaptorHunter (talk) 00:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Deverell

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

Fails WP:FILMMAKER. Although he was nominated in BAFTA awards, he still fails this: The person's work has (not) won significant critical attention. There is no significant press coverage either. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 20:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 19 March 2011 (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 March 2011 (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) 00:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Such a borderline case, but after doing a lot of digging around, just can't find significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The one "keep" opinion is not compatible with consensus, as represented in the cited guideline, that merely being a published author is not sufficient for inclusion. Sandstein 07:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley Lynch

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

Vanity article about obscure, non-notable writer. Only Google hits seem to be to this page, his blog, company page, LinkedIn, etc. Nothing in Google News. —Chowbok ☠ 01:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 18 March 2011 (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) 00:05, 25 March 2011 (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) 00:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Has had work published. good enough for strong keep as per author.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:AUTHOR, simply having a book published isn't enough to establish notability. Especially nowadays, when anybody can get a book custom-published for less than $50 at places like Lulu.com.—Chowbok ☠ 17:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:AUTHOR is fairly clear that this page is far from notability. Kansan (talk) 00:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An author is someone that has released a book or similar... this person has done that.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read WP:AUTHOR? It makes it clear that having written a book is not enough to merit a Wikipedia article. Kansan (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – BabbaQ, please show me where merely being an author or publishing a book is part of the criteria for inclusion into Wikipedia. Item #3 of WP:AUTHOR requires, the book be "a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." ttonyb (talk) 15:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 fairly clear. Note the last two !votes were added by the same IP at the same time. Courcelles 11:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cort and Fatboy

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

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 March 18. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been substantially revised since an initial deletion in February of 2011. It now contains sources from several wide-circulation newspapers including the Oregonian, in addition to a story from the Associated Press. The show is nationally-recognized and more than worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. Stumptowner (talk) 10:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as subject as a podcast lacks the in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources required to meet the notability standard. Criteria #1 of WP:WEB begins: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." (emphasis mine) There are a couple of sources here about the duo's hosting of movie and TV screenings, including that oft-mentioned AP story where they're third or fourth billed in a story about fans hosting screenings of the Lost finale, but none in-depth about their show itself. - Dravecky (talk) 11:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The lack of URLs in most of the references made it initially more difficult to analyze the sourcing or for a reader to easily verify the claims made in the article. I've remedied that, where possible. In doing so, I've found that the two stories in The Oregonian mention Cort and Fatboy only in passing. The first story is in-depth about another show host with "KUFO's afternoon hosts, Cort and Fatboy, also were let go Friday." the only mention of the duo in the piece. The second story talks about a local Lebowski Fest and only briefly mentions Cort and Fatboy as hosts. - Dravecky (talk) 11:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 26 March 2011 (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) 00:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It isn't just local news covering them. Business Week mentions them and talks to one of them. [28] Dream Focus 19:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC

Comment: A mention is not sufficient to establish notability, even in a notable publication. The Business Week article says they hosted a Lost finale party but does not discuss the program in any way. - Dravecky (talk) 03:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are notable enough to be mentioned, so they are notable. Other reliable sources speak of them as well, for various reasons. Dream Focus 03:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not just local news coverage. Proven---BabbaQ (talk) 14:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources are trivial coverage at best. Jarkeld (talk) 23:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No the sources are OK. No reason for deletion anyway.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 1. Cascadia.FM and cortandfatboy links are not appropriate as they are 1st person (the subject or their primary host). Other "references" consist of open blog entries, passing mentions to the fact that they were unceremoniously booted out, and other unreliable sources. The claimed buisnessweek piece is an Associated Press report so it can show up in 40 different locations with the exact same wording, but doesn't substantially talk about the article in principle.Hasteur (talk) 15:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still, not in my opinion a reason for deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BabbaQ, please link to the Policy document supporting your opinion. Otherwise all your opinion is WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:IDHT Hasteur (talk) 18:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PEOPLE states: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." These guys are thus notable. Having a radio program for years is what they are notable for, not their website. One of the deletes mentions the guidelines for webpages for reasons unknown. These guys get coverage for their radio show, web show, themselves, and their parties. A major city newspaper covers their events regularly. They are seen as notable enough that Wired magazine even mentions them. The guideline for entertainers and other people also states "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". The fact that a major magazine as well as others mention them at all, counts towards their notability. Dream Focus 20:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about the show, not the two people. WP:PEOPLE does not apply. Jarkeld (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The two people are the show, so its the same thing in this case. Dream Focus 21:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." (even assuming that WP:PEOPLE were the relevant criteria) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: little evidence of depth of third-party coverage, particularly beyond local/routine coverage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mentions do not equal coverage ArcAngel (talk) ) 00:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hats.com blog interviews Bobby Fatboy Roberts and discusses show as well as hats. [29] Kudiew 19:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I changed your sig to be your name not mine. I think that's what you wanted it to look like. Dream Focus 01:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cinematical has an extensive interview with Bobby Fatboy Roberts about his music remix albums [30] 19:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.51.70.18 (talk)

Are you the same guy from above? Dream Focus 01:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Holeshot (band)

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

non-notable band CTJF83 05:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2011 (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) 00:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator, does not appear to be notable. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 06:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kepong#Schools. (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 18:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The International School @ ParkCity

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

This school has plans to be a full High School (children aged 2 to 18 years) and would at that point meet the criteria of WP:NHS. As the article received a PROD I have raised it for wider discussion as though in the future such an article would be covered by NHS, at the moment it appears to be running as a type of prep school (2 to 13 years) and even then is only planned to open for the first time in a few months time (September 2011). There are several options, it can be claimed that the school is not yet in operation and so fails WP:CRYSTAL while at the same time it can be claimed that the school is probably licensed as a High School and the article should be treated as such. I am bringing the article for discussion as I am not aware of there being a firm consensus on such situations and have no strong view myself. Fæ (talk) 07:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 07:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 07:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect a brief mention to Kepong#Schools. Surprisingly we don't have a page on Desa Park City. When someone creates one that would be a better target. If the school was going to open as a high school this autumn then I would say keep the article since it would not be sensible to merge or delete the page only to recreate it a few months down the line. However, the planning indicates that the high school threshold is over three years away. Consequently, I can't make a sensible case for retaining a standalone article and a summary merge is the way to go. TerriersFan (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The school WILL have a secondary school when it opens in september, it will only be years 7+8 though and will then add year 9 in 2012 and a new year every year after that until it is a full "through" school from ages 2-13. As it is a new school, I am struggling to find many references, I am working on it though so would appreciate some more time to find these. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katewkl (talk • contribs) 01:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, to meet the high school standard it needs to have grade 10 students and that is not before September 2013. As everyone around here knows I would defend the article if there was a chance of it meeting consensus standards. However, that is some 2.5 years away by which time, hopefully, it will have coverage in reliable sources. TerriersFan (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2011 (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 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per precedent for nn primary and middle schools, and per WP:CRYSTAL. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; those arguing for "keep" have been unable to rebut those arguing for "delete" (although, take note Barkeep - a reliable source does not have to be about the subject, it just has to cover it in significant detail). Kudos to User:A Stop at Willoughby for his detailed and thoughtful rationale. Ironholds (talk) 12:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frankie Krainz

AfDs for this article:

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

Failed PROD. Relisting under WP:NPASR. Article does not meet notability guideline under WP:BIO, particularly those outlined under WP:CREATIVE. The subject of the article is mentioned in a variety of 3rd party source in reference to the projects he has been associated with, but has not been the subject of any in depth coverage himself. Barkeep^{Chat | $} 13:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep – Sparse article that needs more content, but it has a couple of references. ttonyb (talk) 15:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At least one of the two main references do not support notability. The article from presentmagazine.com interviews Krainze about the movie Stuck!. Krainze is not the subject of the article, the film is. The other, nextmodelmen.typepad.com reference, I am unable to view the content because it it blocked from my view, but it appears to be a modeling blog, or in its own description a "blogazine." I need to view first before judging, but I would like to know if this is a reliable source.Barkeep^{Chat | $} 15:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 26 March 2011 (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 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, MacMed^talk _stalk 18:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: morningsun article points to notability, barely.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Morning Sun article is local coverage from the article subject's hometown. Barkeep^{Chat | $} 04:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 08:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note Due to concerns voiced at my talk page over my possibly premature/incorrect closure, I've reverted the keep closure and relisted the debate for a third time. Acather96 (talk) 08:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. I've looked at the references again and this has been a very difficult decision to make, but we have to reach a consensus so I don't think this subject is truly notable on the face of the type and quality of the existing sources. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a borderline case, but I can't find much of anything that would establish Krainz as notable under WP:N or even WP:CREATIVE. His play, "Goodbye, Kansas," and the festival at which it's being performed have garnered some coverage (Kansas City Star, NPR), and I found a couple of reviews of "Stuck!" but little to nothing about Krainz himself. Unlike Barkeep, I would say the interview in Present Magazine counts towards significant coverage. But the Morning Sun article doesn't, in my opinion, because it's just a human interest story in a small, local paper. In short, these sources are not enough. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marc-Andre Rayle

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

Non-notable magician. Won a couple of awards, and that appears to be it. References - at least the ones in English - merely list him with nothing said about him. (One sources features a link for his name - which links to this very article!) Nothing about him in press that I can find. Sorry, just not enough to go on from reliable sources. (Contested speedy.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 26 March 2011 (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 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient significant coverage that I can find in reliable, secondary sources, the state-level award doesn't quite reach the usual bar. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 20:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 08:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Snap!

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

Non-notable indie band, fails all the criteria of WP:BAND. Only a single extant article that might qualify as a reliable source amidst the bloggers and Facebook "sources." Their only albums are self-released, they've never toured, there is no national rotation, no work of theirs has ever charted. Article substantively unimproved in nearly two years, reliable sources lacking after nearly six years. PROD removed. Ravenswing 20:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BAND, unless better coverage in reliable sources can be provided. Robofish (talk) 01:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources in the article aren't sufficient to establish notability, and I am unable to find any others. -- Whpq (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This band has been a featured artist on two separate radio stations (CBC Radio 3 and The Zone), they have had articles written about them in 4 separate publications (including the Calgary Sun, The Martlet, Victoria News and Examiner.com) and one of their tunes was used for a RadioShack commercial. That's enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Robman94 (talk) 19:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - CBC Radio 3 is just a band page directory entry. The content of the band bio on that site is identical to their Myspace page. The Martlet is a student newspaper. The coverage in "The Zone" is mermely rehashing press release material as the same band bio appears all over the place including last.fm. And Exmainer.com is user submitted material without the editorial oversight that we would need for it to be used as a reliable source for establishing notability. -- Whpq (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The reason the Zone created a page for the band is because they were their "Band of the Month" in April 2009. I think it's safe to assume that if the radio station made them the BOTM that they were also playing the band on the air. Likewise for CBC Radio 3. I would agree that the coverage is somewhat sparse, but it is coverage, and the Calgary Sun piece can't be challenged as a WP:RS. I have since found out that the band has broken up, which helps explain why no sources can be found post-2009. Robman94 (talk) 22:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. CBC Radio is not a miror of Myspace or any other site. The citation meets WP:RS. With the CBC Radio 3 cite, I'm not claiming WP:BAND #11, but rather WP:BAND #1 much like Allmusic per Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Resources. This citation [31], the Calgary Sun (a Quebecor company owning many newspapers in Canada) here [32], and this cite [33] means the article meets WP:BAND criterion 1. I tried fixing the dead link for The Victoria News. Unfortunately, the WP:WAYBACK has not yet archived the page here: [34]. What press release is User:Whpq referring? I'd like to read it; it may be suitable for addition to the article using Template:Cite press release. Argolin (talk) 23:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - The CBC3 band page's bio says "Since a blurry chance meeting involving a red union-suit onesy and a smattering of instruments, Victoria's Oh Snap! have been enthusiastically melding genres..." Compare this with the bio from their Myspace page which says "Since a blurry chance meeting involving a red union-suit onesy and a smattering of instruments, Victoria’s Oh Snap! have been enthusiastically melding genres..." It is word for word identical. Now look at the Zone material which tells us"Victoria's Oh Snap! is on a mission: to bring booty-shakin' rock to the masses!..." as compared with something on last.fm which tells us that "Victoria, Canada’s Oh Snap! is on a mission—to bring booty-shakin’ rock to the masses!..." I agree that the Calgary Sun is a good source, and the there is one other piecve of local coverage in the Vic Advocate which isn't live. But that's all, and I do not consider that sufficient coverage to establish the band as notable. -- Whpq (talk) 01:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply - Hi Whpg, if you have an offline article on the band, would you please add it as a citation on the article page. Regarding whether the content of the CBC3 page mirrors the myspace page, in my opinion that is irrelevant because it's not there to satisfy #1 of WP:BAND, the CBC3 citation, and the Zone citation, are there to show that the band was featured on those radio stations which satisfies #11 of WP:BAND. Robman94 (talk) 16:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - My apologies, but I got the name of the new sources jumbled up. It's the Victoria news already in the article. As for the radio play, The Zone is a local Victoria station, and so it does not meet #11 of the band criteria. And CBC3 is also not a major raddio network. -- Whpq (talk) 12:02, 5 April 2011 (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 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: Looks unlikely to pass WP:MUSIC, most of the sources seem to be social networking sites or schedule mentions in the local paper. -MrFizyx (talk) 07:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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