Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 February 24

< 23 February	25 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. Tone 22:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elisa Gabbert

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

Biography of a person not noted by mainstream media. WP:BIO requires "multiple published secondary sources" however the only one that really exists is the article in The Kenyon Review. This does not meet the multiple requirement, and as it is also a blog, I do not believe that it is sufficient to be the primary means of showing notability. Much other minor coverage exists, mostly author bios on poetry sites, but the depth of coverage of these is not substantial. Kevin (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject has stated "... it seems pretty hostile and threatening to me.". There is no reason (such as extreme wealth, high political office, or being part of the Wikimedia Foundation) not to respect such a view in this case. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Minor poet, interesting blogger. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - utterly NN individual & a largely unsourced BLP. Also, Seth's comment above should be taken into account. Primarily, though, it's another NN BLP - Alison ^❤ 03:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's going to be a nuisance for her more than a benefit for the Wikipedia community. Where did you get all this stuff, Fred? Meanwhile, where's my Wikipedia page? Aren't I a good poet and interesting blogger? :) Atrivedi (talk) 03:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inadequate sourcing and non-notable, unwilling subject. Woonpton (talk) 04:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hell, I've won awards for my poetry and I keep a quasi-blog on Facebook and LJ; where's my article? Answer: I don't pass the GNG, WP:BIO or any other notability criteria, that's where. And neither does this nonstarter. For pity's sake, Fred ... from a former ArbCom member? Seriously? Ravenswing 04:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Woonpton. --JN 466 05:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete see nothing in the article that would indicate sufficient notability. Also what Seth said.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable person who doesn't want an article about herself. LadyofShalott 03:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails to meet the Biography of a living person notability guideline. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 16:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Me: 31,100 ghits Her: 23,500 ghits ... now ghits aren't a real metric but geez, I'm not notable, neither is she. Also, what Seth said. Also, per Ravenswing. ++Lar: t/c 20:49, 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. Keep. Nothing that cannot be fixed through editorial process. Could as well transform to energy instead but let's not. Tone 22:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Particle

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

The article has no definite topic. The article seems to just be a dictionary definition of particle with a rag bag of different examples collected by editors. The citations are to dictionary definitions or particular examples. It is a disambiguation page clothed as an article rather than a topic described to any great extent by any source. I believe it should be deleted under WP:NOTDICDEF. Dmcq (talk) 23:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This reads like a cross between a disambiguation page and a personal synthesis. We already have a dab page at Particle (disambiguation), and the topic of particles as a mathematical construct is already covered at Point particle. I don't see much here that wouldn't be better off in one of those two other articles. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup. I'm not saying any actual content should be saved; the cleanup might mean changing it to a pure disambig page or even a straight redirect. But it's hard to argue that the best outcome is making particle a redlink, which is what deletion means. --Trovatore (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If you're proposing to discard existing content, wouldn't "delete and redirect" be closer to what you're suggesting? We already have a disambiguation page, per above. What specific cleanup are you proposing, so that I can better understand where you're coming from? --Christopher Thomas (talk) 23:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "delete and redirect" removes the content from the history (as visible by non-admins, anyway) rather than just from the page. Basically that's for cases where the content itself is adjudged harmful (say, personal attack or copyvio) rather than just not the way way we want the page to look. --Trovatore (talk) 23:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's still there in the history of the redirect page, in the times I've seen this happen. The AfD result is taken to mean "this shouldn't be its own article", rather than "the history needs to be burned with fire", for this sort of situation. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the AfD was closed as "delete and redirect" but the closing admin merely redirected, then he did it incorrectly. --Trovatore (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup. It needs to be cleaned up, but in no way deleted. What is a particle? It can be confusing for students and should have its pwn entry. Clean up over delete. Shabidoo | Talk 23:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What information do you feel should be here that isn't already at point particle or subatomic particle? A student searching on "particle" would immediately hit the disambiguation page, which should answer all of their questions. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, that would not answer anything, because almost everything listed on the disambig page is merely a kind of "particle" in the general (and clearly primary) meaning of the term. This should not be a disambiguation page listing different kinds of particles for the same reason that Soft drink is not a disambiguation page listing all the different kinds of soft drinks. bd2412 T 22:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SOft drink is a valid topic. There are texts about soft drinks in general. I can say I want a soft drink. There aren't texts about particles in general including elementary particles, stars and colloids. Dmcq (talk) 13:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep This is one of the most fundamental and most important concepts of all of science. It's beyond me how this can even be considered for deletion. Everything is sourced in reliable sources, unless somehow the American Meteorological Society, several high-quality dictionaries such as the American Heritage Science Dictionary, and science institutes such as the Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics or the United States National Research Council, suddenly became unreliable. And it's certainly no personal synthesis, you can find the same information, presented in almost the same way at on the website of the Particle Engineering Research Center, from the University of Florida (see "What is a particle?"). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This does not appear to be a single concept. That's the point of the threads that have occurred at WT:PHYS, and the point of the nomination, and the point of my comment. Your attempt to unify it into one does not seem to be backed by the references you cite for each of the sub-topics. I agree that the set of concepts is very important, both in physics and elsewhere, but it is already covered on Wikipedia. Virtually everything you've put in the article so far is material that would be better off at point particle, so I'm puzzled as to why you wouldn't just improve that article instead, and have particle redirect to the disambiguation page. Do you at least see where my objection comes from, even if you don't agree with it? --Christopher Thomas (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The concept is that particles are things which are considered small when compared to the scale of the situations, i.e. whose dimensions can be neglected, or otherwise irrelevant. That concept, or its implications, cannot be covered adequately in a disambiguation page such as particle (disambiguation) or at point particle.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, that's the whole basis of the point particle article - that you have a situation where you can model entities as being pointlike. This is mentioned in the first paragraph of that article. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 00:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because the concept of particle is larger than that of point particles? Compositeness vs non-compositeness, microscopic vs macroscopic, etc... Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —BurtAlert (talk) 23:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible keep and rescue. The nomination is a prime example of a bad idea, reckless, and a sign of why our Civilization is slouching towards Jerusalem. Not only that, but it's in bad taste, as the article was just created earlier this month and a peek at the "history" tab would reveal that it was still under construction. In any case, the article has already been improved enough to keep. "Particle" is a core idea in science and philosophy, and is incredibly well attested in thousands if not millions of reliable sources. The nominator could not have been bothered with even a simple online search. Such core ideas are also extremely necessary for our core readership, high school and college students. WP:AfD is not the place to suggest fixes to ugly articles. I can just see the headline in the tabloids: "Wikipedia eliminates particles; Climate change proven false." Bearian (talk) 00:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah! I'm going to be notorious at last. The paparazzi will hound me. Chicks will ask to have my baby. My time is now! ;-) Dmcq (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)is[reply]

On a more serious note I feel editors setting up a topic they feel notable without being able to find anybody who's bothered to discuss it is totally against the spirit of Wikipedia. We should be finding what reliable sources have found notable and summarizing those topics. Dmcq (talk) 09:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but change name a bit. Since the article is a general one talking about the concept of particles in physics (with the understanding that chemistry is a branch of physics) I think the name should be Particle (physics), which instead now redirects to THIS article. The simple Particle should direct to the dab page. We are NOT talking about mathematical particles or gramatical particles, after all. S B H arris 00:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was a discussion on WP:PHYS which investigated this and concluded that this meaning is the primary one (see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). I suppose a move request could be made but I doubt the conclusion would be any different. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article would benefit from a particles in chemistry section, but I'm no chemist, so I don't know much about that. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am coming from a computer science background, and for me the primary meaning of "particle" is that used in particle systems. You see, there is no general primary definition. Nageh (talk) 11:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definite keep this needs a workup not a delete. Nergaal (talk) 00:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what is the topic? Does it include include stars and galaxies, that is more point particle. Most people would think subatomic particle when asked about particles in physics. Or should whoever can put in any old mention of a particle in like particles in colloids, particle simulation in computing, particles in soot, particles in sparks, particles in chemistry like HEADBOMB is asking for just above etc etc? For a topic you need a source which does some sort of analysis of the main bits of it. Not a dictionary definition top hang every mention of the word on that strikes an editors fancy. Dmcq (talk) 01:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOLWHA? KEEP We deleted particles! --> The physical sciences just collapsed! --> The world no longer exists! But seriously folks, fix what needs to be fixed, and then go trout yourselves thoroughly for nominating a basic scientific concept for deletion. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/multiplication. Yeah, that's pretty much what you just did. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is the wrong forum for the lumpers and splitters debate. --Kkmurray (talk) 01:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and/or move salvageable physics-related content to Particle (physics). Seriously, dictionary.com as the primary reference? Cubbi (talk) 01:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with the Collins English Dictionary? Also Particle (physics) redirects here per a discussion on WP:PHYS.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. point particle is about the approximation that we can sometimes approximate particles as mathematical points. This article is about real particles, small objects that play a significant role in science. Other good points for keep are given above. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Dab. The nominator is right. There is not definite topic in this article, and what is listed is actually perfectly suitable for a disambiguation page. Also, the term particle is so general that really this should be a dab page rather than particle (disambiguation). Nageh (talk) 03:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC) Edit: Despite the immediate appearance a reasonable article can and probably should be created. I'm also leaning towards accepting particle (physics) as the primary meaning (despite I think of linguistics and computer graphics, which is probably due to a language issue)... well, retracting my vote. Nageh (talk) 21:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not at all suited for a disambig page. Making it one would just be passing an unending problem on to those who fix disambig links, since the there is a clear primary meaning associated with the term particle, for which all other meanings can correctly be described as kinds of that primary meaning (except the extremely minor usage of Particle (band)). bd2412 T 22:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a useful article tying together concepts of particles across different fields. Sure, it could be improved, but Wikipedia is a work in progress and this is definately an encyclopedic topic. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 04:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename the dab page should be primary. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 04:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Common sense, this is a notable encyclopedic topic. Dream Focus 08:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a topic, which should properly introduce the reader to all the forms and variations of what has been defined as "particle" by the various fields. A dab page does not cut it for a general reader, interested in the concept and potentially in certain subsets of the meaning. This is an overview page, a work-in-progress towards an overview page that an encyclopaedia should have on a topic this broad, where a general reader may not even know how individual fields treat the term. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a topic, it is a collection of topics. And an arbitrary, too. Furthermore, we are no dictionary. Nageh (talk) 09:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Particle (disambiguation) page is a far better landing spot for someone looking up 'particle'. I think this article is a hinderance to people trying to find what they want. If you can find a source describing what you are talking about then you'll have given a far better reason for keeping. I didn't find anything like that so it is obviously not a notable topic. Dmcq (talk) 09:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not. Case in point, the vast majority of the 50 or so links to particle (disambiguation) (back when it was located at particle) should have linked (and now do link) to an article on the concept of particles, rather than on of the links found in particle (disambiguation). The link at the top takes care of anyone who was looking for grammatical particles or elementary particles. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SUMMARYSTYLE is for topics with a number of subtopics, like economics, the United States, dance, mathematics, global warming, intelligence that sort of thing. They each have general works written about them and are topics in their own right. And I'd much prefer that people in future who just stick square brackets round particle have their contributions properly disambiguated rather than point at the wrong place. If anything like this survive then rename it Particle (physics). If this was a proper topic you would have some reference that gave its extent and be able to write a few lines about this chemistry input you want. All I can see is a definition of particle from a book about meteorology followed by you extending that to stars in galaxies in a subsection. That is not a topic. Dmcq (talk) 10:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see WP:SUMMARYSTYLE yourself: "Wikipedia articles tend to grow in a way which lends itself to the natural creation of new articles. The text of any article consists of a sequence of related but distinct subtopics. When there is enough text in a given subtopic to merit its own article, that text can be summarized from the present article and a link provided to the more detailed article." Specifically, note that the subtopics must be related.

BTW: Coming from a computer science background I expect particle to point to particle system. You see that a disambiguation page would be much more appropriate. Nageh (talk) 11:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A particle has only a meaning in a specific context. That meaning is either clear or needs an ad hoc definition. There is no overall definition.--Wickey-nl (talk) 11:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is. The the "overall definition" is that a particle is an object whose geometry, size, etc... is negligible for the context at hand. Or alternatively, a small objects who's dimension are significantly smaller than its surroundings. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be a bad definition, since in many the cases the size and geometry of particles is very relevant. For example, the sky is blue exactly because dust particles in the atmosphere have a particular size. When considering granular media, the geometry of the particles is very important. So even your "overall definition" fails.T R 15:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to particle (disambiguation). Possibly merge some content to point particle (i.e. stuff relating to approximation of objects as point particles as in N-body simulations. If as a general topic, 'particle' was a notable subject, then it should be possible to provide better sources discussing as a general subject than dictionaries.TR 15:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that redirecting this page to particle (disambiguation) would be a violation of longstanding disambiguation policy and would be swiftly reverted. "Foo" article titles can not redirect to "Foo (disambiguation)" titles, and a disambiguation page can not sit where there is a clear primary topic for that title. bd2412 T 22:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Headbombs comments. Primary topic appears to apply here. Noom _talk ^contribs 16:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to particle (disambiguation). The article is only likely to ever be of this sort. The term "particle" just means "small thing" and in different contests has wildly different applications be they theoretical, phenomenological, or ontological. The best thing to do is to shunt off readers to the type of particle they're most interested in rather than having them wade through a synthesis of disparate ideas. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 16:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly so; if I wasn't busy dealing with this deletion dicussion, I'd be expanding the article to include sections on particle physics, particle detection, particles in chemistry, antiparticles, ... per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. All editing is synthesis to some extent, but it definetaly is not the "original synthesis" refered to in WP:SYNTH. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry. That would not make a difference.--Wickey-nl (talk) 17:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Article long overdue V8rik (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not a science guy and I don't play one on TV, but this strikes me as a useful encyclopedia article about a worthy topic. Carrite (talk) 21:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Subatomic particle. If I'm putting particle in the search box, the subatomic article is the one I'm expecting to find. MLA (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect, but definitely do not disambiguate. Restoring this to a disambig page would merely compound the ongoing abuse of the disambiguation system. If it is turned into such a page, it will imcorrectly generate a continuous infestation of unfixable links, which violates the basic principle of disambiguation, which is that disambig pages should guide readers to the correct page on the specific term among various ambiguous meanings. The overwhelming primary meaning of "particle" in the pages that link from this is closest the concept of the particle in physics, the smaller unit from which larger things are (or were) made. bd2412 T 22:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely unlike "soft drink". The entries in particle (disambiguation) don't represent different types of particle - they represent very different meanings of the word, as used by different disciplines. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 22:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the name of the band (which is a very minor usage), all of these relate to the general concept of a very small thing as a component of larger things. That is not ambiguous, or in any case, is no more ambiguous than, say, Religion, for which we could in theory have a disambig page pointing out the many different kinds of activities that fall under that umbrella term. Contrast that with Mercury, a truly ambiguous term. If someone told you they just came from a lecture about Mercury, you would immediately have to ask whether they meant the planet, the element, the god, the car company, or something else. If someone told you they just came from a lecture on particles, you might question them about what aspects of particles the lecture addressed, but you wouldn't suppose that they were talking about anything other than those tiny components from which bigger things are assembled. I think that we as a community should be smart enough to figure out how to describe that in an article without having to confuse the situation by punting it to disambiguators to endlessly fix bad links arising from a bad decision. bd2412 T 22:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very well put. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm convinced by the above argument also. And it occurs to me that WP's dab pages are often misused! Yes, they should be only used in cases like Mercury. bd2412, have you made sure this is part of MoS when it come to dabs? If not, you should do so. S B H arris 23:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you honestly feel that an article discussing point particles as mathematical constructs, subatomic particles, computer graphics particle effects, and particulate matter in the same space will provide a reader with any useful insight about any of them, then you're far more optimistic than I am. Beyond being "something that is small", they have very little in common. That's enough for a dictionary entry, but not for much more than that. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The computer graphics term, Particle system, is also very minor. Per our policies regarding disambiguation, we should exclude the existence of a primary meaning before turning this title over to a disambiguation page. The test for determining whether a disambiguation topic should sit at the "Foo" title or the "Foo (disambiguation)" title is whether there is a primary meaning for the term. "Particle system" would not even enter into the discussion absent some evidence that people regularly refer to it as a "particle". From the options available, it does not seem that anything compares to Subatomic particle, unless we have a meta-solution in the form of an article discussing the concept of particles more broadly. Remember, historically there have been many ideas of particles which turned out to be incorrect, but the idea itself as a concept has been around for thousands of years. bd2412 T 00:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia needs an article on the concept of particles. Concept articles may be difficult to write, but are very important to our core audience. --JaGa^talk 23:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (OP) Have a look at the Particle (disambiguation) page which this one displaced. That has the various real meanings of particle in a straightforward form so people can find the one they want. And it includes all the ones which people think this is. There is a good reason for the notability requirement for articles, people make up articles like this one. If you want to keep this article in some form or other then find some source that covers the main topic. We are not in the business of making our own things up. Books do not cover the topic of 'Particle' comprising of everything from subatomeic particles to stars with colloidal particles, sparks and embers, dust particles, nanoparticles, atoms, idealized point particles in maths, sand particles, heaps of particles and pyroclastic flow. Surely you can do that simple thing if it is a reasonable subject? What limits are you setting? Is that original research to make up your own topic based on whatever feels okay to you rather than what people have written about? Otherwise a disambiguation page is the thing to use. The difficulty in writing the article is because it is not a notable topic. Dmcq (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate !vote: Dmcq (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.

Where? Dmcq (talk) 06:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the editor who left that tag is counting the nomination as a vote. Technically it is not, since someone can nominate an article for deletion out of a genuine lack of knowledge about the notability of a subject, and with no opinion about whether it should be kept or deleted. However, you have strongly enunciated a deletion rationale in your nomination, and probably should have restated with your vote that you are the nominator, to keep it from accidentally being counted twice. bd2412 T 15:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I pointed out that I was the original proposer at the start. As far as I can see it is normal for people to put in a delete or keep if they nominate something. I'll put it in bold since you think it is important. Dmcq (talk) 16:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was just guessing at the rationale of the editor who tagged the vote. bd2412 T 16:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I fail to see a reason to delete this. Yes it needs some help but it is well referenced. General articles should provide a look at how all different fields examine the term. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article has rferences in it but the 'topic' is just cited to dictionary definitions of particles. And then the article goes way outside the boundary of even the dictionary definition in whats put into it. Dmcq (talk) 06:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As a chemist, I consider a particle to be a fundamental concept of the physical sciences, and a foundation upon which rests the Atomic theory. It certainly needs much more explanation than a dictionary definition. Articles on fundamental concepts are often the hardest to write, I know, but we shouldn't delete an article just because it's hard to write, or we'd be deleting things like Nature and matter (and then we'd all disappear in a puff of smoke!). Walkerma (talk) 03:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep This is one of the most fundamental and most important concepts of all of science. So says Headbomb {talk and I agree. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A repeated argument is that this is too broad for a "topic". But I fail to see the problem with that. Wouldn't such an overview expand general reader's knowledge much better than the dab page? Say someone was told to learn about "particles", well the first thing they need to know is that each field treats "particle" differently. Then they can further study whatever specific meaning they want. And no, the dab page does not really teach anything but how to click links and the reader is taken directly into field specific discussion. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Headbomb; fundamentally important. I was surprised to see this article AfD'd. Side note: if we delete this article, every bit of matter may go with it too, including Wikipedia.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The simple scientific use of the term 'particle' is not presently covered. Every child in junior science is taught about particles as part of the particle theory of matter. This example of a Junior Science textbook from Google Books provides a decent example of what they are taught. The meaning outlined by the particle theory of matter (top of p.49 of text) is not included on the particle (disambiguation) page. The page Particle Theory of Matter is a redirect to atomic theory, a page which does not even mention (let alone explain) this simple scientific model. The pages on state changes do not provide particle-level explanations, yet these too are part of the teaching to junior science students. The term particle is commonly used in chemistry as a catch-all for either when the types of particles are not known or when they are not relevant. We explain boiling in terms of providing the energy needed to overcome the forces of attraction between particles so that we need not deal with the differences between boiling argon, water, molten sodium chloride, and gold. We might talk of the particles in a mixture because there are molecules, ions, radicals, and atoms and we want to refer to them all generally. It is true that physicists use the term particles in specialised senses (quarks etc) and point particles when constructing mathematical models but physicists are not the only scientists. When chemists speak of the ideal gas law we speak of the assumption that the molecules / particles having insignificant volume when compared to the whole, but we most certainly do not mean point particles - this is because the deviations seen in the cases of real gases can occur when the assumption breaks down, and point particles can never have significant volume. When particle theory is applied to solids the notion of these very small particles being effectively point particles becomes ridiculous. The current page needs great expansion and development, but it having been created is a definite improvement in encyclopedic content. EdChem (talk) 13:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide a reference to a book that google will show some pages from please so I can see a citation for what you mean. The reference you gave doesn't even show the front cover. I fully understand that everybody has their own idea of what a particle is, just I have never seen them all stuck together in the way the article has them all stuck together and the article after a number of weeks and people asking for such a citation when it was first set up still has no such citation. I wish to have a disambiguation page instead of somebody making things up. Dmcq (talk) 16:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, the link works fine for me. The book is "Science for Life 7" meaning it is for year 7 students (first year of high school in Australia) and it is by Anne Garton and Ken Williamson. ISBN is 9781420203851 and it was published in 2005. You want pp. 48-58. I'm sure there are many other texts with similar content. EdChem (talk) 16:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That really is weird. I just get their picture of a brown book they use when they haven't a picture of the front plus a list of other books. Not even a snippet view. Dmcq (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think they've detected I'm not in Australia and only offer that view to people in Australia? I've not heard of Google doing such a thing but it's not beyond the bounds of possibility. 17:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Keep and WTF? - This was not a dictionary definition, and particles are fundamental components of the physical universe! Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This should not be a red link and the rest is a matter of ordinary editing per policy. Sources such as The Ashgate companion to contemporary philosophy of physics and Particle metaphysics seem adequate to demonstrate the notability of the concept. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There already is an article Elementary particle linked to from Particle (disambiguation) describing that. I want the disambiguation page back instead of this one and this one removed. Dmcq (talk) 13:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, elementary particles are those which are indivisible and that is a special case of the more general concept. In any case, the existence of other articles is not a reason to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then subatomic particle. The point is nobody discusses particle like this article does so why should it exist never mind be a primary article causing delay to what people really want? Dmcq (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that nobody uses the word "particle" in the generic sense of small things that bigger things are made of, in the aggregate? I'd like to see your proof of that. bd2412 T 19:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If people are insistent on keeping this article could we please at least have it moved somewhere else and particle turned back into a disambiguation page? Otherwise references to particle will be linked to this and never properly disambiguated to the proper article in the places referring to it. Dmcq (talk) 15:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not a rationale for disambiguating a page. If it were, our primary topic guidelines would be useless because article title for which there is a primary topic dispute is likely to have some number of errant links pointing to it. Under that rationale, we would have a disambiguation page instead of an article at University of California, since most references are intended to indicate one of the branch campuses. A link to a general discussion of a topic is not incorrect simply because there are more refined articles under the heading of that topic. bd2412 T 18:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Disambiguation gives the criteria in 'Is there a primary topic?'. If there is a primary topic where it is very likely that's what people really wanted then it should not be disambiguated but just point to the disambiguation page at the top. Here we have an article which is quite obviously not what most people really wants when they look up 'particle'. Most people tsaying they want 'particle' seem to want some sort of atomic particle - possibly one of those articles could be primary as being very likely what people wanted. However the disambiguation page works well to allow people to choose. Dmcq (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So should we have an article or a disambiguation page at University of California? How about at Secretary of State or Supreme Court? We also have a substantial majority of people on this page saying that the concept "particle" (of which the subatomic particle is just one kind) is an important concept to be conveyed. Should we ignore that consensus? bd2412 T 19:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be more direct, is a subatomic particle a kind of particle or not? Is a nanoparticle a kind of particle or not? bd2412 T 19:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm glad I've edited conflicted with this post. I've had a long reply, but it seems BD2412 was able to say in one sentence what took me twenty. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Particle should go the the page that discusses particles in various contexts (as parts of a larger whole, which would include particles of sand as well as subatomic particles), which is this one. With a header that says: for other meanings, see particle (disambiguation). The dab should be everything else. Just as is done now for chain reaction, sail, rocket, and the words mentioned above.

For you physics purists: remember that the people who want particle to direct to subatomic particle or even elementary particle, they're not physics based. Those definitions miss the physics implications of whether things are behaving as "particles or waves." In physics, you don't have to be a elementary particle (like an electron) or a subnuclear particle (like a neutron, which isn't elementary and is thus itself composed of particle), or even nucleus (made of many nucleons, themselves made of quarks). Entire atoms have shown interferance as waves, but otherwise are generally the fundamental "particles" of chemistry (the division which you cannot exceed without loosing chemical properties). So a page on "particle" as a general idea behavior (and yes I suppose it even does include particles of sentences, in grammer, and particles of galaxies in astonomy) is fully justified.

BD2412 and Headbomb have been making good points for this entire debate, and I'm very surprised at the resistance. I think it's just a matter of reactionary-thinking.

And by the way, when we say WP is not a dictionary (WP:NOTDICTIONARY) we only mean that articles should not be words themselves (where they came from, their etymology, how they're used). It does NOT mean that we are prohibited from breaking down WP article structure using the dictionary definitions as guides (though perhaps not inflexible guides). On the contrary, not to use the dictionary as general guideline for writing structure would be a huge mistake, since WP is written in a natural language, and in a natural language, words have meanings, from common to uncommon. Most of WP does follow the dictionary. We'd be complete fools not to generally structure a word-lookup-based encyclopedia in any other way. In fact, as you may know, encyclopedias and dictionaries are closely related at "things" and that is (ultimately) why paper dictionaries start with "A" and why even in WP, most topics on dab pages are in alphabetical order. S B H arris 20:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no citation dealing with the topic except a dictionary. All these people have to do to show it is a reasonable topic is find a book or chapter in a book or a paper dealing with the topic. Saying I'm reactionary is not a reasonable argument. Producing a good citation is a reasonable argument. It is not a verifiable topic. Don't you think it would be better to do that than start just saying things like that I'm reactionary? If it is such an important topic don't you thing a straightforward search using google books would throw up thousands of good candidates? Find a citation talking about electrons and stars and colloids or something reasonably similar under a topic with particle or something similar in it. Dmcq (talk) 23:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See World for another example of an article based on a word in a dictionary rather than a topic. At least it doesn't stop people finding what they want easily. Isn't the earth a world? Don't you want world peace? Doesn't it include everybody in the world? At least you can find books titled something like 'The World' even if they aren't what that article is about. Dmcq (talk) 00:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's 23 references given in the article (plus the FR and the EL section), covering everything mentioned in the article. They come from organizations like the Particle Engineering Research Group, the US National Research Council, and the Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics, or come from classic general and specialist textbooks like University Physics and Fundamentals of Statistical and Thermal Dynamics or Physical Chemistry, to dedicated textbooks such as Particle metaphysics brought up in this deletion discussion earlier. It's pretty clear to everyone and their mothers that this topic is verifiable and meets WP:V. You think it fails WP:V. Consensus disagrees with you. Move on. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They're citations for bits of the article. I'm not saying there aren't lots of topics which have particle in them which are notable. What I'd like is for something besides a dictionary definition of particle to justify the overall topic. As WP:Notability says 'if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article'. Or do you want to invoke WP:IAR and claim this as an occasional exception to that rule? Dmcq (talk) 04:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

to Dmcq: fyi, a web page outlining particle theory, and a book chapter on research about teaching particle theory. Chapter 9 of this book also covers issues of student understanding of the particulate nature of matter, as does chapter 4 (p. 67) of this book. EdChem (talk) 04:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you have pointed to is covered by Atomic theory. Particle theory points at particle physics rather than atomic theory - personally I think it should point at atomic theory and then even the name would be the same as what you were pointing at. Have you looked at Particle? Your references only cover a tiny fraction of its extent. Dmcq (talk) 05:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. Particle theory is not atomic theory because the particles involved are frequently not atoms. Try this site, with all its discussions of state changes in terms of particles. I've said particle and numerous other articles need expansion. My references do demonstrate the term 'particle' being used as a catch-all which might refer to atoms, or molecules, or radicals, or ions, or ion-pairs. EdChem (talk) 05:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bother, he'll either ignore it or dismiss it with a back of the hand like he did with B. Falkenburg (2007). Particle Metaphysics. Springer. ISBN 978-3540337317. or "What is a particle?". Particle Engineering Research Center. 23 July 2010., and plenty of others which have been mentioned to him a few times now. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I misssed that reference "What is a particle?". Particle Engineering Research Center. 23 July 2010.. I am very sorry about that, it is the only reference I have seen that goes anywhere near addressing my concerns about the article. Why is it in just as further reading rather than as a citation? and in particular as a citation to give the article some scope and define the topic? I think it could probably be counted as a reliable source and basis for the article though I had really been looking for a proper book about the subject or paper about it. Don't you think it peculiar that you can't produce something better? Dmcq (talk) 12:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Something better like entire books dedicated to the topic, like B. Falkenburg (2007). Particle Metaphysics. Springer. ISBN 978-3540337317., now mentioned for the fourth time in this deletion discussion, which can be found immediatly besides the PERC website in the post which you are replying to? Or book chapters, like F. Reif (1965). "Statistical Description of Systems of Particles". Fundamentals of Statistical and Thermal Dynamics. McGraw-Hill. pp. 47ff. ISBN 9780070518001. which have been in the article for the last 6 days now? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you used them as a basic for the topic it would be already covered by the article about atomic theory. The web page 'What is a particle?' seems to be the only one that corresponds in any reasonable sense with the article. If you base it on that web page I think you might end up with a reasonable topic. Personally I'd have called it particulate matter but particulate seems to have been taken up by an article about pollution. Dmcq (talk) 12:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article was useful to me. It contains the fundamental info, I was looking for. If the information is correct, it should NOT be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.129.141.41 (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Per Sven Manguard. This article is on a very basic scientific principle. It would be like deleting Oxygen. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 17:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep inherently notable as a basic concept of physics. Gazillions of sources available. Article as currently written is far more than a DICDEF. Thparkth (talk) 18:30, 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. Tone 22:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Muñoz

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

Article about a high school soccer player that does not seem to meet notability guidelines for athletes. Most of the sources are from a local newspaper and one of his club's websites. BurtAlert (talk) 23:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —BurtAlert (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —BurtAlert (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable per the general notability guideline and the sports notability guideline. A high school player would have had to do something pretty remarkable to merit a wikipedia article and Muñoz definitely hasn't. Jenks24 (talk) 06:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he fails WP:GNG, and he has not played professionally so he also fails WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not played anywhere near level required for a footballer to be specifically notable, even the high school he plays for doesn't have an article. As noted by nom, only local paper coverage, and the town (although WP calls it a city) has less than 10k people, so local paper coverage doesn't carry much notability weight. Appearance of fan/vanity page--ClubOranje^T 10:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I made this page for a project guys !! chill out. lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scoobynaiterpaul123 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 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 per WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 03:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grosse Teub

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

There's no evidence that this is a notable figure of speech; being used on Facebook doesn't make it so. Previous version of article was filled with jokes*, so this article likely won't progress beyond a source of entertainment for a small number of people. ... discospinster _talk 22:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* e.g. "Notable opponents to "teubomology" include ((Zac Efron)), an unsuccessful candidate for ET status, and ((Anne Wilson)), a "GT turned MT" upon the discovery of her having falsified her teub-size referee." ... discospinster _talk 22:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —BurtAlert (talk) 23:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under either A7 or G3. BurtAlert (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per BurtAlert. Google no-show, apart from those impeccable sources YouTube, and porno sites, such as xhamster. Acabashi (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I found some limited evidence that the expression is used in French in highly sexualised or vulgar contexts, but that's not sufficient to make it notable. The meaning appears to be "big penis", and I have seen no evidence that this is more than just an essentially random combination of two words that make sense together. Even if Wikipedia were a dictionary we would not have articles on big penis (a redirect), big dick or long dong (both deleted). I note that the author apparently did not even try this stunt on the French Wikipedia, at least not under this title. Also, someone familiar with vulgar French should check whether the user name "Kudetat" ("queue d'état"?) violates our username policy. Hans Adler 00:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I already speedied it once as a hoax. Maybe it isn't, but I see no evidence of notability. Deb (talk) 11:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: according to Google Translate, "queue d'état" means "tail state". That can't be good... BurtAlert (talk) 01:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Heh. I think it's supposed to be "coup d'etat". ... discospinster _talk 02:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised that Google Translate would make such an elementary error: it's "tail of state". —Tamfang (talk) 20:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It looks like I assumed too much Good Faith on this one. I knew it'd been speedied, but the newer version looked like it wasn't absolute total rubbish - so when my PROD was removed with I have removed the delete warning and will proceed to compile sources to back up the article. Please do not delete... [1] I tried to kindly request the user add refs, and said I'd give it a few days User_talk:Kudetat#Grosse Teub. However, I do understand the above, and this edit is further evidence it is vandalism. Ah well; can't win 'em all. Chzz ► 16:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete appears to be "something we made up one day". No evidence of any wide spread usage and even if it has some credence beyond the articles creator, there is WP:NEO no third party coverage of the use of this term.Active Banana (^bananaphone 19:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wikipedia is not a dictionary of school-based slang. MLA (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable per the above. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:12, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Day9 Daily episodes

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

List article that consists of a whole series of a non-notable podcast. E. Fokker (talk) 21:43, 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) 23:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep valid subarticle of day9 which got a notable (WP:GNG award --212.45.116.90 (talk) 10:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal

This is the third time E. Fokker has tried to deleted this article.

The first time was under Speedy Deletion C7. From CSD A7: This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software, or other creative works. Since a podcast is a creative work, I do not feel this criterion applies.

The second time the review for deletion resulted in a keep. I feel the continued attempt to remove this article is due to the lack of knowledge on the importance of a player based community for a game that has been an major contributing factor for Blizzard Entertainment's economic and future game development growth since 1998. Please review the Cultural Impact section of StarCraft Franchise. I would recommend E. Fokker and other whose weild the power of deletion to become more familiar with the subjects they are recommending, prior to taking "aim" at an article they do not feel is worthy of the world to have access too.

Please provide a link to the previous deletion discussion. Reach Out to the Truth 18:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, are you referring to the PROD when you refer to the second time? If so, you objected to the deletion yourself. That is not keep consensus, it just means at least one person thinks the page shouldn't be deleted through that process. AFD is an appropriate venue if a PROD is contested, so E. Fokker has done nothing wrong there.

I also see no record of a speedy deletion attempt in this article's history. I do see two successful speedy deletions in the deletion log though. Please do not recreate articles that are deleted through any deletion process. If they are to be brought back, they must be undeleted instead. A7 can apply to podcasts by the way, as they are web content. A7 doesn't apply to "other creative works", where "other" means non-web content. Reach Out to the Truth 18:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you refer to my Talk page you will see the multiple attempts to delete this article. Day[J] Fan 19:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If non-web media is the intent of C7 then prehaps a less ambiguous description needs to be drafted to removed any doubt as to the intent of other creative works.

The deeds of Day[9] are notable, as his article remains intact. Since these deeds constitute analysis of game mechanics and theories via podcast, would it not make the podcasts themselves notable? Day[J] Fan 20:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see two speedy deletions (both of which were successful), a declined PROD (declined by you), and the AFD discussion that we're currently participating in. Bringing a declined PROD to AFD is not unusual at all, and by no means a bad thing. I ignore the CSDs in this case because they were successful, leading to the page's deletion. It's the page's recreation (twice) that was inappropriate, but I am willing to ignore that too. So all we have is E. Fokker PRODing a page instead of CSDing it, and then bringing it to AFD when the PROD failed. I don't see the problem. Rather, E. Fokker gave the article another chance at surviving.

This is the first time I've seen anyone confused by that particular part of criterion A7, so I'm not convinced it needs to be revised. At least you know now.

Although Day[9] may well be notable, that does not make anything he's involved with notable. You see, notability is not inherited; Plott's podcast does not inherit the notability of Plott himself. Is it notable? I don't know. I don't have an opinion on this right now. It's something that I'd have to look into, which I might do later. Reach Out to the Truth 23:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – We don't have an article on the show itself, only on Sean Plott, in which it looks like he is more notable for his professional gaming career than his webcast. –MuZemike 06:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a valid split per WP:SPLIT.If an article becomes too large or a section of an article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article it is recommended that a split be carried out. In some cases refactoring an article into child or sister articles can allow subtopics to be discussed more fully elsewhere without dominating a general overview article to which they are non-central (but only if the new articles are themselves sufficiently notable to be included in the encyclopedia. Because the main article will be too long if all his dailys were put on the day9 article splitting that part of the article out is a good idea --212.45.116.90 (talk) 05:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no article that this could have been split from, and thus nowhere to merge to either. There is no Day9 Daily article, and this content would not be appropriate for the Sean Plott article. Reach Out to the Truth 22:59, 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 delete. No context Acroterion _(talk) 21:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Rush

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

Jojhutton (talk) 21:26, 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. Tone 22:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blarming

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

Contested PROD: non-notable neologism. Searches find this word used in several different senses. In this particular meaning, a technique for using blogging in real-estate marketing, it seems to be more or less a proprietary term, all links leading back to "Mark Taylor of Awesomerates a loan originator in Scottsdale Arizona."

I do not find evidence of the substantial use in independent secondary sources required to establish notability. Per WP:NEO: "Articles on neologisms are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term... To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources... Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." This one does not even seem to be in wide use yet. JohnCD (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as neologism which does not have independently verified notability. The article states that Blarming has become the word of choice when used to describe the technique of using blogs to farm and gain a higher Google ranking . . . without any citation whatsoever. Googling "blarming" mostly turns up pages using "blarming" as an alternate version of the word "blaming" as in "Stop blarming me for that bad neologism, mate!" --Quartermaster (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and also as based essentially on a single incident and a single source. Bearian (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.95.111 (talk) 07:33, 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. 28bytes (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Blue Tuesdays

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

non notable band, speedy deletion templates constantly removed by sock of article creator, so lets take this to the next level. WuhWuzDat 19:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only formed in December 2010, no indications of notability. --Crusio (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE no recognizable notability, indeed no chance for notability since it just formed in Dec 2010. Warfieldian (talk) 19:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious speedy delete. Hairhorn (talk) 19:42, 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) 20:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Toral

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

16 year old youth footballer who fails notability guidelines, specifically subject specific WP:NFOOTBALL in that he has not played a competitive 1st team game and coverage is only general sports announcement type reporting. As not actually achieved anything particularly notable. ClubOranje^T 19:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.

Agreed. I further the nomination for deletion. When the kid actually makes it onto the reserve squad in a year or two, then give him an article. Right now, he's only a current news story, and really only relevant only to Arsenal and Barca. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 19:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete: does not meet notability guidelines. 70.188.28.161 (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have added references to show he has received coverage in British newspapers Racklever (talk) 14:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he fails WP:NSPORT. Two newspaper sources, one of which fails WP:NTEMP, are insufficient to establish notability under WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I'd love to keep it, The fact is it's too premature for him to have an article until he plays for Arsenal or Barcelona try to take Arsenal to court over it (hypothetically) to get the required notability. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 12:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NSPORTS due to not having played a first team game, fails WP:N as he has not received significant coverage in RS. 143.167.2.191 (talk) 14:06, 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 redirect to Summer in Transylvania. J04n(talk page) 03:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Wren

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

Could not find significant coverage in reliable sources for this actress. /ƒETCH COMMS / 19:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: No assertion of notability. Ravenswing 05:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The "assertion of notability" is that she is an actress. So the one-sentence article does indeed have an assertion of notability. It fails to include that she was Diana in 1 episode of Genie in the House, Chloe in 13 episodes of Life Bites, Heidi in 4 episodes of Summer in Transylvania, and Kelly Oswald in 1 episode of Casualty... or that while acting, she also held the non-acting position of costume supervisor in 10 episodes of Wiener & Wiener.[2] However, and though she might be ticking at WP:ENT, I do not see the relibale sources upon which to build a decent BLP. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Being an actor is not an assertion of notability. It's an assertion that you're an actor. There is nothing prima facie notable about the profession. Ravenswing 22:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response Pardon, but I've read the brief article and the speedy criteria of {{db-person}} (a lower standard than notability) and believe you are incorrect to declare a (sic) "Speedy Delete: No assertion of notability". Had the article only said "Amy Wren is an actress", without any grounds or information for further consideration, then we might reasonably conclude that a bare statement that she is an actress does not imply or assert a notability. However, as the article's full text actually states (sic) "Amy Wren plays 'Heidi' the zombie in Summer in Transylvania", and sources that statement, we have an extreme stub article that has her role as 'Heidi' in Summer in Transylvania as its credible asertion of notability. Simple. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that word doesn't mean what you think it means, Vizzini ... to assert something, you actually do have to assert it; it can't be inferred from another statement. So she plays a role in a show. Terrific; what does that assert save that, well, she plays a role in a show? Nothing at all. Were the article to say "Amy Wren is most notable for playing the role of Heidi the Zombie etc," that is an assertion of notability. It doesn't. Ravenswing 07:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The horse must be in front of the cart, Fezzik. CSD has a lower standard than does notability, and in a stub a simple credible statememnt of acting a specific role in a specific film is a credible assertion. Whether it passes WP:N or not is a whole different kettle of fish. IE: A stub article might read only "Sylvester Stallone plays Rocky the boxer in the film Rocky," THAT acts as a credible asertion of notability. A stub does NOT need to say "notable for" or "known for". It is when we look to WP:N that we decide if the credible assertion is notable or not. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now per WP:TOOSOON. Redirect as a reasonable search term to Summer in Transylvania where she is already mentioned. While the article's reporting her as being Heidi in Summer in Transylvania is a sourced assertion of notability, and while her roles in multiple productions might nudge at WP:ENT, I did not find enough coverage in reliable sources upon which to build a suitable BLP article.[3][4][5][6] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:26, 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 speedy keep , nom has withdrawn, no remaining delete votes. Nice job, folks. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erna Lazarus

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

The article has been tagged for no having no sources on the article's page since 2007. WP:DEADLINE does not extend into infinity. The only source the editor who deleted the prior prod notice could find was evidently not sufficient to establish notability. Assuming good faith, if it we're, the editor would have put it into the article, instead of onto the talk page. I agree. It's not enough to pass WP:GNG, let alone WP:BIO. I can find no better. If (A) the tag has been there since 2007 and (B) the editor who opposes Prod can find no source that establishes notability, and (C) I can find none either, WP:DUCK David in DC (talk) 18:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, as nominator. David in DC (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An IMDB external link has now been added to the page. IMDB is not a reliable source to establish notability. David in DC (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who said it was? postdlf (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Something made an editor insert it as the only "source" on the page. I've now tried to use the one obit offered on the talk page to establish WP:GNG. I think the sole article, which is actually a squib from UPI quoting a different periodical, is not sufficiently reliable and does not establish notability. I've asked for a proper cite for every "fact" in the article that comes from IMDB or from thin air. In the best case scenario, which I think my rescue attempt currently displays, the article still fails WP:GNG. Surely a precis in UPI of an obit in Daily Variety is not enough to establish notability. Were it so, imagine how many hack writers, mildly colorful extras and totally non-notable make-up artists, gaffers and best boys would merit WP:BIOs. David in DC (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added the imdb link because it was missing, and I added it to the "external links" section, not as a reference to provide sourcing or to satisfy GNG. That aside, you might have been better off leaving the article as it was pending the AFD, as I don't think your changes were constructive or in furtherance of a robust AFD.[7] The sentence "UPI reported that Daily Variety reported that Lazarus..." is one of the worst I have ever seen added to an article (and arguably WP:POINTy), and your gutting of the filmography hardly helps readers judge the subject or research it further. I wish others luck in expanding this, if they can. postdlf (talk) 19:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. I've created the best case article with the only source you (or I) can find. I properly marked everything that just came out of thin air. Filmographies are only supposed to have six films. I used the four in the UPI squib of the Variety story. I added the Lewis & Martin bit. After all that, it's still a duck. David in DC (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Erna Lazarus was one of the founding members of the Screen Writer's Guild and screenwriter for dozens of files and TV shows. She was most prolific in the 1930s-1950s which is probably why there aren't a lot of sources online to establish notability. Instead of nominating this article for deletion, why not notify the appropriate WikiProject, WT:FILM? Perhaps the editors there have print sources which can be used. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Please read my expanded request there. David in DC (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I removed the prod because it didn't assert that the subject was non-notable, only that no sources had been added for years, which isn't a compelling reason for deleting a deceased subject that seemed prima facie verifiable and possibly notable. I stumbled on this randomly via a watchlisted talk page notice so this isn't my usual subject area, but I hate to see anything get deleted for fixable problems. However, other than passing mentions, this newswire obituary is all I could find online: http://www.upi.com/Entertainment_News/2006/03/14/Screenwriter-Erna-Lazarus-dead-at-102/UPI-48531142379864/ ("She helped pave the way for women in Hollywood as one of the first screenwriters in the studio system, Variety said.") I could not locate online the Variety story mentioned, but it certainly suggests significance, which suggests notability. Perhaps someone able to search offline sources (and more familiar with Hollywood industry bios) can find something else, because it seems that a female screenwriter was unusual in her day. I don't know whether her screenwriting credits in and of themselves may satisfy any notability guidelines in the absence of readily available sources. Good luck. postdlf (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, you mean _this_ gate key. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears to be a case of the right sources not being online. Billboard here in '54 refers to her as a "vet scripter", with a later issue showing her promoted to associate producer on "Mayor of the Town". If anyone has access to the "International Television Almanac", she shows up several times, credited with around 30 major studio scripts and stories.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's another possible source: http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/22753472.html?dids=22753472:22753472&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Mar+28%2C+1995&author=LISA+LEFF&pub=Los+Angeles+Times+%28pre-1997+Fulltext%29

Strong Keep. Searching BGMI she shows up in the International Motion Picture Almanac from 1975-1982, 1984, and 1986. I've got the 1986 one in front of me right now and she has an extensive pedigree including a number of "sole-story" screenplay credits (e.g., Jerry Lewis and Dean Martin's Hollywood or Bust). She's also got extensive writing credits for everything from Petticoat Junction to Bewitched. Ima gonna head on over to her wikipedia article and do a little work (not a lot, but hopefully enough). She is indeed one of these people who seems to only appear in antiquated paper-based, multi-planed analogue information storage devices. --Quartermaster (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How DARE she have her career begin and end before the internet was created. Shameful. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources added. Notability shown. Time to close. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with MQS. As nominated, it merited deletion. But now, it's a horse of a completely 'nother color. I've stricken my !vote. I withdraw my AfD nomination. David in DC (talk) 13:56, 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. JohnCD (talk) 20:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Reviews in Eukaryotic Gene Expression

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

publication of questionable notability, article created by blatantly COI account. WuhWuzDat 18:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Obviously notable journal with sizeable impact factor, COI is not a reason for deletion and, besides, the article has been edited for NPOV by me earlier and as far as I can see, there is no promotional language in it. --Crusio (talk) 18:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Being listed in ISI's Journal Citation Reports, with an impact factor of 2.949, identifies this as a solid scientific journal. --Orlady (talk) 18:59, 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) 20:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WJ232

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

Aircraft not notable for a stand-alone article, has a connection with Peter Carmichael for being used for shooting down a MiG in Korea but that is covered in the pilots article. Contested prod MilborneOne (talk) 18:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Peter Carmichael. Clearly a non-notable individual aircraft apart from its connection to this notable aviator, fails to meet the standard for a stand-alone article on an individual aircraft. I have checked the Google hits mentioned on the talk page and most are scale modelling mentions or other passing mentions or inclusion on lists. - Ahunt (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Ahunt.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not seem to be notable on its own, and is not a credible search term.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability not established and the sentence on this aircraft in the Hawker Sea Fury article seems a perfectly adequate level of coverage. Nick-D (talk) 03:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hawker Sea Fury, as this is an instance of the Sea Fury, not an instance of Carmichael. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 05:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete don't see any claim to notability or even an indication that it would be a search term to another article.GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No real idea why this one aircraft would be notable. Individual aircraft would have to have a pretty high notability threshhold. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nominator. Anotherclown (talk) 08:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GraemeLeggett -- not a useful redirect to anything. --Rlandmann (talk) 07:35, 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} 05:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Singh

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

I don't see notability per WP:POLITICIAN. bender235 (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This one is so easy. WP:POLITICIAN says that members of national, state and provincial legislatures are notable. The Indian parliament is its legislature, and its goverment website confirms that this man is a member. Bender235, please follow Point #4 on this list of things you are supposed to do before nominating an article for deletion. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This page should not have been nominated for deletion, given that [8], which was already cited in the article, confirms that the subject is a member of the Lok Sabha (the lower house of the parliament of India). Granted, there are some discrepancies that need to be dealt with (such as the exact spelling of his surname, his birthdate, and his marriage date), and the whole article nees to be cleaned up, but the subject does appear to be verifiably notable as a politician. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOW. This one is easy. Subject has been member of Indian parliament three times - twice in the lower house and once in the upper house and he was even a cabinet minister briefly. I have cleaned up the article.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a current Parliamentarian. MLA (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Successful political candidate who meets WP:POLITICIAN. Kittybrewster ☎ 08:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As made clear in preceding comments, subject is verifiably notable and easily meets WP:POLITICIAN. No grounds for deletion whatsoever, especially in light of recent cleanup.--JayJasper (talk) 02:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If there was some ambiguity over whether this subject was indeed in the legislature, deletion might be appropriate. That's not the case, though, as noted above. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:15, 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 deleted as a foundational copyvio. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 20:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ReefDoctor

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

No references or citations for notability have been supplied since article was created. The entire article seems to be written in the first person by the ReefDoctor himself. For example, "The focus of ReefDoctor’s Marine management programme has been our Fisheries survey and Artificial habitat programme." Article does not appear to meet requirements for notability. him Warfieldian (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a copyvio and tagged as such. -- Whpq (talk) 17:34, 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 deleted per G4. TN X Man 18:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ash Verschuur

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

non notable disk jockey, article previously deleted by afd, new incarnation was tagged for speedy G4, and speedy was declined by an spa who created the last incarnation WuhWuzDat 17:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for same reasons as first nomination, and as stated above. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Highspeedrailguy (talk) 17:49, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Asmaa Mahfouz

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

Fails WP:BLP1E, no coverage outside of that one event. --Nableezy 16:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. --Nableezy 16:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant information into Egyptian_Revolution_of_2011 and delete.--v/r - T P 16:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say keep, because she figures to be one of the key people in the Arab world protests, like Mohamed Bouazizi or Wael Ghonim. --bender235 (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep notability provided by references. Article is expandable and person is notable.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep notability provided by references. Article is expandable and person is notable.-- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 09:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:BLP1E: If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented—as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981—a separate biography may be appropriate. Arbeh (talk) 15:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the exception to BLP1E quoted above is not in any way satisfied here. A number of columns have been written crediting this young woman's vlog as being a spark in the revolt. To try to compare that to John Hinckley, a person who was attempted to assassinate a sitting US president, who has been the subject of thousands of books and articles, is so outlandish that I cannot understand how it is brought up. The fact remains that all of the references in the article, including several that are not reliable sources such as blog entries, do not cover this woman outside of coverage of the event for which she is notable for. If there were some coverage from before these recent protests, be it in English or Arabic, then BLP1E would not apply, but as it is it certainly does. The references do not demonstrate that she is notable, they demonstrate that she is known as a result of a single event. I understand why people who like what she has done would want to keep the article, I just have a different view. I dont think having a BLP about oneself is a good thing, especially when there are not many people actually watching the article. It is an open invitation for any number of people, be they random vandals or opponents who wish malign the subject, to insert all kinds of malicious information into the number 1 google result for that person's name.
I would like to respond to the other keep. If Mahfouz is "one of the key people" in the protests, you would expect to see her at least mentioned in a decent chunk of the stories about these protests. She is mentioned in less than .5% of the stories that show up in google news about the Egyptian protests (109/45000+). nableezy - 00:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep surely more that one event and per all the other keep above. IQinn (talk) 11:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which other event? nableezy - 20:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you even have a clue about this story? She is an activist since years. IQinn (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And in which other event has she been covered? Asking if I have a clue is not the correct response to that question. If you would like to claim that she has received coverage for activities besides these protests you should provide a source for it. Just saying "but it's true" isn't much of an argument. nableezy - 14:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://news.google.com/archivesearch?as_user_ldate=2009&as_user_hdate=2010&q=%22Asmaa+Mahfouz%22 Arbeh (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of those results are covering her, they are simply quoting her. I appreciate the work you have put into this article, however the standards for biographies of living people are higher than for other articles. There needs to be actual coverage of her outside of the coverage that centered around the "one event" that the coverage is focused on. nableezy - 00:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She is an activist since years with multiple events as Arbeh's link shows. Not just one person that made one video one day. Wikipedia:What is one event, WP:BIO1E She has been credited for her work sparking the revolution that overthrown the regime and high ranking reliable sources have written about her. There are already more than enough sources to write a quality biography and the coverage is extensive and persisted. She is in important figure in this ongoing BIG "event". IQinn (talk) 01:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a question of the number of the sources, or even the quality of sources, or whether or not an article can be written about this person. It can be, I acknowledge that, but that isn't the criteria for articles on living people on Wikipedia. This is clearly going one way, and I dont expect for this to close as anything but a keep, but we have these policies for a reason and not one person has actually addressed the issue with this article. All of the coverage of this person has been in the context of the "event". You cannot say that coverage has "persisted", it's been barely a month since the protests began. You cannot even say that she is a central figure in the topic. I dont really mind if this article is kept, so long as those commenting here with such vigor watch the article and ensure that it meets the quality standards for a BLP. But for some reason I doubt this bio will have 5 watchers in 5 months. nableezy - 04:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One month? The struggle goes for some say since 2005. Asmaa Mahfouz is one of the founder of the April 6 Youth Movement in 2008 almost 3 years ago. No offence everybody is welcome to start an Afd discussion and WP:BIO1E and Wikipedia:Wikilawyering sucks anyway. She is a central figure in this and i highly doubt that this BLP will only have 5 visitors a month but feel free to renominate in a year if so. I am convinced that this won't be the case. IQinn (talk) 06:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You did not understand what I wrote. But thats all right, nableezy - 07:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute that :) IQinn (talk) 07:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep acknowledged iconic leader of a movement which brought down mubarak.[9]--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:03, 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) 20:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dale the emu

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

Non notable private artwork. Two articles in a local newspaper doesn't equal significant coverage. The-Pope (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 17:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 17:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Gale the emu redirects to this article. Whatever the consensus here, it should apply to that as well. LadyofShalott 17:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:GNG requires significant coverage in reliable sources. Two puff pieces in a free community newspaper in no way constitutes significant coverage. WWGB (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per WWGB - notability isn't established here. Nick-D (talk) 02:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. No coverage past local free newspaper, as appears to be the case with the google news searches Ealdgyth - Talk 04:16, 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. Non-notable club. BigDom talk 17:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Norwich Central Baptist Church FC

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

Non-notable football club -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - small, amateur club playing in a small, amateur league. No evidence provided of notability and the league does not appear to be a part of a substantially large hierarchical system. Only citations so far are from a specialist Christian website, not mainstream media etc. - Sitush (talk) 15:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable club, playing below an acceptable level. Giant Snowman 17:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete: Regional christian football club, affiliated to the FA and playing in an FA affiliated league and national cup. Has ties to regional churches as well as churches abroad. This will all be added to the page in time. (talk) 09:18, 25 February 2011
Delete: Does not fulfill criteria of having played in the F.A. Cup or even (as is being debated currently; see Crane Sports F.C.) the F.A. Vase.Delusion23 (talk) 11:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this non notable amateur football club and then delete the non notable league it is playing in at Norfolk Christian Football League. MLA (talk) 21:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete - the whole purpose of this site is to offer information to people who would like to access it. This team, and indeed the league in which it plays, is an important part of thousands of people's lives throughout Norfolk, and they have a right to access this information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.162.240.241 (talk) 13:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the above IP user comment misunderstands the purpose of Wikipedia and unfortunately does not appear to have consulted the policies and guidelines. There is no "right to access" the information here, as opposed to on, say, a website of their own design. This user and the previous unsigned comment from Kellen of 25 Feb seem to me to most likely have a COI. - Sitush (talk) 13:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable club playing at very low level. Also fails WP:GNG. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 15:56, 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} 01:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Motokuni Nakagawa

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

The article fails to address WP:NACTOR (or WP:BIO for stuntman work) and there is a distinct lack of evidence on GBooks or GNews for evidence of impact on the historic notability. The article has been awaiting detail and improvement for over two years, so there seems little prospect of this changing in the near future. PROD quickly removed, so raising for wider discussion. Fæ (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 23:20, 31 January 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, UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This AFD was not originally transcluded into the log. I have now done so for February 24; consider that the Relisting date. On deletion, I have no opinion. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's no sources to verify his career; even the Japanese Wikipedia has nothing we would consider reliable. MSJapan (talk) 18:53, 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. Tone 22:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eze-Abasilim Family of Amichi

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

Fails WP:V. 2 1/2 year old, unsourced page, mainly one long genealogy. This is "an imperial family", according to the article, but I couldn't find any reliable sources about "Eze-Abasilim" in Google Books or Google News archives? The article was tagged for notability and being unsourced since 2008, but this was removed recently by an editor, without adressing these issues though. Fram (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with fire and storm: This near-to-incomprehensible drabbling fails WP:GNG, WP:V and probably WP:BULLSHIT as well. Truth be told, it flirts with G1 territory. Ravenswing 05:17, 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 withdrawn -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Shabab (Oman)

Withdrawn I found a source in a Omani newspaper which indicates it is a notable sports club in general.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non notable football club.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, non notable, so are we going to delete practically every team in Europe thats not in the top flight? Al Shabab are in the top flight of Omani football, surely that is notable? I guess it's not notable if you don't follow the league. Druryfire (talk) 22:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe in inherent notability. Google search Al-Shabab Oman. Do you see thousands of reliable sources? No hits in google books. If somebody actually could show me some reliable sources in the article I might believe it is notable. Until I actually see some evidence... I really couldn't find any sources which really indicate this is worthy of an encyclopedia article. I'm not the only one. Somebody tagged Al-Khaburah too. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note about Al-Khaburah. It was a simple to improve article, which I've done and contested the prod. Jogurney (talk) 01:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - how on earth is this team "non notable"?! A top-level team and participant in the national cup is clearly notable; article needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 15:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google search Al-Shabab Oman. Do you see thousands of reliable sources? No hits in google books. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but if you search for Al-Shabab Oman in Arabic, you will find plenty of sources - especially Koora.com. I added one article from Koora, but my language skills are terrible. I have to believe someone with better skills could flesh this article out quite a bit. Does it need thousands of sources to be kept? That's not a guideline I'm aware of. Jogurney (talk) 01:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per GiantSnowman. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 16:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - top flight football club appears notable. Jogurney (talk) 22:22, 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. BigDom talk 17:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hines Industries

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

Company operating in a very specialised field of very little interest to the general public. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article offers little in the way of asserting notability and, although copyright issues have been resolved via an OTRS ticket, the use of material from the company's website is overly promotional. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the existing references do not establish notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the existing references establish notability because Hines Industries has 17 patents and is mentioned in books because of their relevance to the field of balancing. Hines Industries' employees author articles in manufacturing periodicals such as Pumps & Systems again because of their notability in the field. The content has been edited since the comment was first posted and all marketing phrasing has been removed. Please read the current content. This page is very similar to American Hofmann. So if Hines Industries should be removed, so should this page. --Christine Hines (talk) 16:56:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I have put a Proposed Deletion tag on the article American Hofmann, its second such tag. They do indeed appear to be similar to your company, though I was able to find a few more sources of potential notability, hence, I am mulling proceeding to this step (Articles for Deletion) if PROD template is removed. Thanks for the "heads up." --Quartermaster (talk) 17:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obvious problematic conflict of interest in this article - company's CEO is Dawn Hines, secretary is Mavis Hines and the primary editor is Christine Hines. Claiming page is similar to American Hofmann is irrelevant, but thanks for the heads up on that - wikipedia has way too many vanity/spam articles so I'll be looking at that one also. A search of the database Business and Company Resource Center turns up a directory listing only - no articles, no rankings. This is a privately held, small firm of 50 employees. Annual sales is estimated at 6.5 million dollars. Search of the ABI/Inform database = zero hits. Search of Lexis-Nexis Academic database using phrase "Hines Industries" in ALL NEWS turns up 2 hits, one two line "story" mentioning a new VP for Hines Industries was hired, the other a two paragraph press release (Product News Network) mentioning the release of a new product (The Eliminator-10 small parts balancer). No other articles indicating any notability about the firm. It's been around since 1979 so I think this is a small shop, currently doing well, but otherwise not wikipedia notable. --Quartermaster (talk) 17:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Quartermaster. If additional references from third-party publications can be found, of course, to establish notability, this would be a keep despite the WP:COI. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability per WP:CORP not indicated in reliable sources, does not have coverage to meet WP:GNG. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This business makes balancing machines. Owning patents is well and good, but unless those patents have some sort of recognition as important technical developments from disinterested third party sources, they don't really establish notability for a business. GNews hits are very scanty, not even that many press releases. GBooks contains some incidental mentions ("I used one when I built a hot rod", essentially) but the rest are directory listings. GScholar draws a blank. I don't see significant impact on history, technology, or culture here. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although there are "references" they do nothing in the way of establishing notability, not showing any overall significance to the cooperation. Jay-Sebastos (talk) 07:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, please don't forget to only vote once. It may not have been your intention, but repeatedly adding "keep" when you have a comment might well give the impression that there are many different people saying "keep". Secondly, American Hofmann is also being considered for deletion; the reason it was not before was purely because nobody had come across it, or at least considered its notability before. Thirdly, an article is not notable enough merely because it has a vague connection with another article - it has to be notable in its own right: see WP:ORG#1. So although the Eiffel Tower satisfies WP:N in its own right, the manufacturer of the pig iron that built it does not simply because of its connection with the Eiffel Tower. For an article to be notable enough, it must have significant, secondary source coverage which helps to explain its importance. Unfortunately this company has no such coverage and therefore fails WP:ORG. It has nothing to do with which company is the most wealthy in the industry. A big, organization with no significant, secondary source coverage would not merit its own article, whilst a smaller organization that was particular famous for one reason or another might. Jay-Sebastos (talk) 20:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so pig iron can be in Wikipedia, but not the manufacturers even if a manufacturer developed many of the technologies on which todays manufacturing techniques are based. Got it. --Christine Hines (talk) 16:56:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. And frankly, we'd love to have experts improving the article on balancing machines, even if individual businesses making them are not general encyclopedia subjects. The current article on the machines is slightly confusing. The biography of Gordon E. Hines also seems worthwhile, and anything with historical significance probably belongs there. (There may be a copyright issue with that article currently. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I'll even throw in that if Hines Industries does not meet Wikipedia notability criteria now, it might do so at some time in the future. If it becomes the zaibatsu of balancing machine companies, or a member of the Fortune 500 or the subject of something independently notable, an article would be deserved. Understand, those of us editing and looking at such things aren't motivated to delete articles about companies for no reason, and we are sensitized to the fact that a lot of such articles are blatant attempts at spam. I'm getting the feeling that this is not the case here, but try and understand the context of such discussions. And, you know, if you can turn up New York Times or Business Week articles on how important your company is, most of us here would gladly withdraw our delete recommendations (not votes). We're trying to build an encyclopedia, not attack companies for no reason. --Quartermaster (talk) 00:07, 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 keep. Nominator has rescinded the claim of non-notability. BigDom talk 17:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Downing

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

Notability issues and inability to find sufficient sourcing to expand the article Canyouhearmenow 14:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Might be better to merge him into the article of Oregon State University where he can be mentioned for history of the school verses trying to formulate a complete article about him. --Canyouhearmenow 15:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep head football coaches at the college level are normally considered notable. Needs some refs, but I'll work on that.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reference given in the article claims a one season leadership and it pretty much ends there. There is no other verifiable information that leads to notability to this subject. Therefore, I have to maintain my opinion that this article should be merged into the article for Oregon State University or it needs to be deleted for lacking WP:Notability--Canyouhearmenow 04:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's "references"--plural. Please review essay at WP:CFBCOACH, there's been a tremendous amount of discussion and precedents set on this specific issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Aside from coaching Oregon State's football team in 1895, this appears to be the same Paul Downing who was the star of Stanford's first football teams (1892-1894), a classmate and teammate of Herbert Hoover, one of the country's leading hydroelectric engineers, and a senior executive of PG&E. See, e.g., [10], [11], [12], [13] and [14]. Cbl62 (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok after doing some investigative work I too confirm that this is the same Paul Downing and agree that the article should be kept. This article should be expanded though and not remain as a stub. I appreciate everyone coming together to comment on this subject! Canyouhearmenow 21:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Emphatic keep. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:05, 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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Load III

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

Although there is a Rolling Stone article indicating some kind of project is in the works, there are not sufficient details to verify any of the information in this article, including the album's title or the personnel involved. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. --E♴ (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 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 Deleted G7 per author request. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Bacayo

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

Subject is a child actress in about a dozen tv commercials, which is not enough to meet the notability guidelines for entertainers. I was able to find one reliable source in Business world, which I can add, but that alone won't be enough to meet the general notability guidelines. Note that this article is a recreation of a speedied article, although that was speedied on copyvio grounds that aren't applicable now after existing for a while; but that's why I'm AfDing after what seems like just a short time after it was created. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Lacks GHits and GNEWs to establish notability. ttonyb (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the one-sentence article per waaaaaaay WP:TOOSOON. Being a cute kid in an advertisement, or even a dozen of them, imparts no notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:03, 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 all Mandsford 00:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in St. John's, Newfoundland

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

Fails WP:N. This is a mass nomination for every city in Canada with a similar list, but without at least three buildings over 100m. Cities like Toronto have at least some claim to notability for their skyline as a whole, but most of these cities have a number of buildings between 30m and 60m high, sometimes with a few higher ones. Buildings of e.g. 40m are not notable for their height, and these buildings aren't notable as a group. Fram (talk) 12:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated:

Delete All WP is not a directory of tall buildings. There are other websites that do this kind of thing much better. Borock (talk) 13:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—I think the nominator is missing the point of WP:N in that it's not whether an individual (the nominator) thinks the articles are of significance, but whether the sources satisfy the notability requirements per WP:GNG. Each of the entries is sourced, but only by a single web site. That likely does not constitute significant coverage.—RJH (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I did get the point, I just didn't communicate it cery clearly... Fram (talk) 08:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge All back into their city articles as per standard practice. The issue here is more of whether or not a separate list is needed or whether they can be included on the main page. There is not reason to delete this information as a whole. Ravendrop 19:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge I looked at a couple of these and there is no problem with finding sources for those I looked at. Asking about the tallest buildings in a city is a basic question, we should be able to answer it. "Other sites do it better" is no argument, other sites do a lot of things better, and where possible we supply links (BBC, IMDB and Planet Math for example) but we still cover the material ourselves as well as we can. Rich Farmbrough, 20:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- "The tallest building of a city" can easily be added to the article on that city. A list of the tallest 10, 20, 50 buildings though is something else. Do we have reliable sources discussing this as a group? Emporis is hardly a reliable site, from what I have seen. The question for a list is not whether the individual entries can be sourced (no one disputed that), but whether the group topic has received attention. The few sources you added only worked for the tallest building, not for whatever is the sixth-tallest and so on... Fram (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep some Many of the lists, such as Victoria, Quebec City, Halifax, List of tallest buildings in Yellowknife, St. John's, Saskatoon, Regina, Saint John due to the fact that all of these city lists are notable because of their status either as their provincial capital, or the largest city in the province, furthermore, all of these cities have a distinct, readily identifiable skyline. The lists of Hamilton and London are notable because, while they do not both have 3+ buildings over 100 meters, the tallest building in London is the tallest office building in Ontario outside of Toronto, and London has 2 more buildings(aside from the a fore mentioned) that stand taller than 90m with a further under construction. Hamilton's list is notable as it contains 5 buildings over 90 m, with 2 over 100 m and another close to 100m. Hamilton is the Golden Horseshoe's second largest metropolis with a metropolitan population that rivals Winnipeg's, and therefore a lot of people may use this list. Chadillaccc(talk) 20:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason many of the lists only contain one website source is because they have only existed for around a week, that is why I included the dynamic list template thing at the bottom of most of them. I created them pretty hastily and as for the ones I didn't create, most of them had no references at all before hand. I added the dynamic list template so that more experienced editors might help out the lists.Chadillaccc(talk) 20:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't think there is a clear criteria to decide that some cities should have a list and other should not. Why "3 buildings above 100 m" is notable and "2 building above 100 m" is not or why is a building above 40 m notable and one below 40 m is not. The largest building in each city do obtain press coverage in local papers. Perhaps for some of the smaller cities if the local city pages is not to long merging may be more appropriate. --M@sk (talk) 21:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I clearly didn't express my nomination very clearly. I wanted to nominate only those with clear lack of notability in group, and those with perhaps more chance of being notable separately. In general, the higher the buildings, the more attention they get, and the more people talk of a skyline for a city. Buildings of thirty, forty, fifty meters are unlikely to get much attention for their height, certainly not outside their hometown, and if they receive attention, it's rarely because of their height, but mainly for other (e.g. architectural) reasons. Fram (talk) 08:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tall buildings in Canada are notable. For example, here's an article about them: Canadian cities grow upwards. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Error: 404 not found". Furthermore, neither Google, Google News, Google News archives[15], or Google Books has an entry for "Canadian cities grow upwards". Finally, your argument is not relevant for this AFD: List of tallest buildings in Canada is not up for deletion (and I have no intention of doing this, no matter what the result is of this AfD). The question is whether tall buildings, as a group, in e.g. St. John's, are notable enough for a separate article. Fram (talk) 08:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can confirm that the link is broken and that nothing on Google verifies the existence of this purported article. Faking sources again, Colonel? Reyk _YO! 05:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd suggest nominating these individually rather than as a group. Some of the individual lists are certainly out of place (a city with no notable buildings and none considered "tall" certainly doesn't need ones), but others have some more notable buildings. Nominating them individually will probably allow for more specific input.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the things Wikipedia strives to be as an almanac. WP:ALMANAC list the height of buildings as one of the things that make a good Wikipedia article. List of tallest buildings and structures in the Paris region is linked to. Some might find this information useful, trying to determine which buildings are the tallest in each city. Very encyclopedic. Dream Focus 08:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And where do you draw the line? Do you believe that having such lists for every city and town would be acceptable? Or do you believe that there are some minimum requirements, e.g. the size of the city, the height of the buildings, or perhaps simply meeting WP:N? Anyway WP:ALMANAC is not a policy or a guideline or even an essay, but some non-descript page of "the most important featured lists", decided by, um, someone for some reason. Paris, well, has quite a distinctive skyline, with many major buildings, which have received much attention over the years. The Paris list is not up for deletion, obviously. Do you have any arguments related to how these specific lists meet WP:N? Fram (talk) 08:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Help:Five_pillars "It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." Wouldn't books about cities list their tallest buildings? Don't all cities have a tourists market? Dream Focus 09:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Wouldn't books about cities list their tallest buildings?" No idea. For large cities, with a remarkable skyline, they well might. For other, smaller ones... Show us a book about St. John's, or Regina, or Saskatoon, that does list their tallest buildings, and your argument will have merit. Otherwise, your reference to the five pillars is without relevance. Fram (talk) 09:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of these pages have blue links in them for some of the buildings mentioned. When a building is the tallest in a city, it gets local coverage at least. If you want to know "where to draw the line" for these sorts of list, then create some guidelines for buildings, and discuss what criteria should be there. WP:buildings Dream Focus 09:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Liek I said above, there is no objection against mentioning the tallest building of a city in the article on that city, if it is a noteworthy thing. This AfD is for lists of tallest buildings per city though, not just for the single tallest one. We have a guideline for lists, and you have not shown how these lists meet those requirements. No new guideline is needed. Fram (talk) 09:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - A list serves in navigation, combining similar things on a page. Out of 19 buildings listed at List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Hamilton,_Ontario only six don't have their own Wikipedia articles. 13 blue links make a good list page. And not every single thing in a list article has to be notable, so please don't anyone delete the entries that aren't blue-linked. Dream Focus 05:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The reason some of these lists exist is the individual city pages are long and it's a way of spinning off some of the content; similar to how "Economy of ...", "Transportation in city ....", etc. have come about. It may be a good idea to look at some of the other places in the world: Template:US tallest buildings lists also has some cities that do not meet the "3 building above 100m" criteria. I think for each of these cities it should be possible to find verifiable 3rd party references. If they are substantive buildings in the community then they do get local press coverage. The criteria for what is substantive likely varies from city to city, a 60m tall building in Yellowknife will get plenty of coverage in the local press; while the same building if built in downtown Toronto would not. It may be best to evaluate each city independently. --M@sk (talk) 13:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly! I agree. The reason I created many of these lists that are being claimed as "irrelevant" was because I sought to strengthen Canada's status as an architectural power. The US has soooo many city lists with buildings less than even 50 meters... yet every single one of Canada's lists have at least one building over 60 m. And every single city listed is over 100 000 people, in fact I believe there are only maybe 2 or 3 cities listed with populations under 200 000. Hamilton and Quebec City are both over 700 000, London, Waterloo Region, Victoria, and Halifax are all above 400 000 in their metropolitan areas, and Yellowknife is quite possibly the smallest city in the WORLD(at 19 000 people) with a notable skyline. So I really don't understand what this whole big deal is about this. All of these cities, save for Abottsford and Sudbury, have readily definable skylines. Canadian cities matter. -- Chadillaccc (talk • contribs) 19:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Category:Lists of tallest buildings in the United States has 116 such city lists. I think this is broader discussion than just the Canadian lists. Similar lists existing for other countries. --M@sk (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dream Focus.4meter4 (talk) 07:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all or none' Either delete all of them or keep all of them. I don't think one city should have an article on list of buildings over another city just because one city has higher buildings. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 03:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dream Focus. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 03:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- While part of me says "meh" at articles breathlessly proclaiming the existence of twenty-storey buildings, these articles do appear to be properly sourced. Reyk _YO! 05:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These lists provide a framework for editors in particular cities to take or obtain photos of the tall buildings, and to create articles about them. Even if not particularly tall, some of the buildings maybe architecturally or historically important in their own right, and therefore worthy of having articles. I would say to Keep all these lists, but at a minimum, keep every list for a provincial capital or large city. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dream Focus. I can also see these article being useful to certain readers. Pictures and heights for each city. I would say draw the line if there were an article for tallest buildings in "Backwoods, West Virginia" but I think it would be a good thing to see these articles for all major cities. Creating these lists is up to users and I think Wikipedia has a lot of worth in its lists.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per DreamFocus. The nom seems to come up with some arbitrary number for their own criteria of what topic should have an article. --Oakshade (talk) 03:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said above, I expressed my nomination poorly. The ones I nominated seemed to fail WP:N clearly (and I still haven't seen any evidence that they meet it, only assertions that individual entries can be sourced, not that they are notable as a group, which is required by WP:N). I drew the line for my group nomination at an arbitrary place, because the other ones seemed to have more chance of being notable, and thus warranted individual nominations instead. Fram (talk) 08:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - So I assume once you're done decimating Canada's architecture portal, you're going to at least go decimate the US's 116 "irrelevant" lists that don't follow Wikipedia's policy too, right? If not, then your actions here should be reported as discriminatory against Canadians... to at least some extent. --Chadillaccc (talk) 21:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - If this AfD had been successful (or would do an about-face and become suddenly successful), I would have done the same for US cities, European cities, and so on... But if the current consensus is that these type of articles are acceptable, then it wouldn't be very intelligent to try the same for other similar lists as well. In any way, no discrimination or country-specific targeting was intended. Fram (talk) 21:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - When WP:N states "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or whether there are other means of forming stand-alone lists." It is hard to say these lists pass or fail WP:N. --M@sk (talk) 01:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think this AfD has to do with discrimination and I don't think it belongs in the discussion. Looking at the List of tallest buildings in the United States and it's sub-lists (as indicated on the map), I see major U.S. cities and their skylines that don't push the notability threshold as much as most the ones in this AfD.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I agree, I don't think there is any reason to believe it was discrimination. I do see many of the US pages are being in the same boat as thedr Canadian pages. for example.....
      - List of tallest buildings in Anchorage
      - List of tallest buildings in Akron, Ohio
      - List of tallest buildings in Amarillo
      - List of tallest buildings in Billings
      - List of tallest buildings in Boise
      - List of tallest buildings in Colorado Springs ... etc
      - There is a similar debate going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Montana, however that is a list by state or province. I still vote for keep all. --M@sk (talk) 11:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Yea, no change to my keep vote either. I also didn't see this template.--NortyNort (Holla) 11:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Regardless of the height of the buildings in the lists, if they can be sourced, the subject is encyclopedic.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:59, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sanming Airport

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG lacking several sources, most of which are scattered around, but they are mainly travel guides from the region advertising it. One is a wiki, but that's about all I could find. The fact that it won't open till 2014 is also WP:CRYSTAL. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 12:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —:| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 12:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —:| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 12:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this is basically a sources problem - essentially is it true?. Airports (as opposed to small private airfields) are notable in themselves, and if construction has actually begun it ceases to be WP:CRYSTAL. Building a major airport does take several years and we can hardly insist that there can be no article until it opens. And this is China, where schemes like this are not simply begun on a private whim. Because reliable sources are likely to be in Chinese I think we must await verification from Chinese speakers. If true then improvement rather than deletion is the appropriate course. AJHingston (talk) 13:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An airport certainly exists at the ___location given in the article - see here. Agree that this would seem to be a sourcing issue. Mjroots (talk) 10:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In the light of the Google maps evidence above, construction is well advanced and it is large enough to be notable. Sources will emerge in due course but it clearly qualifies for an article. No value in deleting something that will just be validly recreated later. AJHingston (talk) 09:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This English language source confirms Sanming Airport under construction. Mjroots (talk) 10:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If its no going to be built for years, no need for article.--Antwerpen Synagoge (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per AJHingston.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:00, 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.

Alex Gregory

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scissett Football Club

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

Article originally PROD'ed with the rationale Club plays well below the top 10 levels of the English football league system, the generally accepted cut-off for notability, disputed by the article's creator based on the (unsourced) claim that it is the "oldest football club still playing in Huddersfield". Personally I don't see that as sufficient for WP notability ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Number 5 7 09:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable club, playing below an acceptable level. Giant Snowman 17:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This fails WP:CLUB. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:55, 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 Shaved. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beardcore

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

This is rather a tricky subject to be considered for deletion, but I do not feel that this musical genre has received enough broad coverage to warrant inclusion. A Google News archive search returns six results, each referring to the genre, but the descriptions have little more in common then the fact that the performers have beards. There are a couple of mentions of non-reliable sources (eg. Urban Dictionary, Last FM), but I don't feel that they establish a solid idea of what the genre actually is, let alone broad enough coverage to indicate notability. -- Lear's Fool 04:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - surely the sources that you found are enough to indicate that the genre is real, even if it's in its infancy, so the best approach would be to allow the article to stay and grow. If you delete it, chances are the next would-be editor won't risk trying to re-create it and the project will lose out. Robman94 (talk) 13:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - :I agree with Lear's Fool. It is that shortage of reliable sources that tends to also sway my judgement, particularly the lack of common ground as to what this 'genre' actually represents (apart from beards). In addition, the article itself does not do any favours by being completely lacking in Wikipedia:Verifiability. It is not up to the reader to undertake such research to substantiate the existence of ths sub-genre - although I commend the above editor for trying to unearth such evidence. Incidentally, only one of the bands claimed to be Beardcore in the article, has such a description (unsourced) in their own Wiki articles. Although it might be in it's infancy, we must avoid being crystal ball gazers. Sorry, but it will be 'moustache hardcore' next ! Derek R Bullamore (talk) 07:50, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

'moustache hardcore' eh? Not a bad idea! :) Robman94 (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Detete - per nom. Of the sources found, above and subsequently referred to, I'm not sure that LastFM is rigorous enough in its own research to bestow notability, and Urban Dictionary, with its "All the definitions on Urban Dictionary were written by people just like you. Now's your chance to add your own!", certainly isn't. Might Beardcore also be a sibling-genre of Beardo Weirdcore?. Sub-genre Beardcore does appear to have its own sub-genre Post Ironic Beardcore - perhaps another article here? :) Acabashi (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable neologism. Not a legitimate musical sub-genre but a pseudo-category based upon fashion, as exhibited by the opening line: Beardcore is a sub-genre of heavy metal music, started in America, where many of the musicians have beards. Carrite (talk) 21:04, 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 no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JammerDirect.com

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

Article about local website with only minor local news coverage, which does not meet the "non-trivial coverage" rules of Wikipedia's notability standards. Other alleged sources are online blogs that fail WP:RS quite dramatically. Article is also clear COI violation, with most edits by SPAs. DreamGuy (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 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) 01:31, 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, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:23, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Members of Sejm from Warsaw constituency

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

There is no such thing as the 'Warsaw constituency'. The article merely combines the list of members for Warsaw I (often called 'Warsaw') and Warsaw II, for which I just created articles. For reference, Warsaw I covers the city of Warsaw and Warsaw II the surrounding sururbs. The two combined do not cover an administrative area or anything else that might confer some notability on a list of MPs for the two constituencies combined. As such, this article should be deleted. Bastin 07:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 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) 01:46, 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, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. — Kpalion^(talk) 20:13, 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. Stifle (talk) 12:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joni Hilton

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

Peacock words abound (there should be a moratorium on "award winning"), award wins are not notable awards. None of her books or plays has wide recognition, nor do any sources seem to exist. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 03:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...and don't forget "always the multitasker". Yecch. Still, Keep. I never heard of her, but then again, my cooking experience is limited to warming up takeout. She meets the requirement of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" [16] and [17]. Mandsford 21:49, 10 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, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - So many books made. definite keep for me.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:21, 20 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) 01:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotional puff bio of non-notable novelist. Always the multitasker Joni is: an award-winning cook and homemaker who speaks regularly on the domestic arts/a weekly columnist for Meridian Magazine/a writer for Music and the Spoken Word. Carrite (talk) 21:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of the BLP. J04n(talk page) 03:09, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

X1 Professional Client

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

Article contains mostly an advertisement material for a specific software product. Bulk of information was written by user Joe.longtin in 2006, where he seemed to be a Product Marketing Manager at X1, according to his profile on LinkedIn. Most claims contained in the article are unsourced, and seem to represent an advertisement of the features, rather than verifiable claims. cherkash (talk) 01:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Borderline spam. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 04:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only a couple of reliable sources, much of the article is advertising. OSborn^arf_contribs. 19:35, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Babieca.com

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

This website does not appear to meet either WP:WEB or WP:GNG. I can only find one mention of this in reliable sources: This article in The Hindu, which mentions it among a number of other search engines and only in a very small entry. Unless there are other sources, this does not appear to be a notable (in the Wikipedia sense) Website. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 17 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) 01:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:WEB. —SW— ^confer 00:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and WEB. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 21:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Site of absolute non-notability--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, not even useful compared with other meta-search sites. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:34, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Etnier

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

Recent discussions regarding minimal notability, the creator requested deletion and blanked - there has been almost nothing added by anyone else it appeared to be a case of speedy G-7 author blanking - the only real content added or altered by someone other than the creator/blanker appears to be these two phrasesbut User:Stephen rejected the speedy, so here we are, I think its time for bed for this low notabiliy weakly cited BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 05:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 05:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete - none of the current sources appear to meet the WP:RS standards. The google news search appears to provide only passing coverage in local papers mentioning that Etnier is performing but no reviews or commentary or discussion about him/his work. google books provides several hits for a John Etnier who was apparently somehow involved in the civil war, (but I dont think that is this person) and a few listings of Etnier in production credits, but again I found nothing substantial. I could have missed something as my google-foo has been really off lately, thus the "weak".Active Banana (^bananaphone 18:02, 17 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) 01:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Claims to notability are pretty weak. In edge cases like these, if the subject of the article wants to delete the article, I say delete it. —SW— ^confer 00:02, 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 redirect to Morning Musume. with no prejudice to recreating if notability is later established J04n(talk page) 02:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maji Desu ka Suka!

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

Non notable song that has yet to be released. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. Note that another user attempted to bring this to AfD but didn't complete the process. I also vote for deletion as (co-)nom. Ravendrop 07:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Morning Musume and preserve the page history. The relevant criterion from WP:NSONG will likely be "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts." However, the song has yet to be released, so it can't have charted yet. Based on that and the relative scarcity of coverage in reliable sources, the song does not warrant its own article yet. If the song were (to be) appearing on an album, I would say to redirect to the album title; without an album, I say to redirect to the artist's article. Of course, if/when the song charts in Japan, the article can be spun back up. —C.Fred (talk) 07:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This single will chart in one month in Japan, like did the previous 44 ones from this band in the top 6 of oricon charts (see Morning_Musume_discography#Singles ; the only non-top 6 is from a spin-off unit that shouldn't even be listed there). Note from a foreign wikipedia user who just edited the article (infobox and official profiles of the single). 10:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.226.233.102 (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 17 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) 01:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Morning Musume. Claiming that the single will chart is WP:CRYSTAL. This article can be recreated from the edit history after it is actually released, in the event that it does chart and/or become notable in some way. Currently fails WP:NALBUMS. —SW— ^comment 23:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article was moved today to "Maji Desu ka Ska!" That's part of my rationale for why it's premature to have an article for the song: the title hasn't been finalized yet. —C.Fred (talk) 21:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has been finalized ; it's : "まじですかスカ!" (in Japanese). The transcription is a matter of convention. L. 21:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dominique Trenier

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

Contested prod. Record producer/manager with minimal notability. Can find few sources that discuss him and that coverage really isn't substantial. Notability is not inherited. Zachlipton (talk) 07:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 17 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) 01:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google searches revealed passing mention of the said article. No significant coverage from google news or major newspaper. The included references e.g. NY Times provided did not provide any details at all. If article has sufficient inline reliable citations I can suggest keep. But it looks like the article is standing on very weak grounds for inclusions. --Visik (talk) 03:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources are too weak to pass WP:GNG. —SW— ^spout 23:54, 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. J04n(talk page) 02:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frans Malherbe

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

Two athletes with 0 professional games on his record Travelbird (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 17 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) 01:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to be just one athlete, but with zero pro games. Fails WP:ATHLETE. —SW— ^yak 23:32, 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. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Olympiacos U-21

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

Contested prod, reason was "there are loads of reserve team articles". Article is not notable under WP:NFOOTBALL as, unless other reserve teams like FC Bayern Munich II or FC Barcelona B, the team has not competed in any professional football league. Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 17:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 17:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete - while reserve teams are generally considered notable (see Category:English reserve football teams, for example), there is no information that can't quickly and easily be merged into the parent club's article. Giant Snowman 17:58, 17 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) 01:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As noted above, reserve teams are considered notable. I disagree as to the advisability of a merge of this page with the already over-long Olympiacos page. This is a logical place for a division of that piece. Carrite (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Reserve teams are generally notable, main article has WP:LENGTH issues which prevent me from encouraging a merge. —SW— ^confer 23:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Added two references. Notably Wanderson is valued at 250,000 Euros on the transfer market. Olympiacos is also considered to be the club that contributes more to football in Greece than any other club. This reserve club is notable. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 00:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transfermarkt is not considered a reliable source for market values since the sums are being estimated by the community of the site, not by any independent organizations. I also don't buy the argument that Olympiacos is the club that contributes more to Greek football than any other club, it is clearly not WP:NPOV. For example, any of the big Athens clubs would immediately oppose this statement. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 01:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have added four more references including: sports facilities, owner, manager, and Wanderson. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 06:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Regarding the length of the article – we are talking about the simple addition of a roster here, as the article currently has nothing else for content. The Olympiacos F.C. article has roughly 68,500 bytes at the moment; adding the U-21 roster would add only about 2,000 to 2,500 bytes, which is not a significant enlargement. The whole matter would look different if the amount of data to be included into the parent article would be much larger, of course. In short: The article needs to be significantly expanded along the lines of this, this or this if it should be kept; everything else does not make much sense at all. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 01:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I agree with Soccer-holic on this. The roster is not so much information that it would cause length problems with the parent article. Likewise the parent article contains some duplicated information, the foreign players section for instance, that could easily be traded out for the reserve team roster. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The infobox is mainly about Olympiacos_F.C.. And "2009–10 Super League Greece, 1st" is wrong? The main article says "2009–10 Super League Greece, 5th (2nd in regular season)". Anyway, currently I would say merge. Pelmeen10 (talk) 14:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Reserve team is the breeding ground for future stars of football! It is absolutely notable and should be kept. About the merging issue, I think it should not be merged with the first team page because the first team page is already lengthy, which is quite reader -unfriendly Andrew Powner (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Olympiacos F.C. per GiantSnowman and Soccer-holic. There is no information that could not be reasonably included in the parent article. BigDom talk 16:52, 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. J04n(talk page) 02:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dj David Rockwell

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

No indication that this DJ meets the requirements of WP:BAND or WP:BIO. There are zero Google News hits, and the only not self-published source in the article is a passing mention ([18]) in what looks like local nightlife coverage. Sandstein 21:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No signficant coverage in reliable sources. The article is very likely promotional as the editor creating this article is "privatagroup" for which I found blog which unsurprisingly includes a link to DJ David Rockwell's site. -- Whpq (talk) 14:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Artist is well known in the dj world and music community as represented by his current Wikipedia article... Here's some links to a few google, bing & youtube searches: 1.) Live performance where he is breaking (debuting) a Black Eyed Peas song before it was released to the public, 122,000+ views: YouTube Link 1 2.) Link to Dj Rockwell Remixes on DjCity.com dating back to 2007 (a popular Digital music record pool w/ membership by several notable Djs): DjCity 3.) Mammoth Mountain Official Website links reference "Dj Rockwell" several times as he was a official resident dj both for the Mountain resort and their popular Hyde Lounge ^[1] ^[2]... In fact, a google search on "Dj Rockwell" "Mammoth" will return several links to notable snowboard and ski publications which reference the musician including Powder Magazine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtanbunty (talk • contribs) 22:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC) — Jtanbunty (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment - 1) Youtube is not a reliable source, and in this particular instance, a recording of him playing a song is not significant coverage about him 2) DJCity is not a reliable source. And in addition, a listing of his remixes is not significant coverage. 3) He has a job at a ski resort. That's confirmed by event announcements like the link in Powder magazine. But that is not significant coverage about him. -- Whpq (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment In response to your comments, 1.) I would argue that YouTube is a reliable source, as electronic media may be used provided it meets the verifiability requirements. In this case, this video was posted by an third party and supports the claim that Dj Rockwell "is a popular night club dj." I also found this third party video EPIC 2009 which also shows the artist Dj Rockwell performing live in front of a large audience on the largest party night of the year (New Years Eve) at the largest night club in Los Angeles, the Vanguard, which further supports that he "is a popular night club dj" and "He is known for creating his own remixes of popular music and then performing his music live using the art of turntablism and the technology of Serato Scratch Live, a vinyl emulation software." These videos clearly show him using Serato Scratch Live and in the case of the 2nd video, references that the background track was a remix he produced 2.) DjCity is largely regarded in the Dj community as the #1 digital record pool, with the majority of its material provided directly by the major record labels, the listing of his remixes is to support the article's claim that "He is known for creating his own remixes of popular music..." There are no self-serving or bold claims being made in this wikipedia article for this musician, and here is one more link to a third party artist listing where he is listed among other notable peers such as Jazzy Jeff, Dj Vice, Paul Oakenfold as well as many other popular djs artist listing on Wantickets website. I will update the article with these links where appropriate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtanbunty (talk • contribs) 03:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - I fail to see how any of that constitutes significant coverage about him. -- Whpq (talk) 10:32, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only source that gives him any significant coverage is wantickets.com. However, since this website is presumably promoting Rockwell with the intent to sell tickets to his shows, this clearly cannot be considered a reliable source. —SW— ^prattle 23:18, 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. Only the nominator has argued to the contrary after two weeks. BigDom talk 16:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Godsville

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

No references given. KRS-One's official website and Myspace page make no mention of the album or that the artist has ever collaborated with KRS-One.

Author has continually attempted to create articles for artists who claim to collaborate with KRS-One but are no reliable references are every given or produced when asked. OlYeller^Talktome 21:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I originally thought that this was an artists with one album as opposed to an album by an already existing artist who is notable. I would withdraw the nomination but I can't find that the album has actually been released (a reason to delete the article) or that KRS-One has anything to do with it (not a reason to delete the article). OlYeller^Talktome 21:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Answer You just go at http://www.krsoneinc.com/ that the official site. And check this links: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=KRS-One+%26+Showbiz+godsville&btnG=%E1%83%AB%E1%83%98%E1%83%94%E1%83%91%E1%83%90#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=KRS-One+%26+Showbiz+godsville++february+15&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.1,or.&fp=681127d0c6f645aa — Preceding unsigned comment added by MC Head (talk • contribs)

The Google search looks like it returns a large number of torrent hits which I'm sure you're not claiming as reliable sources. I'm not sold that any of the other sources are reliable but you're certainly entitled to your opinion. OlYeller^Talktome 16:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - An album from notable artists. This article certainly confirms the facts. -- Whpq (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It confirms the claims in the article but I'm not sure that the source is reliable. Anyone have any experience with the source? The artist is certainly notable but like I said, I find it odd that it's so hard to find sources to verify that the album exists or has anything to do with KRS-One. OlYeller^Talktome 21:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per http://www.hiphopdx.com/index/contactus/, the publisher of the article states, "If you're a Publicist, Manager or Label Representative and you'd like to request that we cover your artist on HipHopDX, you can reach us at media@hiphopdx.com." Because the source is not selective, I do not consider it to be a reliable source that establishes notability. Cunard (talk) 07:28, 23 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) 01:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The album clearly exists [19][20] and appears to feature notable artists. —SW— ^verbalize 23:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is KRS-One's official website and it clearly states that they are releasing this album sometime this year [21] Littlebigboiz (talk) 12:32, 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 redirect to Chris Melissinos. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Past Pixels

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

Does not appear to be notable, the only claim to fame here seems to be that it is associated with Chris Melissinos. There are two gnews hits, but both only mention the subject in passing.

(Author contested prod) OSborn^arf_contribs. 23:15, 17 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) 01:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chris Melissinos, the founder. All the coverage is really about Chris Melissinos, mentioning he founded Past Pixels. -- Whpq (talk) 14:21, 18 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) 01:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chris Melissinos. Company is not notable enough for its own article. —SW— ^squeal 23:04, 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.

^ [22]
^ [23]

[1] [22]

[2] [23]

[1]

[2]