Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 February 23

< 22 February	24 February >

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Star Parker

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

One-time political candidate, failing WP:POLITICIAN, a syndicated columnist, author and co-host of The View for one day. I don't believe all of this combined meets WP:GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fails WP:POLITICIAN, but nonetheless has more than enough secondary sources on google to pass WP:BASIC. Article should be cleaned up and expanded. Lionel (talk) 00:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She got only 22.7% of the vote so she certainly fails WP:POLITICIAN. As for those "secondary sources" mentioned by Lionel, I'm not seeing them. Google News Archive finds things BY her, not about her. She writes a syndicated column, but that's not enough by itself to satisfy WP:AUTHOR. Her books are published by Thomas Nelson, a Bible publisher which also has a self-publishing arm; self-published books fail WP:AUTHOR. Of the six references listed at the article, two are self-referential including her campaign website; one is just the secretary of state for the election results; the "Value Voters Summit" link is to the VVS webpage and does not mention her; the "KTTU" link is to the station's webpage, not to the article cited; the only thing that is actually a secondary source about her is the Christianity Today story, which is behind a registration wall but does appear to be about her. That alone does not add up to significant secondary coverage, so she fails WP:N based on what I am seeing. --MelanieN (talk) 00:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsuccessful political candidate who fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Kittybrewster ☎ 08:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:POLITICIAN, WP:AUTHOR, WP:GNG; can be WP:USERFY if article creator so wishes, if additional reliable source references can be found to support move into the main article space, so be it. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:16, 1 March 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf of Magdeburg

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

The article uses but one reference, no inline citations. A google search turns up no evidence of the existence of the legend described in the article. Almost 30 years of living in Magdeburg, I have never encountered the story or anything similar. Madcynic (talk) 23:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I rooted around considerably on Google. It's not mentioned in Grimm's Sagen, nor in Wilhelm Hertz' Der Werwolf: Beitrag zur Sagengeschichte, nor in Wilhelm Leinung and Rudolf Stumvoll's Aus Magdeburgs Sage und Geschichte. It does appear at length in Barb Karg's The Girl’s Guide to Werewolves and is mentioned in Konstantinos' Werewolves: The Occult Truth, but neither of these is an RS and both postdate the Wikipedia article (2009, 2010). It is however "A Lycanthropous Brook" in Elliott O'Donnell's Werwolves (2007 reissue of 1912 book, link goes to first page of story), where the hero is Count van Beber and his wife's name is Hilda. Those are also the versions of the names in Konstantinos, so I think that was his source. O'Donnell also has the fatal drink occur in the Harz Mountains, so there may be Harz folklore behind the story; but the total absence in folklore books makes me think fiction and since it isn't famous as fiction, but has merely apparently reached fakelore status, it doesn't meet the notability standards.--Yngvadottir (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete couldn't find it searching auf Deutsch, concur with Yngvadottir that it probably isn't folklore. MLA (talk) 21:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Yngvadottir. Edward321 (talk) 14:13, 1 March 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kavan honarmand

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

Blatant autobio with no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete with extreme prejudice. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as the author has removed general maintenance tags without addressing concerns about conflict of interest and autobiography. Its an undisguised attempt for self-promotion. --Visik (talk) 03:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - autobiography without any reasonable evidence of notability Zachlipton (talk) 03:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 11:09, 25 February 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 lost the match, 40-love (delete). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Wegner

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

Obvious advertisement. This self-proclaimed coach did nothing that is notable (didn't coach any notable player). User:Eztennisswing^contribs only registered to create this article, no other activity (strengthens the suspicion for advertising Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 22:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim of notabiliy. MLA (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 02:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have found many hits for this man in Google... but, on a closer look, they are all promotions and advertisments. I have not found any non-promotional mention of him. I made a search at Diario Olé, the most important sports newspaper in Argentina, and there isn't a single result. If an Argentine sportsman was notable, this newspaper would have had said something about him sometime. MBelgrano (talk) 01:07, 1 March 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 per WP:BLPPROD, as no reliable sources had been added within the ten days after the BLP PROD tag was added. Once someone has a reliable source, they should request undeletion at WP:REFUND. If Mr. Jones is as notable as those below say, this should not take very long. Stifle (talk) 10:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Z. Jones

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

BLP article with no reliable references (subject's own website and Facebook page only); repeated removal of BLPPROD tag by author despite warnings and explanations. GILO ^{ACCIDENT &}_EMERGENCY 20:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of references can be found. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 21:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The person seems notable, although the article itself may not cite the correct sources to confirm this; Google returns approximately 438,000 results regarding the query "Noah Z. Jones", while not all of them are reliable, they all seem to relatively contain the same content regarding this person. Angelo ♫ 22:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above and subject seems notable. Baseball Watcher 22:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CREATIVE point 3. He is the creator of multiple well known works in the form of the TV series Fish Hooks and Almost Naked Animals, which have been covered in reliable sources such as Variety, Animation Magazine, Animation Insider, etc. -- Whpq (talk) 14:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After seven days, it's still, as the nominator said, a BLP article with no reliable references.... Mandsford 00:56, 3 March 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. BigDom talk 16:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Wilton

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

Completely unsourced BLP. The only external link is to his own website. I cannot find any evidence that this person meets our notability criteria. --B (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is not properly cited, and the external link is not very credible, as it seems like a personal website. By running a Google search on the query "Nicholas Wilton", I see little to no sources that show this person is considered as notable. Angelo ♫ 22:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Judging by the creator's other contributions, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that it's a vanity page. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. Unable to verify information in independent reliable sources. Fages (talk) 12:22, 2 March 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. Ironholds (talk) 02:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xim3

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

Contested PROD. Article about a non-notable product. The article has had some problems with spam and copyright violations, but those issues can be solved with rewriting; what can't be solved as easily is the issue of notability. A search for sources yields only primary sources/press releases and a few trivial mentions in tech blogs. If anybody finds more in the way of significant coverage in reliable sources, it should be kept, otherwise deleted until it becomes notable. bonadea contributions talk 17:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the XIM3 article is about a very notable product. It is the first of its type to provide completely accurate game play and is allowed by microsoft. It also incorporates a technology of "smart translators" which is able to create an exact 1v1 ration between mouse movement and controller movement. The statement that it has a "few trivial mentions" is an understatement. It is being mentioned all over the web and popularity is increasing by the minute. The current community on the forum is 8471 users . . . That is just on the developers forum. I believe this is more than a non-notable product.Webb.joshua (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, what you need, then, is to find reliable sources that demonstrate such notability - sources from independent third parties that discuss the product with more than just a passing mention. Have a look at WP:N to understand what notability means in a Wikipedia context, and WP:RS to learn about the kinds of sources you need. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://hothardware.com/News/XIM3-Adapter-Enables-Keyboard--Mouse-Control-On-Xbox-360/

http://www.engadget.com/2010/12/01/xim3-final-hardware-revealed-coming-soon-to-give-an-unfair-adva/

http://www.geek.com/articles/games/xim3-brings-high-precision-mouse-keyboard-controls-to-the-xbox-360-2011027/

http://thetechjournal.com/electronics/gaming-electronics/xim3-mega-adapter.xhtml

http://www.coolest-gadgets.com/20101220/xim-technologies-xim3-adapter/

Do any of these count? And if so, do I put them on here? I will continue my search . . .this was all just from the first page of google searching . . . Webb.joshua (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully someone will be able to evaluate them for you before too long - I'm afraid I'm a bit too busy to do so myself right now. But while we have your attention here, please take note of the warnings on your Talk page, and stop filling the article with a crapflood of promotional unencyclopedic trivia, like personal comments ("I personally know tons of gamers who..."), a minute-by-minute account of the store's opening, and the "8471 members and counting" stuff about the community. That is just NOT how an encyclopedia is written. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is my first time doing this. I am now adding "relevant" information. . . . keyword being informationWebb.joshua (talk) 18:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding the sources listed above. Those are the ones I found when I looked for sources before nominating for deletion; to my mind, none of the sources meets the primary criteria regarding depth of coverage; these are short notices in various tech blogs, saying, basically, "Here is this gadget that seems to do this but we haven't been able to get hold of it". That doesn't really cut it as significant coverage - and for at least some of the sources there does not seem to be independent coverage either (thetechjournal.com for instance simply reprints text written by the company, and engadget.com quotes the XIM3 development blog.) --bonadea contributions talk 09:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have looked at all of the offered sources, and I agree with Bonadea's assessment of them. I see no evidence of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:14, 24 February 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) 18:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This product is just finishing its open beta and is about to go completely public. They are hiring a PR person and it will be all over the web soon. I dont know what you actually plan on deleting it, but trust me, there will be plenty of web coverage for this product before too much longer. Webb.joshua (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, though, Wikipedia policy is to host articles for things after they have attained coverage, not on someone's trust that they will do soon. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with regret - I appreciate Webb.joshua is trying hard to create a good article, but the sources just don't show notability to me. If it is deleted, I'd suggest userfying it so it can be resurrected if and when it does attain notability. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ive saved all the info so that if it does get deleted, in a few weeks when things sky rocket, I will repost it. Thanks for being easy to work with and dealing with my noobieness on Wikipedia lol.Webb.joshua (talk) 18:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANDDDD, I did the name wrong, its XIM3 lol. SO if it does get deleted, ill get to do the name right next time! Webb.joshua (talk) 18:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can I suggest when you try again that you put it on a subpage of your userpage and ask a regular for advice before loading it into mainspace? I know all the editors commenting here are willing to help people (possibly not within 20 mins of the request being posted, but as soon as we can - bearing in mind that we are leading double or treble lives...). Peridon (talk) 18:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once I have it added to one of my pages, how would I go about asking one of you all for help? It it helps at all, I work as an IT guy so I know what I am doing when it comes to computers. Just getting used to the interface of Wikipedia and how to use it(besides just searching for information).Webb.joshua (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just leave a message on our talkpages. To spot a regular editor, look at their talkpage - you'll tell by the messages. If they're all red links and complaints about what they've done, no, go elsewhere. Or make a note of us and type user:(name) in the search box. (This won't be where it is on mine - I still prefer the old skin.) If not sure how to do a subpage, just ask. Peridon (talk) 21:46, 25 February 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.

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

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

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

The result was delete. No prejustice against recreation if it becomes a hit or cult classic. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beacon (video game)

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

Small non-notable computer game. Captain Hindsight (talk) 17:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Captain Hindsight Skullbird11 (talk) 02:59, 24 February 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) 18:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in relaible sources. Some mentions in blogs is not sufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:44, 25 February 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) 10:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Springs Adventist Academy

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

Non-notable private elementary school. Longstanding consensus on Wikipedia is that elementary schools are not entitled to an article unless they demonstrate notability. Previously prodded and deprodded. Abductive (reasoning) 15:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:ORG, the applicable notability guideline. Could be redirected to the parent organization, the local Seventh Day Adventist organization. Edison (talk) 17:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nomination is correct.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:57, 3 March 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) 10:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David M. Cameron

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

Still unsourced after 5 years. Little to no biographical coverage. Gigs (talk) 15:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A worthy individual doing a good job but not encyclopaedia material. (Had he played a couple of games of football professionally, might be another story...) Peridon (talk) 16:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep pending further evidence. How thorough a search for sources was done WP:BEFORE this nomination? We judge not by whether there are references in the article, but by whether sources exist somewhere. He was a "senior advisor" to the government, then a full professor and department chair. Usually this is the result of a career of scholarship , publication, and distinguished service, and not a random happening. Perhaps someone in his field could evaluate his results at Google Scholar :[1] and Google books: [2]. See [3] which seems to demonstrate notability" member of numerous academic advisory councils and boards" etc. Edison (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, there is now a source to his time with Dalhousie University and an award he won. The source is from the university, however, so it isn't completely independent. J04n(talk page) 22:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable professor. MLA (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The sources in the various Gsearches confirm that he existed and did some decent work in academic administration, but the Gscholar h-index is 7 over a full career, which suggests that he's not more notable than the average professor. Ray^Talk 19:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He seems to have been more active as an administrator and consultant than as a researcher, but not at a high enough level to establish notability that way. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:19, 3 March 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. JohnCD (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ABC of Sex Education for Trainables

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

Doesn't seem to be notable at all. No sources cited. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 20:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Note that this is the second AFD for this article. The prior AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/THE ABC OF SEX EDUCATION FOR TRAINABLES was a move from an all caps title to its current title. -- Whpq (talk) 14:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 17:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This was a serious educational effort when it was made, and mentions of it (sometimes under the variant title ABC's of Sex Education for Trainable Persons) do show up in assorted books about sex education for the mentally impaired. A Google Books search[4] is, as usual, constrained because many of the books are available only in snippet views, and for the most part the mentions seem to be limited to brief listings, for example [5][6][7][8][9] and more listings just like this. Google Scholar turned up nothing else. The film was exhibited at UCLA's Hammer Museum in 2007, for whatever that may be worth.[10]--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Leaning to keep~~ Keep (upped from "leaning" per improvements and sources now added) We need someone who can look to see the content of those snippet views. Gonna be tough to find online coverage of a short educational film that predated the internet by 20+ years. However, even 36 years after initial release, it is receiving some sort of acknowledgement... LAist calls it a "classic" [11] and DVD Talk refers to it as a "marvel".[12] In it being re-released as part of a retrospective compilation of other outdated educational shorts as part of Fantoma's The Education Archives (2001), it is be referred to among "The best of the bunch".[13] In a review that addresses that scientific consideration of how to deal the film's topic has changed, and 31 years after its release, Ruthless Reviews addresses the film in detail.[14] I believe it is quite possible that through further research, the 1975 coverage of this film can be brought forward, as well as modern critique of its outmoded message, and the article improved. If editors have issue with it being improved while in mainspace, I would not be at all adverse to it being incubated for a short while. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If deletion fails, I would support Incubating it, although I don't think that the passing mentions somehow make it notable... _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 02:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From available sources, it is clear that this film, outdated now as it may be, was once the educational teaching method for those it terms "trainables". That the methodology taught at that time has fallen into disrepute now does not lessen its prior notability. And quite rare that any pree-intenet short educational documentary might receive even a passing mention after 36 years, so its being postively mentioned, even if briefly, is reason to think more might be found. And as atated above, we need someone with access the full text of what is hinted at by the many snippet views found through a google book search, as its making it into the enduring record speaks volumes toward its notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but just because it was in wide use does not make it notable. Not every sex-ed video even if widely used is notable. Should I write an article about the short films Planned Parenthood produces now for sex-ed classes? I bet there are a lot of school newspapers that talk about them... not every video produced is notable. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 07:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Schmidt. Lionel (talk) 22:47, 15 February 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, Stifle (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete - Trivial blurbs in some sources, while other longer reviews (ruthlessreviews.com?) do not appear to be from reliable sources. Tarc (talk) 15:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it seems notable for something from the pre-internet era, HOWEVER, what is the basis for claiming that this video has anything to do with Planned Parenthood? The video itself doesn't have that in the credits, IMDB doesn't say it, the DVD Talk review doesn't say it (and, in fact, credits it to "Fantoma Films"). I can only find sources derived from Wikipedia or Google Video that attribute it to Planned Parenthood. --B (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Noting this message at my talk page where another user states that the closing credits do say "members and staff of the Ronald Bruce Nippon Assoc., and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania". --B (talk) 13:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This video fits in the category of films that were filmed in a era with different sensabilities then today, similar to The Birth of a Nation. They are a part of the past and should be preserved as such, even if they may be embarrassing to the people or organizations that may have produced them. This is just as notable as the tons of other vids and D-rated movies listed on WP. This would be extrememly useful for people tracking different methods for dealing with sexuality through time.Marauder40 (talk) 15:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourcing improvements by User:MichaelQSchmidt help establish that this has enough coverage to sustain an article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:46, 3 March 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WorldVentures

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

I created this article but I now feel the company might not be notable enough, especially since the few reliables sources we had are now dead links. None of the current sources appears to be reliable as they are mostly press releases and such, or are not about WorldVentures. Besides, the article is now only edited by paid editors and single-purpose accounts with a clear conflict of interest. Laurent (talk) 06:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It would seem that a company to near $100 million in annual revenue within its first 4 years deserves a page. Furthermore, surely the accusations of illegal corporate structure (Pyramid Scheme) and the ensuing controversy only increases notoriety. They are rumored to be the number one travel broker for both Carnival Cruise lines and Royal Caribbean(to be added if and only if appropriate sources are found). Additionally Dr Charles King, who teaches Network Marketing at the University of Illinois at Chicago, proclaimed WorldVentures an industry leader in travel.I have made every effort to comply with Wikipedia's standards and have posted on reliable sources talk page as well as Dreadstar who placed the initial lock on the article. Current Sources are industry specific published magazines (which also feature similar NM giants Avon Products, AMWAY, Mary Kay. Better Business Bureau and a press release I know little about(nor did I add). I intend to dramatically improve the content but, as I am still learning, the current page is a bit sparse. I realize I am new and my opinion may not carry much weight but I am no paid editor - However, this is my first edit which is why it took me so long to find sources. I have had this Wikipedia account for years and not made an attempt to edit anything so clearly I could not have created this for single-purpose editing. In being a new editor I only hope to learn how to better present topics as I have always been a fan of Wikipedia. Crossfiregk (talk) 07:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Crossfiregk[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 7 February 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) 00:56, 14 February 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, Stifle (talk) 15:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Crossfiregk. Peridon (talk) 16:20, 23 February 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. G7 Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Akhtiar Mohammed (Guantanamo detainee 969)

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. The sources in the article are unreliable primary sources that do not count towards notability. No "Significant coverage" in reliable secondary sources as far as i can see from my search. Has the notability tag since December 2009. IQinn (talk) 15:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC) IQinn (talk) 15:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As stated, the sources are primary, not secondary, sources, and the entire article smacks of original research.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 15:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failure to meet any threshold for notability. Can we sweep through article-pace for any "Guantanamo detainee" dribble? The whole lot needs to go. Tarc (talk) 15:39, 23 February 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mi-case

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

Almost no content, reliable sources, or anything for that matter. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Would qualify for A7 CSD easily on the lack of notability. Unfortunately it is outside the subject scope of A7. So here we are. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-- per above. --E♴ (talk) 15:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:SNOW. It's not notable. One could also argue for G11, as I don't see any other reason for creating this article other than to promote the subject. --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If this was supposed to be spam, they did a very bad job of it. Article is almost content free. No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable Superman7515 (talk) 00:29, 2 March 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 to Bachelor of Ayurveda, Medicine and Surgery. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Graduate of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery

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

Blatant WP:PROMO. No notability. bender235 (talk) 13:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bachelor of Ayurveda, Medicine and Surgery. --Pontificalibus (talk) 14:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bachelor of Ayurveda, Medicine and Surgery. Salih (talk) 16:22, 23 February 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. -- Lear's Fool 14:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anil K. Mehta

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

Likely autobiography by MadhavaDenhaag (talk · contribs). Does not meet WP:ACADEMIC. bender235 (talk) 13:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Gscholar search is confusing, as there appears to be a biochemist of the same name. I can't determine for sure whether they're the same person, but it seems unlikely, as this bio is of somebody doing "traditional" Indian medicine, which is rather different from biochemistry. Ray^Talk 16:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the nom that it appears to be a likely autobio, but feel that the subject may be notable. Try this search result (-facebook-wikipedia+dutch). prashanthns (talk) 08:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't care much whether it's an autobio or not, but the fact that sources cannot be found is damning. prashanthns' search linked above gives 72 Ghits (several of them about other persons with the same name), none of them showing notability, as far as I can see. --Crusio (talk) 11:59, 26 February 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. JohnCD (talk) 13:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Murphy (Irish Socialist Party politician)

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

Fails WP:Politician, is not notable. He isn't even a county councillor anymore and the article is poorly referenced.

Exiledone (talk) 13:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Exiledone. --Badvibes101 (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I favor the lowest possible bar regarding inclusion of active politicians, political parties, and their youth sections. In addition to notability gained through election, worthy of note as a leader of an emerging political party. Carrite (talk) 20:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Firstly he isnt even a leader as you'd define him. Secondly I'm following the constituencies in this election he isn't even a contender in the constituency he's running in. Thirdly the ULA isn't a political party - it's a grouping or electoral alliance - they failed to get their name on the ballot paper. Finally just being a local councillor doesn't make one notable compared to Luke 'Ming' Flanagan, Richard Boyd Barrett, Maurice Quinlivan or Rotimi Adebari. Exiledone (talk) 20:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Red Hurley (talk) 10:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ex councillor; didn't make it to the Dail. --Viticulturist99 (talk) 03:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsuccessful political candidate who fails WP:POLITICIAN AND WP:GNG. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:Politician, non notable former local councillor. Snappy (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable as a politician. I wondered if he might be notable as a political activist, but a Google News search doesn't return many hits, and half of them relate directly to his unsuccessful recent candidacy. Warofdreams talk 12:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Didn't win and didn't seem to have much influence on anything during his campaign. Superman7515 (talk) 00:32, 2 March 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 deleted per G12 by Stephen (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 01:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RTI Activist

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

How-to guide for making Right to Information Act requests in India; title is a neologism. Author deleted prod notice without explanation. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability. --bender235 (talk) 15:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - fork of Right to Information Act. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete; copied from [15]. Not sure if G12 applies since it is a government website. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

G12 does indeed apply. The Indian government holds copyright over its works (other than legal judgments, legislative acts, and parliamentary committee reports). --NellieBly (talk) 20:50, 23 February 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Al twebia District

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

This appears to be a hoax. The district does not appear on the citation that was quoted (I have removed the citation, which referred to the Statoids website). The author's only contributions on English Wikipedia have been to create this article and to add the supposed district to the Administrative divisions section at Libya. Most sources list 22 districts in Libya after 2007: this would be a 23rd district. Skinsmoke (talk) 12:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax There is a place called "at Tuwaybiah" in a ___location approximately where the subject of the article is supposed to be. I can find nothing about it. However, Az Zawiyah District has three of the same neighbours as the alleged Al twebia District - in the same directions. This is not physically possible, especially as they both have coastline. The different neighbour is Az Zawiyah District, which would put Al twebia in between Az Zawiyah and Tripoli (Tarabulus). Al twebia is mentioned in places like http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art69103.asp which tells us that Libya has 22 districts, and proceeds to list 23 (I'm contacting them). Al twebia is seemingly not known to the CIA, who are a fairly reliable source, who count and list 22 districts. I think this article is a tweaked copy of Az Zawiyah District. At Tuwaybiah seems to be a sort of semi-urban area from the Google Maps image. Peridon (talk) 17:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks made up--Antwerpen Synagoge (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. There is no mention of this district on the official Libyan government pages. --Bejnar (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems to be a hoax, no mention of this on government pages. Superman7515 (talk) 00:33, 2 March 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. Just about scrapes through based on coverage Siawase found, I think. Stifle (talk) 10:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wentworth Wooden Puzzles

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

Company article which fails the notability criteria at WP:CORP. Only reference is a newspaper advertorial from 1998. Article, which reads like an advert, was created by what seems to be a single-purpose account. Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 12:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spam. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG. Jay-Sebastos (talk) 07:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Independent piece [16] (already in the article) certainly is an in-depth RS. [17] is a very short article on an award. [18] is a BBC article where the last third is about the company. [19] uses the company in a case-study. [20] and [21] are brief mentions. I'd say the first three count toward WP:N and the last three show some wider (though minor) coverage. Hobit (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree. The first link is an advertorial. The second is for an award that doesn't warrant its own page on wikipedia and the third is about something completely different, not the company itself. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 22:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On link #1, are you claiming The Independent was paid or for this article? If so, could you show how you know this, and if not, could you clarify what you mean? On #2 the _coverage_ of the award is relevant, not having an article here doesn't really matter as far as I know. #3 _is_ relevant because the last third is solely about the company. It's about it's Internet needs and problems getting them in a rural setting, which is as good as any other context. Hobit (talk) 13:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep: I have added Hobit's links to the article's references section for future use. May have a bit of problem with the Single Purpose account (probably someone associated with the company?) But the company does seem to be mildly notable. VikÞor | Talk 00:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep: I created this wiki page, and it is the first time I have made one. I'm not sure what sort of licensing rules apply for products images (which are in the viewers interest)and it was difficult to find many references. I tried to copy other pages with licensing and format but obviously this didn't work as it is up for speedy deletion. Wentworth Wooden Puzzles are a very reputable UK company and should have a wikipedia to show this. Can anyone help edit it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukewilliam (talk • contribs) 16:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep:The first use of laser cutting in the industry must count for some notability for inclusion in Wiki. Wiki has many articles about companies such as EEstor who have not even made a product! Francis E Williams (talk) 11:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: More sources: one paragraph coverage in Newsweek[22] and The Times.[23] Siawase (talk) 15:09, 1 March 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. JohnCD (talk) 13:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Akshunnanath Mahaprabhu

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

I can find no evidence this person meets our criteria at WP:BIO. The external links don't mention him, the 2 inline citations are about a lineage. Neither name shows up in Google News, and the only book seems to be a Wikipedia clone. Dougweller (talk) 12:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, weakly, per nomination. The article describes him as a master of many different esoteric traditions of which he holds the main seat of some: for instance he is the present holder of Trika Saasanam Rajgaddi of Trika Saasanam Rajdarbar where He was given abhisekh and name Sri Guptapadacharya Trisamvidraj Muni by Srikanthanath Muni. This sounds like a claim of notability, but lacks context and is difficult to evaluate. Transliteration issues may stymie searches in the Latin alphabet. Sources, if there are any, are unlikely to be in English. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any mention of this person under any of the names or titles mentioned in the article in anything other than Wikipedia mirrors, at least not in English. If there are sources in other languages that someone can cite, I'd be willing to reconsider, but based on the comment that an anon IP posted at WP:RSN, which precipitated this AFD[24], I'm inclined to think that, assuming good faith on the part of that poster and of the various editors who built this article, that the subject of this article is/was a real person and not an outright hoax, but is not notable per Wikipedia standards. Fladrif (talk) 19:16, 23 February 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 deleted as copyright violation. This is not merely a list of "facts" (such as a list of schools sorted by no. of teachers), but the result of research by EducationWorld/C fore. Such lists are copyrighted (unless otherwise stated), since the researchers spend a considerable amount of time and money on creating them. utcursch | talk 17:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Top schools in India

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

Highly subjective subject based on a single reference. Not seeing how an article on this subject could be effectively and nuetrally maintained. RadioFan (talk) 12:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment part of the problem can be solved by moving the page to EducationWorld Indian Top Day School Survey, provided the survey itself meets the notability guidelines. I have not yet been able to establish the latter though. Yoenit (talk) 12:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 00:48, 24 February 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. JohnCD (talk) 12:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Four Square

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

Contested PROD. Unreferenced playground game that has the hallmarks of being WP:MADEUP. Someone has removed some of the more obvious indicators of madeup-ness (e.g. personal names) but with nothing more added all that is left is unremarkable. role^player 11:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-- has very little content that's not already covered at Four square. --E♴ (talk) 15:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Parts of it are copied from Four square anyway. The main difference seems to be the type of ball used, but that is stated as a variable. Peridon (talk) 18:19, 23 February 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. JohnCD (talk) 12:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sabbo (Musician)

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

PRODed as failing WP:MUSIC, contested today, and I find myself agreeing with the prodders, there's nothing here that passes notability requirements. Courcelles 11:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:MUSIC. Noom _talk ^contribs 13:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as first prodder, fails WP:MUSIC. ninety:one 19:59, 23 February 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 to History of Victoria. Consensus to delete; as the article dates back to 2005, I've left a redirect to the History of Victoria article...which dates back to 2002! The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of Port Phillip and Victoria

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

This is an unreferenced article on an important subject, all of whose content is contained in other referenced articles, and the content of which is not worthy of retention Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All the information is covered in other (better) articles. Jenks24 (talk) 04:30, 26 February 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 to Pokémon. The article was created by a clear WP:COI account in 2008; it was redirected to Pokémon a month after creation, then on 20 February 2011 had that reverted(!) by an IP editor. Although the article has been cleaned up a bit, it's still questionable whether it would surivive a CSD if it had been nominated for that instead of AfD; and, as is obvious below, the consensus is to delete. Accordingly, restoring to its state as a revert seems to be the proper course of action here; the website might deserve a mention in the main article if it isn't already, but not its own page. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Qbone

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

Non-notable website, fails WP:WEB. WP:COI by creator. Shire Reeve (talk) 09:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Shire Reeve (talk) 15:00, 23 February 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) 15:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment In the AfD log, there may appear to be a post about the South Wales Coalfield at the bottom of this section. This is due to a faulty nomination, and is nothing to do with this discussion. I hope to get it sorted ASAP. Peridon (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC) Problem sorted. Peridon (talk) 10:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I am trying to follow what is going on here. Is this user suggesting that the Qbone page should be moved to South Wales Coalfield or is it just a simple error? Skullbird11 (talk) 02:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that - there was an attempt to get the coalfield deleted, but the user wasn't familiar with AfD and left a template out. Nomination has been withdrawn, and it should have been at RfD anyway so I've done a non-admin closure. I put the comment above to stop anyone who came in from the log route worrying about where an apparent comment had gone when they opened this one. All sorted out now. Peridon (talk) 10:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Why is this here? Delete page as it is not notable Skullbird11 (talk) 22:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weakkk Keep - Among Pokémon websites it seems well known and notable when it comes to Pokémon news. They are also helpful in the Pokémon Online simulator area and are the first to take in depth looks at doubles strategy. They try to stray away from Uber, OU, etc ranks of smogon which other sites also do not tend to do. They would need to add more details about these sort of subjects. --Yugioh fan not pokemon (talk) 05:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC) — Yugioh fan not pokemon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete: clearly non-notable. BigDom talk 16:50, 2 March 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 - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure of discussion started in wrong place). Peridon (talk) 10:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

South Wales Coalfield

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

I've listed this page for deletion in an attempt to resolve a problem of capitalization. All the words in the page title South Wales coalfield should be capitalized, but the page can't be moved as South Wales Coalfield already exists. Deleting the latter would make room for it. Obscurasky (talk) 08:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This should not be in Articles for Deletion as the page is a redirect. The nominator is quite happy that it should remain as a redirect as he was only trying to tidy up a list - I quote from User talk:Obscurasky

"Thanks for the reply. I don't feel really strongly about this; it caught my eye because it appears to be the only coalfield on Wikipedia that isn't capitalised (List of coalfields). I had thought about simply cutting and pasting the whole article, but I know that's against Wiki protocol - so I thought I'd try and do it by the book (mistake). Thank you for your offer to attempt a non-admin closure - I think that would be the best option."

I am performing a non-admin closure as discussed with the nominator and as pure housekeeping. Peridon (talk) 10:31, 24 February 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. JohnCD (talk) 11:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zireaux

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, appears self-promotional (single edit user). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find no reliable sources writing about this person. Radio New Zealand has devoted some time to a reading of one of ~~her~~his works, but that's not sufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is Zireaux himself. Agree with others. I say delete it. I am in no way notable. (But for the record, I'm a "him" not a "her," as those who've read my books or listened to my poetry -- which may or may not be notable -- will attest).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zireaux (talk • contribs) 13:08, 28 February 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. JohnCD (talk) 11:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Parker (Musician)

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

Fails WP:BAND Adabow (talk · contribs) 07:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self-promotional, non-notable. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:32, 25 February 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. JohnCD (talk) 11:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can save the world in sweatpants

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

Non-notable book lacking GHITS and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:NOTBOOK. ttonyb (talk) 07:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No real evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems to be one of the first books I've looked for in connection with AfD that was not listed by Amazon. The given publisher seems as elusive. The book may have a runaway success suddenly two years from now. Come back then if it does. In the meantime, good luck. It's a hard business. Peridon (talk) 18:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: because of the obvious. Toddst1 (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Self-published book with no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:36, 25 February 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Holman elementary

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

Contested prod. Non-notable elementary school in Texas. Article has essentially no content to speak of. Zachlipton (talk) 04:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, an article that states: that someone, somewhere, in Texas knows the awnser to the notabiliy of the article; should definetly be sent on its way off of Wikipedia and back to Texas.Sumsum2010·T·C·Review me! 04:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Come on. It says someone, somewhere in Waller County knows the answer. That's at least a whole order of magnitude more precise! :) Zachlipton (talk) 05:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Purely for the record, the school's own website says "Holleman Elementary was opened in 1974 and named after long-time educator I.T. Holleman. I.T. Holleman was 18 years of age when he began his career in education – a career that spanned 41 years. Holleman was named principal of the Waller School in 1939, and the superintendent of the district in September 1942 – a position that he kept until June 30, 1973.". - Dravecky (talk) 22:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - This AfD is now substantially more informative than the article. Zachlipton (talk) 03:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yeah, the article was so ugly it was starting to bug me, even knowing that it's going to get vaporized in the very near future. Unable to help myself, I've expanded it a bit, cleaned it up, categorized it, moved it to a more specific stub template, and added a reference. My "delete" !vote below stands. - Dravecky (talk) 09:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Waller, Texas#Education. Quick search says it isn't a blue ribbon elementary, so redirecting to the locality is the common outcome. tedder (talk) 14:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability and no encyclopedic information. Redirect seems unnecessary as the title of the article isn't even spelled correctly. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as school does not meet the notability threshold. I have just created a proper redirect at Holleman Elementary, the correct spelling, to Waller, Texas#Education as suggested above so this misspelling may be simply deleted. - Dravecky (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I searched, but found no indication of independent notability for "Holleman" Elementary. --Orlady (talk) 03:52, 25 February 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shift Run Stop

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

Non notable podcast. Borders on CSD for promotion. Contested PROD. PROD removed with claim that it was notable, though no new references or improvements made to page. Ravendrop (talk) 19:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 7 February 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) 00:01, 13 February 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, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no notability. Sumsum2010·T·C·Review me! 04:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage in reliable independent sources. --Pontificalibus (talk) 14:12, 23 February 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of monsters in Code Lyoko

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

Clearly, this article has no references and citations to establish the notability. Contains in-universe information, no real world coverage to provide it. JJ98 (Talk) 03:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this seems written like a gameguide in violation of WP:GAMEGUIDE, a subset of WP:NOT. This could be useful on a video game website but not here. Kansan (talk) 14:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not plot only descriptions or game guides. 74.198.9.234 (talk) 04:03, 28 February 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. -- Lear's Fool 14:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gustavson School of Business Distinguished Entrepreneur of the Year Award

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

Non-notable business school award created by for promotional purposes. See discussion at: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Peter_B._Gustavson_School_of_Business Zachlipton (talk) 03:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This award has received at least a bit of news coverage: Times-Colonist[25]; Broadcaster Magazine[26]; Vancouver Sun (at Canada.com)[27]; Douglas Magazine [28].--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While true, I'm not seeing a lot of notability there. The 1st and 2nd links are almost the same article and read to me like a slightly reworked press release. The third link is better and is from a reliable source, but it's mostly about the school's renaming, not the award; the award just gets a half-sentence mention. The last link is clearly a press release (see the last paragraph). The weak news coverage coupled with the clear self-promotion aspects (WP:SPIP) are good indicators of non-notability to me. Zachlipton (talk) 06:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with the rationale of the nominator and with the response to the comment. The award has not received significant coverage by secondary sources. An award of this kind from a reputable school being given to important people in industry is bound to receive some coverage by its very nature. The recipients of the award are more notable than the award itself.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, insufficient coverage in reliable sources. ukexpat (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What seems to be going on is that last October the University of Victoria's Business School was renamed following a large donation from Mr. Gustavson, after which there was a considerable PR/press-release blitz to publicise the new names of the school and of this award. Filtering out the results of that, I don't see notability here - search results are about the recipients of the award, not the award itself. JohnCD (talk) 18:34, 24 February 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oprahization

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

The term Oprahization is clearly a neologism. Delete per WP:NOTNEO. 4meter4 (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: True, it is a neologism, but it's also a concept which has been the subject of serious academic research. While some of the sources merely indicate that the term finds use, Hill and Zillman 1999 is a bona fide research paper on the topic. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to Wiktionary (which will entail creating the relevant Wiktionary article, but that shouldn't be a problem because this neologism is attested in the references).—S Marshall T/C 12:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original essay about a Non-Notable Neologism. Carrite (talk) 20:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:Notability. I clicked on the news and book links above and found lots of references to Oprahization in reliable sources. Most of the news links were pay-per-view, but all these book links are fair game for developing the article. I added information from some of the free news links, and several books, to the article. Yoninah (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cryptic; while we delete most neologisms, this one has become notable by use in reliable secondary sources such as books and Time magazines. As Yoninah notes, a simple search prior to nomination would have found plenty of such sources. I note that this is also up at DYK. Bearian (talk) 23:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cryptic, Yoninah, & Bearian. Notability is well established and supported by a wealth of reliable sources.--JayJasper (talk) 04:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Yoninah. Yazan (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete transitory neologism. MLA (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the presence of an academic journal article as well as news sources demonstrates that this belongs here. Nyttend (talk) 00:51, 1 March 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 Wasn't ready to rumble (delete). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

River City Rumble

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

Does not meet film notability guidelines or WP:GNG. PROD was removed, no reason given Stu.W UK (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, the film exists as a spoof of River City Ransom. That's it. All sources found are either SPS or blogs. Film has not received critical comentary. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFF. As there is no current article on X-Strike Studios, this one "might" at best merit mention in and redirect to River City Ransom. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and NFF. Strikerforce (talk) 05:30, 27 February 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 Turkey – United Kingdom relations and Egypt – United Kingdom relations. postdlf (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Embassy, London

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

I'm not convinced that this embassy meets WP:NOTE. Note that there is already a more developed article on Turkey – United Kingdom relations, which is well placed to cover diplomatic ties. All that I can see as being left to cover in this article is the embassy building itself, which doesn't seem notable. Cordless Larry (talk) 02:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page (note that Egypt – United Kingdom relations exists):

Oppose Not a good idea. Embassies in principle are noteworthy and should be expanded. A deletion tag should be put if it was pure vandalism, which it is not. An "expand" tag should suffice to make the article better. Gryffindor (talk) 12:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that the buildings or the organisations themselves meet the notability criteria? And can you point to any potential reliable sources that would establish this? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Cordless Larry (talk) 23:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Turkey – United Kingdom relations for now. If someone finds more encyclopaedic information about the embassy, we can always split it off again later. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Easy merge. Embassies are not per se notable, and bilateral relations articles go every which way at AfD. Bearian (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this isn't a particularly notable Embassy but its existence bears mentioning in the relations page. The British Consulate in Istanbul is significantly more notable but still probably isn't worth an article by itself. MLA (talk) 21:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Bad precedent. Stifle (talk) 10:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Chris Neville-Smith. The following articles should also be proposed for deletion: Danish Embassy, London, German Embassy, London, Embassy of Yemen in London, Embassy of Kuwait in London, Japanese Embassy, London, Serbian Embassy, London, Swiss Embassy, London.Turco85 (Talk) 16:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Like everyone else says. Tried looking for sources but only found a few news stories [29] [30] [31] which don't do enough to establish notability. Why hasn't this been closed yet? Alzarian16 (talk) 22:41, 4 March 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) 11:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of handhelds with Wi-Fi connectivity

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

Procedural nomination on behalf of Rockneedsasavior (talk · contribs), as it appears Twinkle broke. I assume the rationale is that this is an indiscriminate list.

For my part, I am neutral. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "Devices with wifi" is way to broad a category to make a meaningful list. Though some content from the technical information section would be useful at Comparison of tablet PCs. A number of the devices listed in this article would fit in nicely there and aren't there currently. Grandmartin11 (talk) 01:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete with a hat tip to KuyaBriBri for fixing my AfD when Twinkle didn't finish it. This is indeed an indiscriminate list that was relevant in 2004 when it was initially created, but provides no useful information to users, save the technical specs in the second table, which could, as Grandmartin11 suggested, be merged into the comparison of Tablet PCs. -- mitchsurp -- (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 05:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The title sounds crazy broad in scope, but this is actually a pretty well-formed, verifiable, and (most importantly) manageable list. It's really not that big; the List of chicken breeds is way bigger, and that's a pretty discriminate topic. If it really gets out of hand, we can always change our minds later. Steven Walling 05:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep if the nominator cannot find a specific rule to point to. "Indiscriminate list" points to WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which includes the rules

Plot-only description of fictional works.
Lyrics databases.
Excessive listing of statistics.
News reports.
Who's who.
FAQs.
Catalogue.

Hand-waving is not suitable for AfD voting, and must not be tolerated in nominations. I'd say WP:NOT#STATS fits the article closest, but that is only a guess, and besides, Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008, (which is...well, just look at it) is specifically allowed under that rule. Also I note that it is not really that much of a Speedy Keep at this stage, 6 days after the nomination. Anarchangel (talk) 03:47, 22 February 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) 02:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of game machines, music players, cellphones, PDAs, tablets, palmtops, etc. There is no linkage between the topics covered on this list besides WiFi, which is not a defining characteristic for these product categories. It should be separate lists for each product category, if such lists were desirable. The concept of "handheld" is very nebulous, hence this is an indiscriminate list, since there are handheld devices that are not any of the categories I mentioned in specialized fields that also have WiFi capabilities, such as WiFi remote controls, WiFi mice, WiFi glasses... 65.93.15.125 (talk) 06:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per wp:cln and wp:list. Steven Walling expresses my thoughts exactly. ^walk victor falk^talk 21:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even if it doesn't meet the letter of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, it absolutely meets the spirit. I'd suspect that List of handhelds without Wi-Fi connectivity would be a shorter list. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:14, 2 March 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) 02:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Playa Fly

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

Marginal rapper that doesn't seem to quite qualify on his own. Orange Mike | Talk 22:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Former member of a notable group who has released several albums. Coverage at Allmusic plus others such as this/this (same article) and in Mickey Hess's Hip Hop in America: East Coast and West Coast book.--Michig (talk) 07:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He has released several independent albums, many still available today from large online retailers. Several of his songs on youtube have hits in the hundreds of thousands. It should also be mentioned that the article posted above on gomemphis.com is from the website for a major Memphis newspaper (the Commercial Appeal). This interview with him on youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f88-TyDDTxk) corroborates several details from the biography in the wikipedia article. The interview and the questions he is asked are also quite indicative of his status in Memphis hip hop, his role in Memphis music and his relevance to Memphis history and culture.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.158.181.252 (talk • contribs) — 24.158.181.252 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

reply - YouTube is almost never a reliable source; self-published works are no sign of notability; and YouTube hits are no substitute for actual published information from reliable sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep charted duffbeerforme (talk) 01:07, 19 February 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) 02:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. Orange Mike is right. Youtube is not a reliable source and since this article is a BLP and is currently unsourced, I'm not punching this AFD yet. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Consensus is clearly for keeping here and there is no reason to relist. Several sources have been found - relisting because one of them is Youtube video seems rather bizarre.--Michig (talk) 06:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also odd is calling it unsourced. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not odd at all - there are no 'references', and looking through the 'external links' there are no unquestionably reliable sources. This was a UBLP and, after two weeks at AfD, is still a UBLP. No prejustice against recreation, with references, if he did indeed chart. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean if he did indeed chart - the above link demonstrates this. The article will be improved once the AFD is over, presuming the right outcome is reached.--Michig (talk) 06:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bad wording on my part there, sorry. But, why wait? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Time, and a reluctance to spend time on an article that could be deleted anyway, AFD being what it is. I don't have time to fix every fixable article at AFD before the discussion closes. --Michig (talk) 06:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There does not need to be 'references' to not be unsourced. Allmusic is a source. An Allmusic link was there. Therefore not unsourced. As simple as that. You say it is still a UBLP. From WP:N "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article." The sources shown in the afd need to be considered, something the above delete argument does not do. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allmusic.com appears to have been kicked around the can at WP:RSN over and over again without any definitive consensus on how reliable it is. It appears that the general consensus is that the site is probably OK for bio information, from a quick look - but what part of the article is sourced from it? Looking at the article, it cannot be told if Allmusic is being used as an actual reference or if the link was simply added an external link and nothing more. I'm not contesting whether or not Fly-guy is notable; it seems that he, indeed, is. But this is a BLP and, therefore, merely stating that he is notable via a link in the AfD discussion is not enough - it needs to be verifiable in the article itself. The bottom line that defines my choice of !vote is that the article still has no inline citations, and has its "references" in the same grouping of links as Myspace and wiki links, even after spending two weeks at AfD; that gives the impression, right or wrong, that nobody cares enough to fix it, and that the article will remain in its current state, an unverifably sourced BLP if not a sensu stricto UBLP, after the closure of the AfD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're judging the subject here, not the current state of the article. If you're not contesting whether the subject is notable, then the correct outcome is to keep it. I've already stated that the article will be improved once kept. --Michig (talk) 06:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (Just about) enough coverage to establish notability under WP:MUSIC/WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Poorly sourced BLP. Will userfy or incubate upon request. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sewak Sanjaynath

Pls let me know what is required to prove that Sewak Sanjaynath is a Notable religious leader? Let me know how I can contact you through mails. I am new to wikipedia. But deleting the page is not a solution. - Thanks Rashmi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rashmi.shri (talk • contribs) 10:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not a notable religious leader. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 11 February 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) 01:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note The subject remains not notable. There are no reliable sources that attribute notability to the subject. As such, the article should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:20, 19 February 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) 02:14, 23 February 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Hooper (marine biologist)

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

I struggled to find any notable coverage, just sa few articles with quotes by him. As currently presented, fails to meet notability requirements for a professor or academic Yaksar (let's chat) 02:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--I have to agree. Not notable per WP:N.~ Ciar ~ _(Talk) 22:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with an GS h index of 22 passes WP:Prof#C1 well. Did either of the two above look at GS? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR criterion 3: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work … that has been the subject of … multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", namely Systema Porifera: A Guide to the Classification of Sponges edited by John N. A. Hooper & Rob W. M. van Soest (Kluwer Academic/Plenum: 2002) 2 volumes, 1802 pages ISBN 0-306-47260-0, which has been the subject of full-length favourable reviews in Nature and Science. --Qwfp (talk) 10:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So I do see that his book has a review in two science journals, but I can't see where it's shown that it is a "significant or well-known work."--Yaksar (let's chat) 13:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was the subject of full-length reviews in Nature and Science, two of the most prestigious science journals in the world, what better indication that it's 'significant' could there be?? --Qwfp (talk) 13:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm simply quoting you above. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work … that has been the subject of … multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." If multiple reviews were enough, there wouldn't be the need to clarify that it's significant or well-known. But regardless, no, I don't think that a science book being published in a science journal that publishes reviews of science books literally all the time is enough to make something significant. There's a reason why every book that has ever received a review from a major publication; they need to do a bit more than just get reviewed.--Yaksar (let's chat) 13:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you specify what they need to do? What evidence would satisfy you that it's a significant work? Qwfp (talk) 14:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. A book review doesn't have to say "this is the most important book ever and changes the face of everything." But it should indicate why this is an important book in the field, and this information should be able to be added to the article.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nature: "an invaluable database of sponge biodiversity and a platform for the future development of sponge systematics. … they have done an excellent job, making Systema Porifera interesting and accessible to a wider scientific audience than pure sponge taxonomists. … enormous — but invaluable — book."

Science: "In a model of international scientific cooperation, John Hooper (…) and Rob Van Soest (…) have brought together 45 far-flung experts in the taxonomy of extant and extinct sponges to forge a coherent compendium … the two volumes will be an indispensable reference source for any taxonomist or ecologist who needs to put the extensive sponge literature of the past into modern context. More important, these volumes will form the basis (and provide important hypotheses) for future systematic studies, particularly those done using molecular data. As such, Systema Porifera is an essential addition to the reference collection of any university or research institution with zoological programs." --Qwfp (talk) 10:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And to be more specific and use a quote "The mere fact that an article or a book is reviewed in such a publication does not serve towards satisfying Criterion 1."--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's from the notes to WP:ACADEMIC#Notes to specific criteria: concerning "review publications that review virtually all refereed publications in that discipline". It's irrelevant to WP:AUTHOR Criterion 3, and in any case neither Nature nor Science are such review publications. Qwfp (talk) 10:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please will the nominator explain why the subject does not pass WP:Prof#C1 on the basis of citations in citation databases? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Please point out in particular which specific highly cited academic work you are referring to (and if you're going through all that effort, may I recommend using what you find to actually improve the article rather than leave it as a one sentence page?)--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All the information needed is obtained from my first comment. Did the nominator read WP:Prof before making the nomination? Xxanthippe (talk) 05:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Please tell me which part of [[WP:Prof#C1] you are referring to (and more importantly, help actually improve the article from one sentence to something that actually indicates this notability.) Which works of his were highly cited?--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You brought it up. Care to answer?--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Qwfp. Clearly meets the notability requirements at WP:Author.4meter4 (talk) 07:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To everyone voting keep: I do just want to point out the fact that this article will most likely continually be PRODed and nominated for deletion after this passes. For all the assertions of notability, it has remained a one sentence stub with absolutely zero outside sources. If you all really do think this article should be in an encyclopedia, you should put as much effort into the article as you are into this discussion.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I'd note that the one sentence is taken verbatim, grammatical error and all, from his webpage.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I've added some content, added 3 references, and done some clean up. Best.4meter4 (talk) 10:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see little point putting effort into editing an article that may be about to be deleted. It makes more sense to settle that first, then improve the article if it still exists. Qwfp (talk) 10:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That really does seem to go against the spirit of things, especially since the purpose of the encyclopedia is to have articles that are encyclopedic, not just articles that have topics that could be encyclopedic. Kudos to 4meter4 for making an actual effort.--Yaksar (let's chat) 13:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: simple google search for John Hooper gives a result in the first 10 despite numerous other well known John Hoopers.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Richiez (talk • contribs)
Keep agree with Qwfp that the Science and Nature reviews are enough for author. I also found this interview with him where he is called "a world authority on sea sponges". SmartSE (talk) 11:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the citation data from Xxanthippe and the reviews in Science AND Nature. Either one of those would be enough, as far as I am concerned, as only a tiny proportion of scientific books published each year are reviewed in those journals (which only publish a few book reviews anyway). If a book is selected for review by both, there's no doubt left. --Crusio (talk) 11:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The reviews in Science and Nature verify Hooper's notability. Jenks24 (talk) 03:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There seems to be a lot of "Keep" voting on the grounds of a book's notability, by virtue of being covered in Nature and Science. But this article is about the author. If this is to be kept on the grounds of the book being notable, shouldn't it be moved, if kept, to an article that is about the book instead? I haven't seen anything addressing whether or not the author is notable, and notability is not inherited upward or downward (so the author is not notable just because the book is, if little or no source material covers him). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have some sympathy for this view, but it suggests that WP:AUTHOR criterion 3 needs alteration, which is probably better debated on its Talk page rather than here. Qwfp (talk) 18:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- He is considered "a world authority on sea sponges" and wrote a well received book about them. Both of those things make him notable. Dream Focus 06:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not just the book: An h-index of 22 means that several works of this person have been highly-cited and made an impact on his field. That means WP:PROF is met. --Crusio (talk) 10:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First off, the article should actually be able to address how he made an impact on his field. Second of all, you're going to need to be more specific as to which works were highly cited and made an impact on the field.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would have a tendency to put less weight of on the h-index--22 is pretty average for someone with a career spanning about 30 years, and WP:Prof recommends notable Academics should be above average (presumably because that would open the floodgates for all senior scientists with higher h-indices that are currently not included re notability). I think if there is coverage of the author in these reviews in Nature, Science or elsewhere, or if his book were the standard educational textbook in several universities, for example, that would be a better indicator for notability. Just my opinion. ~ Ciar ~ _(Talk) 21:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a search on WoS for "Hooper J AND sponge", which netted over 90 articles and an h-index of 24. While this would be modest for someone in, say, neuroscience, it's pretty impressive for someone whose main contributions are in systematics. I have added these data and his three most cited articles to the article. I also found a third book review, which I have also added. Looking at the number of "delete" and "keep" votes here, and despite the sunny weather here in Bordeaux, I get the definite feeling that it is snowing here. --Crusio (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Article has three inline citations now, and there are efforts to improve it. The discussion above convinces me that he is a notable expert on marine sponges, and a researcher who may well find medicinal uses for chemical compounds found in sponges. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Qwfp has found two notable scientific publications which speak highly of this person's book, so its notable. Dream Focus 06:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your input is certainly appreciated, but I feel you should know that, ermm, no, that's not how it works at all.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, actually that is how it works, as others have already explained to you. See WP:AUTHOR. Dream Focus 06:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WoS query "Author=(hooper j*) Refined by: Institutions=(QUEENSLAND MUSEUM) Timespan=All Years. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI" shows h-index of 21, well above the conventional threshold of 10-15. This is sufficient according to WP:PROF #1. We make no contingency upon a person's age. It is unusual for junior academics to be notable, though there are cases. Conversely, most senior academics are not in fact notable under these guidelines, although most at top research universities will be. The policy is (purposely) somewhat steep in this category, precisely to keep ~ Ciar ~'s metaphorical floodgates closed. This is an uncontroversial "keep" and will certainly close as such. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per Qwfp. Qrsdogg (talk) 02:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Nominator is advised to study WP policy and carry out WP:Before before making further nominations in this area. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:46, 2 March 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 with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ratu Bagus

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

Not a notable religious leader. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
However the topic has appeared in two newspapers as articles, so passes the GNG. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where are these reliable sources? How do they state that the subject is notable? And, is it the same person (as this is a name for more than one person)? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:47, 13 February 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) 01:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note The subject remains not notable. There are no reliable sources that attribute notability to the subject. As such, the article should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:18, 19 February 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) 02:14, 23 February 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. Unsourced BLP Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brodie Young

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT. gnews turns up a lot of namesakes [32]. imdb shows an unremarkable career full of one off appearances. [33]. LibStar (talk) 06:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —ManicSpider (talk) 09:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —ManicSpider (talk) 09:01, 9 February 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) 01:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:54, 16 February 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) 02:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I concur that he doesn't meet WP:ENTERTAINER, being the host of a late night filler quiz show and a couple of one-off appearances doesn't make the cut in my view. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:28, 24 February 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. Nomination withdrawn (see comment under the first "Keep"), no delete !votes standing (non-admin closure) Pgallert (talk) 13:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1991 BDO World Darts Championship

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

A search for reference found no published (gBook) WP:RS for the content of this article. A few mentions of the BDO are found but nothing for 1991, the organizations web page does not list (that I could find) results from 1991. The web page says "On June 3rd, 2005 the application by The British Darts Organisation for darts to be recognised as a bona-fide sport", implying that it was not prior to that. All indications are that these early articles fail WP:N and WP:V Jeepday (talk) 02:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the first link is supposed to be. Can the proposer correct it?GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also not sure how this article could be so detailed and the facts found elsewhere in WP if it is spurious. Huh? GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This BBC article clearly shows that the World Darts Championship has been going since 1978 and that Dennis Priestley won in 1991, as the article states. This Dutch source mentions Priestley beating Eric Bristow 6-0 in the 1991 world final, again matching the article. This page on the official Professional Darts Corporation website mentions Priestley winning the 1991 world championship, as does this article from The Independent newspaper. And the clincher - there's actually footage of it on YouTube (search "Eric Bristow vs Dennis Priestley - 1991 World Finals")!!!! So clearly the tournament did take place, and as a world championship tournament in a fairly major sport/game I would say it is inherently notable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding all those great references Chris, I used the BBC article to add a reference to this one and several other unreferenced BDO articles. Clearly this AfD is going to be keep because of your work. No objections to an early close. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per ChristheDude.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above, and I might further note that whether it is technically a bona-fide sport doesn't really say much about its notability prior to that because that seems like a rather arbitrary standard. For example, some people have recently tried to get chess classified as an Olympic sport, and have failed, but that doesn't mean that chess articles are non-notable. Kansan (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Long-running championship of a serious sport. This page for the 1991 event is one of a series of similar pages and is well done, informative, and likely to be of interest to Wikipedia users. Ignore All Rules = Use Common Sense. Carrite (talk) 20:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – A world championship of a sport that is reasonably high-profile figures to have plenty of coverage to draw from in writing an article. I'm confident based on what's up there that this is the case here. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:08, 24 February 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. Deleted under speedy deletion criterion G11. -- Lear's Fool 15:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grip Pod

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

Just a non-notable product from Grip Pod Systems. The article was deleted a year ago on my PROD (thus not PRODdable again), and in my judgment it probably isn't blatant advertising (but quite borderline, and if anyone wants to speedy it, be my guest). A short product review on American Rifleman's website (the only mentionable reference) certainly does not add up to encyclopedic notability. Glenfarclas (talk) 06:54, 16 February 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) 01:55, 23 February 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. JohnCD (talk) 12:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Peterson

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

Not notable, barely referenced possible hoax and WP:COI. This whole article is very odd. The Allmusic link is genuine enough, and there is an overview and reviews there. But nothing he's produced seems remotely notable. The movies and TV shows on Imdb have single figure review numbers and often all the reviews are similarly (oddly) formatted. The reference to a title track written by Nile Rodgers and Bernard Edwards appears to relate to the 1980 album King of the World but this isn't hinted at here. The websites referred to do seem to have existed, but a quick look on the Wayback Machine doesn't suggest they amounted to much - definitely not enough to get 2 million users! The COI applies to user:mnemonicof. Nearly all their edits relate to this man or his projects. Global Edge Mnemonics also seems to be the name of the company which runs the websites mentioned in 'internet projects'. I was also going to nominate all the albums, films and tv shows (as far as I can tell, never broadcast or distributed) associated with him but presumably they can be speedy deleted if their creator is deemed un-notable. Stu.W UK (talk) 01:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, along with daughter articles. No good evidence of notability, intermixed with hoaxery. This is a bizarre one. Looks like the guy is creating one big walled garden using various web sites. IMDB has a web that is all about Peterson: a producer who has produced only Peterson's videos, actors who have only acted in Peterson's videos, music by Peterson's alter ego who does music for nothing but Petersen's videos, all reviewed by people who watch nothing but Peterson's videos. Some (not all) of his videos probably exist, but I can't find any notability to them that isn't a trivial mention of their titles, or online advertising written by Peterson himself. Due to the evident self-promotional nature of cited sources it is hard to trust any of them in order to find out what's real, in order to salvage any of this. The most probable story here is: "I'm going to use free internet sites to make myself famous." Oh, and his claim of a famous web site with two million users - I'm going to call that an outright hoax. 88.112.59.31 (talk) 08:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete, this article, while certainly lacking in content and clarity, is a genuine article and certainly not a hoax, Nick Peterson has worked extremely hard to create all the films, TV, music and books that he has so far in his life. Created as a one-man-band producer and not supported by any massive corporation of worker bees and sales drones. The points raised by the user Stu.W UK are somewhat valid, but only to the extent that there need to be improvements and more information added to this article. Unfortunately, because of a few inflated egos and too many over-eager so and so's the Wikipedia project seems doomed to ultimate failure, which is a real shame but I propose somewhat inevitable. Mnemonicof (talk) 13:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- — Mnemonicof (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and child articles as well. Non-notable, no reliable sources, self-promotional. It might not be a hoax, but WP:ITEXISTS isn't enough to merit an article, I'm afraid. No prejustice against recreation if subject can be reliably sourced as being notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it certainly has all the elements we usually see in hoax articles, though as noted above that doesn't really matter because simply existing isn't enough for an article. I certainly hope this is a hoax, because that's far better than the idea that someone can spend a quarter-century making this much stuff and receive not even a shred of success or recognition as a result. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:33, 25 February 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Screenwise

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

Notable founder, notable alumni but notability is not inherited. Current refs are either not from reliable sources or passing mentions. WP:BEFORE has been applied in earlier nomination(s), but again there is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject for this business enterprise. Shirt58 (talk) 12:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There do appear to be a few legitimate sources in this article, such as the article from Time Out Sydney and the brief mention in The Morning Bulletin. In any event, a couple of sentences about the school would certainly be justified in the article about its founder. So I'd suggest a merge and redirect to Denise Roberts.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The added sources clearly show that this article is nothing like it was during the previous nomination. The new sources are indeed reliable and go into a significant amount of depth on the subject, like the Time Out article. And it is also independent, so I don't understand the nominator's reasoning. Silver seren^C 20:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete The only bit of significant coverage is the Time Out piece but that is just a local piece in a street press magazine. Not enough for WP:CORP. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep The coverage mentioned below is mostly trivial passing mentions but a few are good coverage about Screenwise, including national magazines. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's plenty of coverage independent of the school itself to meet WP:GNG. Newcastle Herald, Canterbury Bankstown Express, Tabrett Bethell’s Films, Film Ink, Inside Film, Last.fm, Socialite Life, Sydney Morning Herald, Sydney Weekly Courier, Tabrett Bethell Films, The Daily Telegraph, The Footy Show - Channel 9, TV Week, and Woman's Day, reposted at Screenwise Press Room, provide significant coverage. In addition, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL brings up even more source material. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:50, 22 February 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) 01:49, 23 February 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bloomington Playwrights Project

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

non notable local theater group WuhWuzDat 17:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 05:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 05:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep: I found lots of ghits - and added one decent interview to the article - but the rest looks like listings and social media. Needs more sources. bobrayner (talk) 09:16, 19 February 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) 01:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article provides me with enough to the extent that I say Keep.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:05, 1 March 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. Stifle (talk) 11:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EToro

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. the Advertisement was previously deleted under WP:CSD#G11 as Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Seems to be nothing more than Non-Notable Self-promotion, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 05:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 05:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; it appears to pass WP:CORP. If there's a promotional tone it's probably worth putting in a few minutes editing time to fix that, rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Unfortunately a lot of articles on businesses seem to be considered spam by default. bobrayner (talk) 10:16, 19 February 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) 01:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Bobrayner - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:20, 2 March 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. There is no substantial coverage in reliable sources establishing notability.Cúchullain ^t/c 14:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

College Girls (Are Easy)

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

Despite claims of popularity, I get few ghits except for lyrics sites about the Beastie Boys song. No sources here regarding a mistaken authorship. Article fails to establish notability, and the requirements per WP:NSONGS are not met. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is important to note that

a: 'college girls are easy' returns 9.6 million hits - not just a few
b: 'college girls song' returns over 6 million hits
c: there are lyric sites, but also to videos and a number of sites asking who actually wrote the song
d: the beastie boys, nwa, and easy-e versions of the songs videos and lyrics are all links to sites that are actually referencing Jesse Jaymes' but are mislableled as the beastie boys, nwa and easy-e
e: the confusion mentioned above was the primary reason for authoring this article.
f: the search results indicate a genuine interest in the authenticity of the song's true authorship.
g: juno and stifle are siting opinion and not fact as per wikipedia song.
h: this song is certainly as notable as many of the eventually forgettable internet memes that have embrazened the web. it may not be a good song, or a song of preference, but it is a song that has been circulating for over 20 years that many people have heard and only a handful have been able to properly identify.

Google search results have already begun to improve with the inception of this article on wikipedia. Jesse Jaymes video even shows up as a suggested search result (along side with suggestions to easy-e and beastie boys unfortunately), where it hadn't returned any proper results in the past (at least not on the first page or 2). As far as notability of other songs goes, "shake it" made the billboard top 100 and has also been featured in movie soundtracks — comment added by Nophonenophone (talk • contribs) 00:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As a former club DJ from the days when this song was out - I can attest that the song was indeed recorded by Jesse Jaymes (aka Itzler), and not BB or any of the others, and that it was also quite popular back in the day. While it's popularity at the time was rather short-lived, it has appeared in more than a couple movies and tv shows since then - I will have to research further to fully ref them if necessary. In many dj/club circles this track has a bit of a cult following to this day, and is always a good throwback/nostalgia bit that tends to bring the house down. While some of this may be construed as opinion - it would indeed lend to the notability of the track. I urge reconsideration and further fact/ref checking prior to deletion of the article. Srobak (talk) 07:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

100,000+ Youtube views, ranked in Amazon's top 300,000 albums and track is in the top 950,000 (surely there are thousands listed on WP that are ranked lower), and I am working on tracking down Billboard rankings for the song. Srobak (talk) 12:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the other songs on this CD were notable enough for pages, the CD was no notable enough for a page, I think this song falls in line. Juno (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't see how this meets WP:NSONGS. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:27, 22 February 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) 01:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Juno. Stifle (talk) 11:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To you both - just because you do not know of the song (movie, band, car, city, country or even an established scientific method), does not mean that it is non-notable. If that were the criteria for article creation on WP, then it would be a very empty place. Non-fact based WP:OPINION needs to be kept at a minimum, while WP:NEUTRALITY needs to be kept at a maximum. Something to consider. Srobak (talk) 12:25, 3 March 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.

Why was the page deleated before any of the information could be consolidated on to the authors website? this was a huge mistake and some notice could have been given.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WomanStats Project

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Article was created by an WP:SPA account(JessicaHogstrom (talk · contribs)) with no other edits other than related to WomanStats Project, in addition to beingemployed by WomanStats Project. Previously deleted[34] as Blatant advertising and promotion. Previous versions were created by an SPA sock puppet of Wikigender. Seems to be nothing more than Non-Notable Self-promotion, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if someone else volunteers to clean it up. Obviously all of the above is a problem. But if the projects information has been used, criticized, etc. by WP:RS would be notable and useful to include. Here are four WP:RS articles about it. (Again, news searches for all news would help.) 19:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolmooredc (talk

At the outset I need to disclose that I also work for the WomanStats Project. I can confirm that Jessica Hogstrom does work at the project; I have no idea about the sockpuppet account in Wikigender, that was probably put there by an earlier coder. I have gone through and edited the article, adding more outside sources and deleting some of the original promotional material in order to make it more about the information. I replaced some of the references to the WomanStats blog with unafilliated sources. However, the citations in the article itself should confirm that it does meet the general notability guidelines. I am aware that there is an inherent conflict of interest with my personal connection, and that ultimately another third-party editor will need to contribute to the article (any volunteers?). That being said, this article has only been up for a few weeks now, and, in addition to the article's own third-party citations, a quick google-scholar or google search should confirm that there is enough outside, thirt-party interest that given enough time some outside editors will get around to contributing to this article.Kant66 (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)Kant66[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 05:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 05:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't work for them.... Very many articles on Wikipedia are created by SPAs. They then get taken over by the ~~busybodies who didn't or couldn't create them~~ community in general. I've not had time yet to check through the refs, and I hope that when I do there will be third party coverage of the project and not just of the idea. Looks reasonable enough at first sight. Peridon (talk) 23:21, 19 February 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) 01:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's enough in the refs to give a basic indication of notability, to my mind. Peridon (talk) 13:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lionel (talk) 23:51, 26 February 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 to Pokémon. (Weak) consensus to delete. Redirect seems reasonable and may avoid need for later G4's. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arceusism

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

Non notable fan term. Only source is Bulbapedia, a wiki. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 00:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no reliable sources can be found - even the wiki and blog linked in the article (probably not reliable sources) don't mention the term. Peter E. James (talk) 00:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —_Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 00:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —_Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 00:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 00:43, 23 February 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 with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Helith

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

Another problematic article. As with some of my other nominations, I could not find any reliable sources to establish the notability of this group. Of the sources listed, the first one does not cover the group in detail, and the last two are potential security threats as I could not get either link to work, and the second link is the website of the article. So, fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG, WP:N, and WP:V. ArcAngel (talk) ) 09:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That si correct but you could make the same claims for any hacker group or more "preotected" community (for example Anonymous). The links wont work anymore because milworm is down. if you search for the stuff you find mirrors and OSDB entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.231.113.119 (talk) 20:43, 13 February 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, 15 February 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:09, 23 February 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. Poorly sourced BLP. Will userfy or incubate upon request. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suze Raymond

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

fails WP:BIO. pretty unremarkable career. 1 gnews hits [35]. LibStar (talk) 06:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 9 February 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, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody from Australia know how major is her role as host of this new show? The present article is an ugly mess. Bearian (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, host of a couple of very late night call-in game shows and music video programmes. Not quite enough to meet WP:BIO in my opinion at the moment. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:12, 21 February 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:08, 23 February 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 with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kali Ray

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

Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 01:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 9 February 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, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to TriYoga I have been unable to find anything beyond origination of this yoga program. Mangoe (talk) 13:29, 15 February 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:08, 23 February 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 with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TriYoga

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

Not notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 01:31, 8 February 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, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep GBooks shows lots of hits. The article needs much clean up but evidence suggests that it is a well enough known program. Mangoe (talk) 13:26, 15 February 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:06, 23 February 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. I would add that if the nominator already felt merger was an acceptable action they could have simply proposed as much on the article's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stacey Mattocks

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

Subject received media coverage for a Facebook fan page, in what I believe this is a case of WP:BLP1E. Depodded by article with the explanation: "Subj may only have 1 "event", it is significant as she was integral in getting 1st African Amer sitcom that was canx 2b revived which is major in the AA community she will not remain a low profile"; the latter part of which, if I understand correctly, is some pretty heavy WP:CRYSTAL.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slight merge to The Game (U.S. TV series)#Cancellation and revival because the subject's notability appears to stem primarily from her involvement in promoting the show through a Facebook page, which eventually she was hired by a television network to maintain. Or, as a second choice, delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and I would be more than happy with this merge, per WP:PRESERVE. There is noteworthy info that should be preserved, somewhere. Sorry, I should have mentioned that in my nom. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:32, 22 February 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close as merge in accordance with WP:SK ground 1: the nominator is happy with this as an alternative to deletion, and no other arguments for deletion exist apart from the nominator.—S Marshall T/C 12:14, 23 February 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. Verifiability is non-negotiable.Cúchullain ^t/c 14:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Castle Age

AfDs for this article:

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

NN web game, appears to fail WP:WEB. Deleted twice previously because of that, and content is at the moment more of a guide (which Wikipedia is not). I was able to find only a couple links that weren't to fansites or game guides in a google search. Syrthiss (talk) 18:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zynga gamezebo was the only source I could find, but the game was just ported to iPhone not too long ago, so more coverage could be on the way? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 20:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It shouldn't redirect to Zynga, because the game was developed and is run by Phoenix Age LLC, a gaming startup with a pretty low profile. Kind of surprising how low if the 10M user claim on their website is accurate (the game does have at least 1.5M regular users on Facebook per available stats). -- Michael Devore (talk) 05:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. DrKiernan (talk) 21:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not a Zynga game, although it has the Zynga template for some reason. Delete as not especially notable. Stifle (talk) 11:02, 3 March 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.