Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 February 9

< 8 February	10 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 Speedy Keep as WP:POINT nom. Nakon 18:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This must be deleted because if Windstorm Gustav isn't notable, this CAN'T be, as Gustav was actuallly MUCH WORSE than Yasi. GeorgeGriffiths (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely unbelievably strong delete - as per above GeorgeGriffiths (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion process be quickly closed as keep. Your argument is biased towards personal (just guessing by your wording) experience of a storm versus fact. Going by the numbers, Cyclone Yasi is more than 30 times more damaging than the above windstorm. Please do not let personal anger allow you to make rash, useless actions. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the article you are referring it to lacks sourcing, a key component of Wikipedia articles. The main reason that article is being proposed for deletion is lack of citations. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:04, 9 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. m.o.p 05:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Søren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche

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

This article is largely a synthesis and a summary of a single book. Since it's last AfD, little has been done to improve it (the result was a withdrawn nomination). Scholars have compared Kierkegaard and Nietzsche; there have also been comparisons of Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and Heidegger; Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Levinas; etc. Scholars have compared Locke and Aristotle, but I do not think that a Locke and Aristotle article would be warranted. The same logic applies here. An article on Kierkegaard and Nietzsche could in principle be warranted as a spin-off (which does not require independent notability) if the inclusion of all sourced material actually did make the articles on Kierkegaard and Nietzsche unwieldy, but most of this article is original research. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 23:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- RJC ^Talk_Contribs 23:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose. What I see here is a short article with no less than 5 references, actually 6, since one book is cited without an inline citation. I have seen longer articles than this with fewer references. The nominator says "little has been done to improve it," but one does not nominate an article for deletion because it needs to be improved. The article was nominated, he received strong opposition, and he withdrew the nomination. The article has not changed and neither have the issues involved. The article should be improved and expanded, but as I said, that is not what AfD is for. AfD is for articles that cannot be salvaged. This one certainly can, but the claims made by the nominator are simply false. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My reason for nomination is not that little has been done to improve the article. My reason is that it is not notable. The rest of the nomination answers objections to this. So, for example, one is that we have been through this already. I suggest that we haven't, that the AfD was withdrawn in face of arguments that the article should be improved, that it hasn't been improved, and that withdrawn nomination differs from a consensus to keep. Another objection might be that a lot has been written on this. So I suggest that verifiability does not equal notability, that many comparisons have been drawn that clearly do not warrant additional articles, etc. A third objection might be that this is a spin-off and should be treated as such, and so I suggest that there is not enough material here that is not original research to trigger this. At a basic level, though, the objection is to notability. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 02:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not an article about a notable relationship. It is just a side by side comparison of two people. It is well done and admirably clear and concise. However that is not what an encyclopedia is for. Consider that if there were 100 things that could be compared each to each other that would be 10,000 articles and no more information would be given than in the original 100. Jaque Hammer (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I basically agree with the rationale for deletion - that articles simply comparing two philosophers are not encyclopedic - but I cannot quite bring myself to support deletion. There should be a way of changing the article to make it encyclopedic. The article's actual topic appears to be Nietzsche's view of Kierkegaard, and I have moved it accordingly. Nietzsche's view of Kierkegaard may or may not be a suitable topic for an article (I am not that familiar with Wikipedia's criteria for notability, so I cannot say) but it is not obviously unencyclopdic in the way that a simple comparison between them is. Philosophy Teacher (talk) 03:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw. The article is no longer substantially similar to the one nominated. I'm not sure the new article topic is notable, either (why doesn't this belong in Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche, if anywhere?), but for clarity's sake there should be a new AfD. Because there was a vote to delete, a withdrawn nomination does not automatically close the discussion. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 17:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article is hardly "no longer substantially similar to the one nominated." All that I did was to move it to a different and more appropriate name, and remove some unencyclopedic content (the rather child-like list of similarities and differences between Kierkegaard and Nietzsche). Most of the article was about Nietzsche's view of Kierkegaard even before my changes, so RJC's original reason for deletion was quite mistaken. As I said, it is possible that an article about Nietzsche's view of Kierkegaard may not be worthwhile, but the decision of whether to keep or delete the article has to be based on what it actually is, not what its former title misleadingly suggested it was. Philosophy Teacher (talk) 01:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think you'll find that a new AfD would be pointless. This one looks like it's continuing regardless of your withdrawal of the nomination. Philosophy Teacher (talk) 01:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete comparisons of philosphers are not encyclopedic, they are academic and an interesting subject for scholars but not encyclopedias. }}}}
That's completely wrong. The article is not now, and never really was, mainly a comparison of Kierkegaard and Nietzsche - rather, it was about the latter's view of the former. My edits were simply meant to make that clearer. Philosophy Teacher (talk) 01:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Firstly, the second AfD was proposed too soon after the first, particularly when the issue of giving time to allow the article to develop was raised by two of the three voters in the first AfD.

Second, if Philosophy Teacher's renaming of the article fit the content, then his deletion of content that did not fit the new title might have been unnecessary, no? Especially when his reason for the new title was in order to fit the content.

03:45, 12 February 2011 Philosophy Teacher (talk | contribs) m (4,659 bytes) (moved Søren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche to Friedrich Nietzsche's view of Søren Kierkegaard: Judging from the way the article is written, this is its actual topic.)

03:51, 12 February 2011 Philosophy Teacher (talk | contribs) (3,611 bytes)(deleted points of comparison - out of place, given that the article's actual topic is Nietzsche's view of Kierkegaard, to judge from the first paragraph)

This is not the only unhelpful change during the AfDs in my opinion. This is the article at its best and this is the diff between that and today The major differences are obvious. I call your attention to the farcical replacement of an easily verifiable statement "Most researchers believe that Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) knew little of" with the tie-me-to-the-mast-and-damn-the-torpedos stance of "Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) knew little of", all because of the WP crusade against weasel words. I am reminded by a lesson that I learned from probably the most contentious and biased editor I know on WP...even a stopped clock is right once a day. He said that the lead does not have to have citations. The rest of the article is the verification for it. In the same way, unsupported claims, however weaseloid, can inform the reader quickly and cleanly and be verified elsewhere.

If the article is restored, I recommend moving the comparison of the two philosophers' approach to Christian topics out of the lead to a separate paragraph in the Points of Comparison section. Anarchangel (talk) 02:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your objections to my edits to the article would be better discussed on its talk page. Philosophy Teacher (talk) 01:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - an obscure topic, but not a non-notable one. The references provided show that the topic of Kierkegaard's influence on Nietzsche is one that has been the subject of at least some scholarly attention. I'd suggest considering a merge to Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche, but I don't think this is that problematic as an independent article either. As for the nominator, if you think there are enough relevant reliable sources to write an article on Locke and Aristotle without venturing into original research, feel free to do so. Robofish (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the sort of content that should be encouraged and further developed. Given two approximately equally notable people, it can be clearer to keep this as a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 02:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Søren Kierkegaard is actually a fairly notable philosopher even though I personally disagree with his attitude towards natural theology. We can always remove the other guy from the title if he turns out to be less notable. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 08:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The other guy? Not sure whether Nietzsche is notable? The question isn't whether Kierkegaard is notable. We have Søren Kierkegaard. We also have Philosophy of Søren Kierkegaard, just as we have Friedrich Nietzsche and Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche. The question is whether a comparison of the two is notable, or (as the article now stands) whether Nietzsche's views of Kierkegaard are of such length that they cannot be put into the Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche article. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 20:07, 16 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 per A7 by Sphilbrick (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Owens

No indication of notoriety, Fails WP:GNG. --Lainestl (talk) 01:10, 10 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Cummings

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO, no evidence the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other specialized guideline. All GNews/GBooks hits apparently relate to other individuals with similar names. No reliable sources for any biographical content. Although the subject is credited with winning an AVN Award by the article, she is not mentioned in the AVN awards announcement [2], or listed as having a billed role in the release [3] [4]. She apparently was one of about two dozen extras who shambled around the set, topless in zombie makeup, watching other performers have sex. Even if one were to accept a broad reading of PORNBIO's award criteria, this still would set the notability bar far too low. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1--Johnsmith877 (talk) 10:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, just another pornstar. MLA (talk) 22:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:PORNBIO.--Bobbyd2011 (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC) confirmed sockpuppet -- œ ^™ 16:03, 14 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. m.o.p 06:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rue Buffon

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

Absolutely no indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG. Contested PROD, PROD removed without comment. Ravendrop 22:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are lots of documents and sources about the streets of Paris. I removed because you didn't comment your deletion. DeansFA (talk) 02:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Félix Lazare, Dictionnaire administratif et historique des rues de Paris et de ses monuments (Historical and administrative dictionnary of the streets of Paris and its monuments), Paris, Imprimerie de Vinchon, 1844-1849
Histoire de Paris rue par rue, maison par maison (History of Paris, street by street, house by house), Charles Lefeuve, 1875 (http://www.paris-pittoresque.com/rues/134.htm)
Jean-Marie Pérouse de Montclos (dir.), Le Guide du Patrimoine. Paris, Paris, Hachette, 1994
Félix de Rochegude, Promenades dans toutes les rues de Paris. VIIIe, IXe arrondissement, Paris, Hachette, 1910

I'm not sure what you mean by "I removed because you didn't comment your deletion" As for the sources the article, it can't be assumed that sources exist, which is why I nominated the article. As for the sources you've mentioned, just because documents exist about something doesn't mean that they are notable, a listing in a directory isn't enough. There is still no indication of notability presented for this street. To be fair I have no idea if the sources you suggest do indicate notability as I don't have access to them, nor is my French good enough to properly read them, but the onus is on proving notability, it isn't assumed. Ravendrop 03:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Personally, I would assume that sources exist for a historic street in Paris. I know that I could find plenty of good secondary sources for any street in Stockholm that has been around for 250 years or more, and I see no reason why Paris would be any worse documented. That said, I think an article saying nothing but "Rue Buffon is a street in the 5th arrondissement of Paris" is absolutely worthless. --Hegvald (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a directory. This article is nothing but a directory item. Please find out something about the street and then write the article. Jaque Hammer (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:Run-of-the-mill. Some streets in Paris are notable, but I see no indications that there's anything particularly notable about this one; we shouldn't have an article about every street in the world just to say 'it exists'. Robofish (talk) 22:39, 15 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, problem solved. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cutty

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

Neither of these entries is explicitly known as "Cutty". This page has a couple incoming links referring to a singer by that name, who isn't included in the dab. Since neither of these entries is explicitly called just "Cutty", the dab should go. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the second entry is explicitly just called "Cutty" since that's the character's nickname. 184.144.161.207 (talk) 05:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's still only one valid entry on a dab. No one calls Cutty Sark "Cutty". Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 06:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You said there were no valid entries. There is one. 184.144.164.14 (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've cleaned and expanded the dab. Nicknames are always tough, since they fall somewhere between disambig (the character on The Wire) and anthroponymy (the trombonist). -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although it is looking more like a list of people/characters with the nickname or stage name. older ≠ wiser 13:33, 11 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. Lots of coverage on this fellow. The article could use expansion, though. m.o.p 06:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Riley (journalist)

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

Prod was removed without improvement - Journalist that in the course of his work is mentioned here and there in sources but that asserts no depth of notability - article as it asserts no notable awards - there is a minor award but looking at it it is of little note - or a level of note that would pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO - Off2riorob (talk) 13:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Non-notable journalist, fails to achieve coverage beyond merely doing his job.Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BIO, which says that a person who has "received a well-known and significant award or honor" is notable. The Walkley Awards are hardly minor - the article says they are the Australian equivalent of the Pulitzers. St Anselm (talk) 00:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable even before this latest event as a leading national political reporter for a national network and most certainly notable after. I am a little tickled by the description of the Walkley Awards as "minor". -- Mattinbgn (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for you being tickled Matt - this person appears to clearly be not very wiki notable at all - he seems to be a simple journalist - I realise he is from your country but please try to be constructive in your position - add something to the article if you want to keep it - improve it in real time - it has a single citation - This award, it does not appear to be a major award at all, I am so far unable to verify which award he actually received - there are many every year, Walkley Awards - which award - his name is not to be found anywhere? if anyone can specify - please do - also the article has presently a single citation - I have looked around and not found anything that is not a mirror of wikipedia for this award - If users assert notability please add some local citations to assist in improving the article and explaining why the subject is notable. thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be from 1999 and was a joint award. Possibly just notable enough, but it takes digging. Collect (talk) 02:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking - if you find it, let me have a reliable citation that supports it - I was also looking around for refeences to this persons notability, the article says , Riley, who is chief political reporter for Seven News - but this subject doesn't get a single mention in that article at all - perhaps if we can find something reliable to support his position there then a redirect there is the correct option. Off2riorob (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[5] on page 169 shows Riley with a joint Walkley "Sydney Morning Herald (Mark Dodd, David Jenkins, Hamish McDonald, Lindsay Murdoch, Mark Riley, Zannuba Wahid , Louise Williams and Jason South), with Ross Coulthart and Nick Farrow." Seems RS to me. Collect (talk) 07:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Collect, I've added that reference. --Canley (talk) 22:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Off2riorob - Your description tickled me because of my personal views about the pomposity of the whole concept behind the Walkley Awards, which take themselves very, very seriously. It was not meant as a reflection on you. Responding to your other points: Firstly, I don't have to improve anything in order to state my opinion. Secondly, the subject is not "just a journalist" - he is a journalist for a national television network covering Federal politics, not the local police beat at Booligal. I know Australia is very small and a bit of a backwater compared to the US and UK but this is a position of national significance in my country. Thirdly, "I never heard of it" is not a reason to dismiss the Walkley Awards. They may be a bit of a mutual backslapping exercise but they are the major journalism award program in this country. I suggest you didn't look very hard for evidence of their notability. Lastly, Mark Riley is right now clearly at the centre of an event squarely about him. You can try and argue BLP1E (except you haven't) but given his role I would say it would be an uphill climb. Is this all "constructive" enough? -- Mattinbgn (talk) 06:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really - instead of you aussies just going - yea notable - walkely award - improve the article because if you guys simply vote to keep it because he is from your country and it remains like it is now, with a single citation, and I am in the uk and I have searched and found nothing worthy of adding about him - just cos he reports on the telly doesn't mean he has a notable life, its his job ,thats all. I will keep at it until its gone anyways. Its not automatic this award for notability - and although there are a few of the gold awards that are a bit notable the one he was awarded jointly is a minor one as I can see - why are there no independent reports of this fantastic achievement? At least User Collect presented a citation and thanks for that Collect. I also note the proliferation of redlinks associated with the other winners and joint winners of this award. Perhaps he has written some books, my google search didn't reveal any? Off2riorob (talk) 14:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an AfD, and the point of that is to "just go yeah notable", to present and discuss references and to add them to the article if appropriate. Would you change your mind if more reliable references were added to the article? (I've just added the Walkley Award one Collect found). I'm just concerned because comments like "I will keep at it until its gone anyways" seem to indicate "us Aussies" are wasting our time adding refs or insisting the Walkleys are notable if you're determined to delete the article no matter what. --Canley (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to delete it if he is a noteworthy person, I was looking for some improvement and I appreciate your beneficial contributions. Personally he still looks like someone with a job on telly with a minor Walkley..award, but at least he a cited one of those now. Off2riorob (talk) 02:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Walkley Award is the kind of major award that would meet WP:ANYBIO and confer inherent notability, although I agree the awards are a bit of a wank. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not very notable per the WP:BIO criteria, but I think that the Walkley Award gets him across the line. Nick-D (talk) 07:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Walkleys are a major Australian award, and in winning one of these I feel he is notable. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 11:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete journalists are never as notable as they always think they are. The Walkley equivalent in most other industries would never be considered notable and journalists shouldn't be considered inherently more notable than other professions. MLA (talk) 22:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Riley is an important figure in journalism and the media. As Chief Political correspondent he is well known. Others like Laurie Oakes and even the SBS's Karen Middleton have pages. This is just a lame attempt to delete this page because of his confrontation with Tony Abbott144.136.101.108 (talk) 09:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

note - this user has made three edits, two to vandalize the BLP and this one in support of keeping it - likely so he can vandalize it some more - see his great wiki contribution to this BLP here - Off2riorob (talk) 09:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The vandal made a personal attack which I deleted. Off2riorob (talk) 10:22, 15 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. m.o.p 14:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland national football team results and fixtures

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

Unlike the rest of Category:Scotland national football team results and fixtures, this article is explicitly about current or upcoming fixtures. As such it's not appropriate for an encyclopedia. We don't maintain rolling lists of football features because it's news material. Scotland national football team 2000–2019 results covers the same period. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 22:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. J Mo 101 (talk) 12:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Scotland national football team 2000–2019 results, and add the links of the other national team results articles to that page instead. J Mo 101 (talk) 12:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - why redirect to that specific time period, when Scotland has had "results and fixtures" for over 100 years...? GiantSnowman 13:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To be honest I mainly suggested it because that's how it was done when I checked what England national football team results linked to. It also seems like a plausible search term. J Mo 101 (talk) 14:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough, but why not redirect to Scotland national football team instead? Giant Snowman 15:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The editors above seem to have been confused by the fixtures section and so I have removed it. The main point of the list is to serve as a master index of the sublists which break the results into 20-year bands - presumably for reasons of size. I have also added a citation to a compendious encyclopedia which lists all such results. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless of whether it's kept in this new dab format (which is probably okay), it needs to be renamed to excise "and fixtures" from the title. I'll do that following the close, assuming that's how it ends up. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 17:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in its new format, it works well as a disambiguation page. Bettia Talk 09:55, 11 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) 22:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ringvebanen

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

Unreferenced, unnotable football field which is a contested PROD. I cannot find any reliable sources which provide any significant coverage (beyond the simple fact that the field actually exists) and it has never hosted a high-division team which would make it inherently notable. The article even claims the field is not large enough for matches, and is simply used as a training pitch for a local team. There are probably a thousand equally non-notable fields, just in Norway. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. —Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. 1 gnews hit [6]. LibStar (talk) 07:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - training pitch for a minor team not even notable enough for its own article? Methinks not...Giant Snowman 17:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. This does not appear to be a notable pitch. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Red card Foul against wp:notability. No prejudice against returning for the next match with wp:reliable and wp:verifiable sources asserting it. ^walk victor falk^talk 05:33, 15 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. m.o.p 06:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick T. van Beuren, Jr., M.D.

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

Seems to be sourced from one or two closely connected sources - no significant claims to notability for the individual, just a biography of a man and his family. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would disagree with the characterization that there is no significant claims to notability. He is identified as having been the associate dean of the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons and contributed to journals on surgery. This can be confirmed as this is one of his contributions which would seem in to indicate that in addition to the general notability criteria, he should also be evaluated as an academic. ~~At this point, I neutral.~~ -- Whpq (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – my gut says keep, but I haven't gathered enough data for a firm answer. Additional published works as author and illustrator suggest that he will meet standards.Novangelis (talk) 16:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in the article indicates notability. "Associate dean" is not an inherently notable position. He wrote journal articles, but they are not heavily cited per Google Scholar (even granting him credit for the fact that he wrote a long time ago). Being president of a hospital does not convey notability. Half the article is about his relatives, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. I could find nothing at Google or Google Books to add to his notability. The only independent references cited at the article are about the family home, not about Dr. van Beuren.--MelanieN (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a stub to which more detail and references will be posted. van Beuren is a recognized historical figure and family from the early history of Manhattan and the adjacent territories (from Dutch colonial times, before the revolution, and afterward) through today. He was from a line of physicians that began in the Netherlands and continued through Dutch colonization to contemporary times. Their history alone is of note (MISS VAN BEUREN DIES IH HER OLD CITY HOME; Her Mansion in Elizabeth Spingler Van Beuren ! :ed:f atheer . fl : oldest Dutch families of Manhattan and ;was the daughter of the late Michael M. Van Beuren and his wife [7]). Additionally, he was a widely published researcher, academician, administrator, and practicing surgeon who held offices at medical schools, hospitals, and institutions in three different states at the same time, not sequentially. Few physicians hold such wide-ranging accreditation, be it historical or contemporary. He assisted in the development of national and local public health guidelines and procedures for unified response to emergency planning during disasters and periods of special needs such as wartime conditions. Many of the references are in sources that require membership such as many medical journals, AAAS (Science), JSTOR, and such which are futile for active links to provide readers, so I am pursuing other sources. The numerous links provided in the article will be converted into references as time allows. One of his sons collaborated with Thomas A. Edison and invented electronic devices essential to space exploration, being used by NASA; the other collaborated with Joseph Albers (et al) of the Bauhaus who fled Germany during the Nazi period and some of whom established a "colony" in Mexico that received international recognition (Christies lists furniture he designed for auction with the following among the notes, In the 1930s and '40s, with artists such as Diego Rivera, José Clemente Orozco, Frieda Kahlo and Clara Porset in residence, Mexico was a vibrant avant-garde artistic center. In addition to these local artists a number of faculty and students of the Bauhaus school, exiles from the war in Europe, chose to reside in Mexico City. Among the relocated bauhauslers, in addition to former director Hannes Meyer and his wife Lena and faculty Josef Albers and his wife Anni were van Beuren and Grabe." [www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_details.aspx?intObjectID=5085714] [8]) These details will be expanded upon and referenced also. The subject of the article lived in historic buildings that, although notable as mansions, were more notable for the family history that contributed significantly to designation, therefore the history of the family and their role in the development of Manhattan and other cities contributes to his significance. As with most members of his family, his obituary was published in the New York Times as a newsworthy obituary, which is reserved for people the paper considers notable, all others pay heavily for inclusion by the paper. Throughout their lives, the family weddings, births, and professional or social activities were the subject of articles in the paper as well. As recommended in the notice I received, I shall continue working on expansion of the stub as this discussion proceeds. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 01:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ummmm... stub? This is no "stub," it's nearly 10,000 bytes long! I admire your commitment to the subject and I hope you are able to demonstrate his notability in the article. But you won't do it with the kind of argument you are advancing here. His ancestors and his sons do not contribute to his personal notability, per WP:NOTINHERITED, and neither does the house he lived in. I recommend you focus on his medical achievements, his obit in the NYT, any recognition he received, etc.; information about his own life and career is what we need in order to keep this article. --MelanieN (talk) 07:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe his professional achievements make van Beuren notable enough for an article and consider someone who achieved what he did (concurrently) in his professional life as a reasonable candidate for a WP article. Surely, there is nothing wrong with including personal information in such an article. The fact that he comes from a family of historical importance that includes others of note, even in other generations, provides related information to our readers and enriches their understanding of the history of other times. It seems to me that you are implying that his personal information should be excluded—contrary to typical articles, where few are devoid of personal data._ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 23:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personal information is appropriate for an article. However, excessive material about the accomplishments of his family members unbalances the article. It is after all about him and not his family. -- Whpq (talk) 13:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

83d40m, you are welcome to include anything you want in an article as long as it is relevant and sourced. But I was not talking about the article; I was talking about this discussion, and I was trying to explain what kind of input will result in a decision to "keep" as you evidently want. The consensus developed at this discussion will determine whether the article is kept or deleted, and that consensus will require actual EVIDENCE that he is notable AS AN INDIVIDUAL - maybe notable within his profession, or notable as a person within his own time frame. See WP:N for an explanation of notability. It doesn't really help for you to merely assert that he is notable. It needs evidence, in the form of citations from independent, reliable sources. This can include news articles, substantial information ABOUT him (not by him) in books or journals, prizes or awards, public recognition, etc. I am totally open to the notion that he may be notable, and if I see sufficient evidence I will change my opinion to "keep" - but at this point I just don't see the evidence. As for the fact that he is from a notable family, as you keep pointing out, that doesn't do a thing make him notable as an individual. Per Wikipedia policy, notability is not "inherited", such as by being related to other notable people. Here's a recent example of that policy in action: just last week an article about John F. Kennedy's grandson was deleted, because the consensus was that the young man is not notable as an individual. --MelanieN (talk) 22:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your clarification. His family is not germane to his professional status, as I noted previously, and your "Kennedy" example seems the reverse of the situation under debate. If I were not convinced of the value of this biographical information for readers interested in the history of medicine and clinical research, I certainly would never have spent the time creating the article, nor would I spend time debating its value. Please look at this sampling of established biographical articles under "B" for comparison regarding accomplishments, Derek Benz, Walter Benz, and explain why, in comparison, van Beuren's accomplishments fail to qualify for an article. I am sure that there are _many_ other examples I could choose for comparison that have much less information and much less gravity. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 03:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Science (journal) thought him of significant note that they published an obituary. There is an assertion that there is also an NY Times obit. Given the amount coverage in the society pages that can be found in the Google News archives, that seems plausible. The NY Times will, of course, still need to be referenced but that would take an editor a trip to a library to dig in offline archives as I was unable to turn one up int he Google online archives. -- Whpq (talk) 13:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although the NYT obituary appears in search results (there are multiple listings for his obituary in their archives - one might have been initial or among the alphabetical postings, and a full article following that), a fee is required to gain access or obtain a copy of that page from the archives of the paper -- so it is not visible to readers via a link. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does a collection of almost notable things add up to notable? In this case, I have to say no. He was interesting, but interesting does not equate with notable. Being listed in "Recent Deaths" (a section under obituary) in Science does not establish notability; most likely, it establishes AAAS membership. Similarly, the only New York Times obituary I can find is the paid announcement by the New York Surgical Society. Even if there was an unpaid obituary, someone from the New York area and New York social scene getting an obituary in the New York Times is not automatically notable. The Chicago Tribune would be. As I read up, I saw a series of solid careers, and found him to be interesting in the context of early 20th century surgery developments. The problem is that no one has put him in that context; he has not been so noted and it is not the job for Wikipedia.Novangelis (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are three listings for his obituary in the NYT archives. The first is labeled "Special to The Times" and is riddled with typos (making searching for it difficult), it was sent by a newspaper in New Jersey to the New York Times for national coverage. It reads,

Head for 10 Years of Memoria ...
March 13 -- Dr. Frederick T. Van Beuren Jr., president of the/Morristown Memorial Hospital here since 1933, ...March 14, 1943
DR.F.T.NANBEUREH i 0F 0RRIS.T0N, 67; x Head for 10 Years of Memoria! Hospital Where He Died Physician Since 1902 EX-0FFICIAL AT COLUMBIA He Served as Associate Dean of College of Physicians and Surgeons There, 1921-34
special to THE N-W* YOK TES. ();
March 14, 1943, , Section , Page 26, Column , words [1]

I am searching their archives for the others, that is tedious and is taking a great deal of time. A paid obituary (or was it a submitted obituary?) by the New York Surgical Society in the New York Times may be the third reference I saw and I know that they did not pay for, nor submit (if that is the case), obituaries for all of their fellows. Neither does the Association for the Advancement of Science publish the deaths of members, per se, although having qualified for publication in the scientific journal because of the caliber of one's research might have established a criterion for an obituary (both being an indication of notability) -- so I find those suggestions rather weak. [9] is a record of his obituary published by Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, with whom he had no affiliation -- if van Beuren were not recognized as notable in his profession, Johns Hopkins never would have published an obituary for him in their journal, nor would any of the many others which did. I would suggest that when evaluating the notability of a physician, surgeon, and clinical researcher, that scientific and medical journals would be the preferred sources for determining notability and deriving the authoritative opinions that might be reiterated by lay publications. His "careers" were not in a series, he held numerous professional and academic positions at the same time during his career and excelled at them. Many of the references cited regarding van Beuren are derived from records maintained at the national archives for medicine, located at NIH in Washington, D.C. (look closely at the urls in links), another indication of notability. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 03:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG and the obituaries in the New York Times (which I see no evidence of being paid) and in the Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine. But the present article is a disaster of bad organization, bad writing, bad sourcing, and unimportant trivia that needs major cleanup. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd be interested to see the obit from Johns Hopkins Hospital mentioned by 83d40m - that would go a long way toward demonstrating notability -but the link provided is dead. Google News Archive provides pages and pages of mentions, almost all of them from the 1920s-1930s society pages, along the lines of "Miss So-and-so, granddaughter of Dr. and Mrs. Frederick T. van Beuren Jr., is engaged" or "Mrs. Frederick T. van Beuren Jr. was one of the attendees at a tea party". Does not yet add up to his notability IMO. --MelanieN (talk) 05:07, 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, Beeblebrox (talk) 21:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be substantial grey areas left here, I've relisted this in order to give more time for some of these issues to be resolved. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article, although well-sourced, does not assert notability of this person. Just having a successful career, a nice family life, a beautiful and unusual home, and the respect of his peers does not make for notability. (Although was probably better for him.) The article gives the false impression of him having more importance that he really has. Anyone in the upper levels of society in a leading area like New York State is going to be well-documented, still there is nothing to say but a career, a family, a home, and some civic activities. Nothing more than would be expected. Jaque Hammer (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-documented in secondary sources independent of the subject. The obituaries, the various news reports, etc - passes WP:GNG. I mean, for heaven's sake, the guy was one of the most prominent doctors in the state of New York, which was not exactly a backwater in the 1920s. Ray^Talk 14:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject was a physician holding many offices at many organizations and institutions in three states at the same time during the early through mid-1900s, was a reaearcher who was well published in professional journals, was invited to present papers on the topics he researched and surgical procedures he developed at medical conventions and gatherings of physicians and surgeons, who perfromed many public services, was honored by his own alma mater (one of the most selective medical schools in the U.S.) by being given several administrative offices and being placed on the teaching staff, and whose obituary was published in the New York Times and many medical journals, professional organizations, and scientific publications. Although he was not responsible for being born into an interesting, historical, and wealthy family (which would not have provided notability in and of itself), why would that diminish his accomplishments? Seems he could have lived a pleasant life of ease without all the contributions to medicine and public health. Finally, why wouldn't recognition of his social status and historical homes be worthy of mention in his biographical information? I believe it adds an interesting insight into the man, his contemporary society, and his times. The article also arouses interest about the medical institutions of the day -- I followed several links to find out details that were very informative. Gfbbloc (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)— Gfbbloc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep A full obit in Science is proof of notability. So is the editorial obit in the NYT. Each by itself would be sufficient. I therefore think it's very clearly notable. I have however removed some of the irrelevant material about other members of the family DGG ( talk ) 16:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

::I was asked if I had actually seen the obit, and was sure it was a full obit. I have seen it, and it is. It is 1375 words long, and extends from the bottom of p. 254, occupies all of p.255 and the first half of p.256. Among other things it says that his textbook, which ran to 7 editions "has been an important factor in the development of neuroanatomy in a superior fashion in the United States", thus explicitly meeting one of the criteria of WP:PROF, and that "The volume of the Association for Research in Nervous and Mental Disease, "The Hypothalamus and Central Levels of Autonomic Function" (1940), was dedicated to him." , thus explicitly fulfilling another. It also says " a member of the National Academy of Sciences," which fulfills yet a third, and is accepted here as unquestionable proof of notability. If anyone cares to check, it's on JSTOR at [10]. I can email a copy. I suggest incorporating the quotes into the article. DGG ( talk ) 17:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note:The JSTOR link is to the obituary for Stephen Walter Ranson, not the subject of this article.Novangelis (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sufficient documentation exists to demonstrate notability -- Whpq (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC) Oops: sorry there. I thought I had not switched my position, when I had upthread. So self-striking my vote, and I shall self-slap with a WP:TROUT. Note that the issue with the JSTOR link still needs some resolution. -- Whpq (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I have it right this time.:The correct JSOTR link is [11]. The full contents of the material is "THE death at the age of sixty-seven years is announced

of Dr. Frederick T. Van Beuren, Jr., president of the Morristown, N. J., Memorial Hospital since 1933. From 1921 to 1934 he served as associate dean of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia University." Obviously not a full obit, but that Nature should cover it at all is significant. That weekly issue has 5 such notices, along with 2 full obits. DGG ( talk ) 20:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. The author's comment on Paste's talk p. is essentially a withdrawal of the article., and is sufficient for the application of Speedy G7. DGG ( talk ) 16:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Sweet

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

Non notable child actor, prod repeatedly removed by author who has actually said on my talk page (after I tried to assist) that he understood the subject was not noable and would be deleted. Fails WP:BIO. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 20:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable yet, maybe the notability breakthrough will come one day. MLA (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with MLA. As of this time he does not meet notability requirements. Once he meets them, then he may be worth an article. Enfcer (talk) 21:56, 15 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. WP:ITEXISTS is a valid keep argument if the nomination is based on a subject "not existing". It has been demonstrated that this road does indeed exist. However, if someone has a policy based reason why the article for this road should not exist then they are free to renominate it. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nevada State Route 485

Nevada State Route 485 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}|View AfD]] • AfD statistics)

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

There is no evidence that this road actually exists. Short article as well, and as a nonexistent road fails WP:GNG. --P C B 23:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this page is worth keeping. Wilbysuffolk (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Nevada/History notes has evidence that SR 485 existed and some more research can be done to verify this route existed. Dough 48 72 20:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per dough. --Admr Boltz 21:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dough. Imzadi 1979 → 23:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An absence of references does not equal nonexistiance. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It existed. [12] NV DOH 1978-79 map (grid C5/C6), which also shows that it formerly SR 44 before the renumbering. -- LJ ↗ 10:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the references and keep !votes above show that the road existed, and hence that the nominator was wrong. How exactly do any of them show notability? WP:ITEXISTS is not a valid reason for inclusion. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See USRD Notability Guidelines which state that any state numbered highway is inherently notable. --Admr Boltz 15:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Getting better, although as a project notability essay with limited talk page consensus it doesn't carry that much weight (and I notice that Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Nevada/History notes contains a fair number of redlinked state routes). Any chance of better sources to at least get close to the relevant guideline? I looked online but found almost nothing. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - That guideline was formed out of the precedents set at VfD/AfD over the years. See WP:USRD/P for details. Imzadi 1979 → 16:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - The fact that WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST with regard to other Nevada state routes on the USRD/Nevada/History notes page shouldn't affect whether or not this article is kept or deleted. Saying that the fact there's a lot of state routes that are redlinks, and therefore this one shouldn't be kept, seems rather like !voting to demolish the house while it's being built. - The Bushranger _{One ping only}
      - I haven't !voted at all, or said that this article shouldn't be kept, which you should know if you'd read my comments properly. If the redlinks were to be filled with articles that don't meet WP:GNG, I was say something similar if they appeared at AfD. The fact is that there's no policy- or guideline- based reason to keep. The only sources are a map and a page that doesn't mention the road, and the only arguments given by keep !voters are its existence and an essay. Something's wrong somewhere. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:03, 13 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) 22:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kellen Wantulok

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

Individual is a non-notable soccer player playing for an amateur team. Has no relevant professional experience, has not been drafted by a professional team, and has no outstanding collegiate achievements. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT for soccer. JonBroxton (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Non-notable. Google News Archives revealed a few trivial mentions, but nothing that would establish any notability. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet WP:NFOOTY. Also only trivial newspaper mentions, not significant enough to confer notability. Jenks24 (talk) 05:53, 13 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gopu Nandilath

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

Local businessman, with no coverage to pass WP:BIO or WP:GNG. The "sources" within the article are to forums or bio posting sites. Some claims such as "largest home appliances industry in south India" aren't supported by the refs (although that's really tangential - the article is a BLP, not about the company he runs). The only WP:RS ref is from the Hindu which lists a showroom opening in the local business listings section. The awards listed are local in nature and for being a good performing dealer/distributor for appliances in that region. Delete —SpacemanSpiff 20:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 20:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 20:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:16, 10 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) 22:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happyneuron

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

Website for brain training products. Someone thinks there is an assertion of notability but I cannot see it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:37, 9 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) 13:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Some way to go to catch the notability of something like Dr Kawashima. MLA (talk) 22:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like a promo for the product. I would almost go as far as CSD-G11-Promo Enfcer (talk) 22:03, 15 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 close, nominator is proceeding under RfD Mandsford 22:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absalom (The X-Files)

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

This is a woefully useless redirect - before today, it existed only as one link from This Is Not Happening, and redirects to a character list which does not even contain mention of the character concerned. Ordinarily this would just mean there's an information hole needing filled, but this character appeared in exactly one episode of the relevent television series, and was not even particularly important when they did - clearly not meeting the "three appearances or more" guideline on the page being redirected to. Having delinked the only instance of the redirect, and under the safe assumption that it's not going to be a common search team (and on the off-chance it is, results for a search will still net the episode page), I can't see any reason for this page staying. (Also if I'm doing this wrong, feel free to slap me, I'm new to the red tape that is the Wikipedia namespace) GRAPPLE X 19:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of us were new to this once. Redirects are debated over at WP:RFD. Mandsford 20:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Fixing now. GRAPPLE X 21:07, 9 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. J04n(talk page) 16:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bernhard, Prince of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Hohenstein

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

Not able to verify notability in reliable sources. Lack of independent sourcing to show notability. Utterman (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The notability is clear from the information provided. He is the heir to a major house headship of one of the 400 richest individuals in Germany, in addition to being the heir to a 400 year old House.

Comment Certainly worth a mention in the article about the Sayn-Wittgenstein-Hohenstein family, but at the moment, I don't see information that would make him notable enough for his own article. If he is a major landowner-- the article refers to a 5,000 acre forest, two castles and an entire town-- then he might qualify as a notable businessman. What I see at the moment is information from thePeerage.com verifying his existence, supplemented by speculation as to where he would be if there were still a monarchy in Germany. I'm not ready to say delete if there's something more to him then being an heir. Mandsford 21:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - actually, his position is not as a member of a monarchy or Royal family, but as nobility. Yes, it's been abolished BUT - and this is notable - the headship of Households remains intact and is subject to House laws which are centuries old.

OK, hello, ProperlyRaised. If there's proof that Bernhard is one of these guys who's still living by house laws and arranged marriages and the like, that would be interesting. The article doesn't really tell much about the man-- looks like he's 48, married, has a teenage kid-- but where does he live and work, and what does he do for a living? I guess if he operates the game preserve there at Ditzrod-- 5,000 acres is pretty impressive-- that would be notable. I just don't see anything that would make him automatically notable, that's all. Mandsford 00:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For his job he is Chairman of the Board of the Fürst Wittgenstein`sche Waldbesitzergesellschaft Forestry company[13] and he is Managing Director of Verlag Dashoefer publishers.[14] - dwc lr (talk) 15:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – A problem is his name is Bernhart not Bernhard. But I get some articles in the local press where he has presided over some events. But to use a search engine its best to use Bernhart Sayn-Wittgenstein-Hohenstein or Bernhart Sayn-Wittgenstein as sometimes he is called Furst, and sometimes Prinz. - dwc lr (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in light of DWC LR's additions to the article. Mandsford 16:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep dwc lr's issue about searches was a bit of a problem - Bernhard, Bernhart and Bernhardt, for example, all seem to be viable methods of spelling his name, and we get either Sayn-Wittgenstein-Hohenstein or Sayn-Wittgenstein. That makes me feel that they could well be sources that I'm not able to turn up yet. However, his various roles and the sources which I could find seem to point to sufficient notability, so I'm inclined to keep. - Bilby (talk) 12:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as his notability derives from traditional headship of a once-sovereign and currently socially prominent family, as documented by being the primary focus of a chapter on his family in the 2004 edition of the Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels, widely regarded as the literary successor to Justus Perthes' Almanach de Gotha, the authoritative gazette of historically dynastic families. FactStraight (talk) 07:18, 17 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) 22:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First Rate, Inc.

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

unreferenced spammy article on company of questionable notability, talk pages comments indicate probable COI on the part of the author. WuhWuzDat 19:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I feel, though, that "Love, Give, Serve and Enjoy" as values of an institution connected with the financial world (I know they aren't bankers...) are unusual. Even the highly ethical Co-operative Bank in the UK hasn't gone quite that far, while managing to avoid the worst of the 'Grab, Screw, Wring and Beg' mentality of much of the rest of the financial world. Seeing ™ usually means 'this is written by the company (or at least some hapless employee of the company)' as no outside person would go to the trouble of finding the special character for this, even if they were inclined out of the goodness of their heart to create the article. I would draw the attention of the 'we' of the talk page to WP:COI - our policy on Conflict of Interest - as well as WP:SPAM - our policy on ~~spiced pork with ham~~ advertising. Mind you, if these values boost their revenues enough, someone independently WILL do an article on them. Who knows, it might catch on. Peridon (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Delete, a back office tech business serving banks: a nationwide provider of investment performance measurement technology to the wealth management industry. Rose-tinted spam from top to bottom: oh, look, dear, they have industry solutions. Their "higher calling" typically manages to avoid anything that might be construed as an offer or representation, and I gather from the article itself that this business is not itself a bank. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"a nationwide provider of investment performance measurement technology to the wealth management industry" - I often wonder if they actually talk like this at home.... (OK, I am cynical. It doesn't worry me.) Peridon (talk) 20:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've removed some of the marketing speak from the article. OSborn^arf_contribs. 21:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job. Now we need someone to show us it's notable (with refs...). Peridon (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 11 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Larsen

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

Non-notable actor lacking GHits and GNEWs of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. ttonyb (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is the one profile in Desert News included in the article. But I can't find much else in terms of coverage about her. -- Whpq (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the refs are enough. I was expecting them to be nonsense but they are actually ok, I was surprised. Szzuk (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is only minor local independent coverage, the amount of links serve only to puff up the appearance of notability but there is little substance. The article is also very promotional in nature (which isn't surprising as it was created by the subject herself). It appears that Ms. Larsen's career is on track to one day meet WP:ENT, but she's not quite there yet. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 21:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looked for sources and only found the "supersource" that Whpq did. We need 1 more (preferably 2 or more) for a "keep". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:26, 16 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) 22:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cybercorrection

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

non notable neologism WuhWuzDat 19:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not only is it a neologism, but it is original research as well. Cullen328 (talk) 21:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep - perhaps in need of a rewrite and sourcing. but deletion.no--BabbaQ (talk) 15:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claims of notability. MLA (talk) 22:49, 12 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) 22:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1 vs. 100 (disambiguation)

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

Not needed. The main article at 1 vs. 100 already has lists of all the national variations and video-game adaptations. Since all the entries are related to each other, this is a redundant dab. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree-- this may have been needed at one time, but not now. I did put the link to the Philippine version into the table at 1 vs. 100. Mandsford 21:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 03:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1 vs. 100 is about the TV game show (according to the lead), and the videogames are not the TV game show per definition. As a reader, if I was looking for the video game(s), I'd not want to scroll through the game show article and hunt down the links to the video games. And that's what dab pages are exactly for, so I do not have to hunt for links. (BTW, the dab page started out as just listing the (general) game show article and the video games, which illustrates my point.) – sgeureka ^t•c 08:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like that would be a really easy fix, mention the video games in the lead sentence. I don't see any ambiguity between several parts of the same franchise. It would be another matter entirely if "1 vs. 100" referred to something that had nothing to do with the game-- a song or album (like 2Pac's Me Against the World), or a book about a really unpopular U.S. Senator. Mandsford 17:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Considering we have multiple articles called "1 vs. 100" which requires us to append disambiguators to the article title, this is a perfectly valid nvagiational tool for wikipedia readers. -- Whpq (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - what is under discussion here? If the articles topics are so similar, what should be discussed is a merge. Disambiguation pages is a technicality, a way to provide easy navigation to articles and its right to exist is not dependent of the content of the articles it links to, just that they exist. --MrStalker ^(talk) 20:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't meet Wikipedia:Disambiguation requirements for a stand alone dab page and should be handled by a Navbox (navigational) template, such as a game show navigational box. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a useful navigational aid. I agree that navboxes would be preferable, but there's no urgent need to delete this DAB page before such navboxes are ready. Whpq's point is valid, as well. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The creation of navigation boxes would not necessitate the deletion of a DAB page. Contrary to Uzma Gamal's assertion that this is contrary to WP:DAB, it is in fact perfectly in line with those guidelines, and having multiple means of navigation to assist readers is a good thing. -- Whpq (talk) 15:22, 14 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lo-Down

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

All "Lo-Down" Google hits that I found are for a website, not a band. Thus, this article appears to fail the general notability guideline, and it also fails WP:BAND. Additionally, the article itself begins with "Little is known about Lo-Down, other than..." Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - So little is known of them that I could not find any reliable sources writing about them to establish notability. --- Whpq (talk) 17:34, 10 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. Ironholds (talk) 20:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Edward Wilson

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

A junior army officer with no apparent real claim to notability. Looks like a genealogical article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —AustralianRupert (talk) 00:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails the notability standards, and I don't see anything about him that would make me say he should be kept anyway. A man who served King and Country well, but like so many others. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 03:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. He's on List of international rugby union players killed in action during the First World War and this list as well, but I can't find anything more reliable to back it up. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have cited a detailed biography which refutes the notability issue. The content should be retained in accordance with our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a "detailed biography". It's merely a short biography among a list of short biographies of many other officers killed in the war and is largely regurgitated in the article. Neither does it in any way "refute the notability issue". All it establishes is that he was one of the many servicemen killed in the war. He was admirable, no doubt brave, but no more notable than any other of the many millions of people who've died in war throughout history. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:SIGCOV states that "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. The biography provided corresponds well to the information in the article. It is an excellent source for our purposes and easily passes the specified test of significance. Your personal opinion of this and other soldiers is irrelevant, being contrary to core policy and an argument to avoid. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, but the only response I can give to this is "rubbish". You conveniently failed to quote the part of the guideline which says "Multiple sources are generally expected". You cannot possibly say that every soldier who has died in warfare who has been given an obituary is notable. That would include every single British and American soldier who has died in Iraq and Afghanistan for starters, and WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies. Let's go even further and include minor local figures who have been given obituaries in local newspapers. Sorry, that's just a non-starter and you can't justify yourself by accusing me of violating WP:NPOV or WP:IDONTLIKEIT, neither of which are in the slightest accurate. The former is particularly laughable given this is a discussion and POV therefore does not apply, since our opinions are what count. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - The article has multiple sources. NOTMEMORIAL simply tells us that notability applies to dead people too. This topic passes our notability criteria on three grounds - detailed sources; a significant award; sporting achievement at the highest level. Because these are unassailable, you start criticising straw men instead - local newspapers; every soldier, etc - none of which are the case here. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh, good grief... -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Please address, if you would, the similar articles which you have created such as Henry Guppy (librarian), George Fowler (magistrate), Alexander Robertson (police officer) and many others. These seem to have a similar character and so your objections seem inconsistent. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        With pleasure. Guppy was a CBE (a much, much higher honour than a Chevalier of the Légion d'Honneur) and headed one of Britain's major libraries. The other two were both knighted, which clearly makes them notable in any case, and were, respectively, a very senior magistrate and the deputy head of one of the largest police forces in the world. This chap, on the other hand, was a pretty junior army officer who received a very minor foreign award (nothing from his own country, please note) and appeared once in an international rugby match before being killed in action. If you're trying to make a point (or an attack on my editing), I suggest you make it a little better than that! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Notability not established per WP:BIO. The single reference given is to a book which claims to be a 'biographical record of all British officers who fell in the Great War' and provides only an outline of his military career and personal life (along with similar records on thousands of other officers) so there's no particular reason for this person to be notable. Nick-D (talk) 10:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO has as its first criterion, "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor". This person was awarded the Légion d’Honneur, which is the highest award in France. The subject therefore passes WP:BIO. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - Oops, I didn't see that. I'm changing my vote to 'Keep as there's an assumption that people who are awarded countries highest awards are notable (though this does see to be a case where notability is difficult to establish given the lack of other sources). Nick-D (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Légion d'honneur recipients by name (W). Reyk _YO! 01:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Award of Légion d’Honneur means the subject satisfies Wikipedia guidelines for notability. Edward321 (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was an England Rugby international so he's automatically notable [15] Kernel Saunters (talk) 12:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I believe that this individual is notable for being the recipient of the ~~highest class of the~~ Légion d’Honneur and also for being an England rugby international. There are now sources to confirm these points in the article, so I think it should be kept. I think the relevant policy links are: Wikipedia:ATHLETE#Rugby union ~~and WP:MILPEOPLE~~. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually Chevalier, the lowest level. There are currently over 87,000 living Chevaliers! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I was looking at File:Wearing of the insignia of the Légion d'honneur (gentlemens).svg and Légion d’Honneur#Classes and insignia, where Chevalier is listed as "1", and thus assumed it was the highest degree/class. As such, it would be the rugby appearance that would arguably make the individual notable. Apologies if I confused anyone. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the previous commenters have pointed out, he clearly meets notability standards. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As Necrothesp has just pointed out, it looks like his military award may not establish notability (I am profoundly ignorant when it comes to the French Military). I still believe the article should be kept per the Rugby Notability standards, however. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Some people here seem unaware that the Légion d'Honneur is awarded in several different classes, the lowest of which are exactly the same as, for instance, the Member of the Order of the British Empire (MBE) in the UK (and it's long been established that recipients of the MBE are not automatically notable enough for WP articles). An award for which the maximum number of living members at any one time is over 135,000 hardly qualifies as a country's highest award on a par with, say, the Victoria Cross, with a total of only 1,356 awards in its entire history! There are currently well over 100,000 living recipients of the Légion d'Honneur (many more than the number of recipients of the MBE)! Don't let people pull the wool over your eyes with inaccurate claims. The highest levels of the Légion d'Honneur are France's highest award; the lowest levels most certainly are not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I should point out that when I nominated the article for deletion there was no suggestion in it that Wilson had played in a rugby international - that was added later. I do not personally consider that a single appearance in a rugby match is reason to keep an article, but obviously many others do. My assessment that his military career does not make him notable stands. Although I do think it shows how far Wikipedia is biased towards sport and entertainment that his relatively unremarkable (although no doubt solid - I am not insulting the man) 18-year military career is considered to be eclipsed by his much more unremarkable single-appearance international rugby career - what a sad indictment of our world! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - awarded Legion d'Honneur, and also international rugby cap, both of which are grounds for inclusion in their own right.--MacRusgail (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I understand the rugby arguments (although I don't agree with them), but did you read my comments above on the Légion d'Honneur? Why is the Légion d'Honneur notable when it can be held by over 135,000 people at the same time? That's like saying every British person who has been awarded any medal whatsoever (including a mention in despatches) is notable. People are misinterpreting the significance of the Légion d'Honneur completely. It is France's highest order, but only at its highest grades. Its lowest grades are ten a penny. It's not even unusual to award it to a foreigner. Many thousands of British officers were awarded the Légion d'Honneur in the First World War. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - an international rugby cap for a top tier rugby union nation is unquestionably notable.Kwib (talk) 09:00, 15 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. Let it snow let it snow let it snow. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eisenman Synagogue

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

I don't think that this synagogue is notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia ; The general notability guideline inclusion criteria aren't satisfied, as the "Significant coverage" isn't found in any of the sources provided. The only source that could be taken into account is seemingly a book by the daughter of the Synagogue's founder, Els Bendheim, as noted in the article itself, so I doubt it can be called a "third-party source" at all. Lippotaf (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lippotaf, I see from your edit history that nominating this article for AfD was your very first edit. Could you please tell us who this account is a sock of? --Oakshade (talk) 06:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Meets all the requirements of WP:NOTABILITY and in particular the General notability guidelines --Antwerpen Synagoge (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Els Bendheim's book is listed as Further Reading, not a reference. Having no access to the references given, I can't check them out. However, as the place looks to have notability, I am going for keep anyway. I note that this nomination is from a new account. It is, of course, perfectly permissible for a new account to make its first (and so far only) edits in taking an article to AfD, but it is rather unusual. Peridon (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So if I understand right, your argument says that because this place looks to have notability, it should stay? Ok- But I thought it was an argument to avoid Lippotaf (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It probably is. Avoid is not the same as forbidden. But merely being badly referenced is not a ground for deletion. Peridon (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Even by the "sources provided" an entire book about this synagogue clearly indicates passing WP:GNG. Unless the publisher of that book is the synagogue, there are no independence issues. --Oakshade (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This book is an independence issue, as it was written by Els Bendheim, which is the daughter of the Synagogue's founder. But whatever. Let Wikipedia write about every synagogue in the world... Lippotaf (talk) 22:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this was self-published by the author, you might have a point. But KTAV Publishing House is a respected American publisher that's independent of the topic and has editorial control of what is published. That this third party decided to publish this book, written by offspring of one of the synagogue founders or not, is what's important to our guidelines. I don't know what you mean by your "Let Wikipedia write about every synagogue in the world" comment as it has nothing to do with the discussion of this topic. --Oakshade (talk) 00:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Oakshade. That book is published by Ktav, a significant Jewish publisher[16], and I don't see any reason it shouldn't be regarded as conveying notability.--Arxiloxos (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is an independence issue, as it was written by Els Bendheim, which is the daughter of the Synagogue's founder. But whatever. Let Wikipedia write about every synagogue in the world... Lippotaf (talk) 22:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there's a published book about it... -- Y not? 02:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? The only synagogue in Antwerp to have survived the Holocaust and the Nazi occupation of Belgium? A whole book published about it? Keep! Jayjg ^(talk) 03:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oakshade and Jayjg. Also, the book is edited by the daughter, not written by her. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, places of worship are notable. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the reasons cited above within all the "keep" votes. Just what is the nominator up to if this is his "first edit" ? -- very suspicious and worrisome and therefore admins are requested to follow up with a WP:CHECKUSER of the nominator. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 09:39, 11 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 only reason this isn't an A7 is because CSD doesn't apply to bus routs. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

905 Barton Court Grammar School

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

This appears to be a non-notable school bus route. (See WP:NOTDIR). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThis bus route is too small and the page lacks infomation. Wilbysuffolk (talk) 15:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Noom _talk ^contribs 19:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. While regular bus routes can be of note, school routes are much more limited in their application. Peridon (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some bus routes are notable, but this one certainly isn't. Not even worth a redirect. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No context and encyclopedic. BurtAlert (talk) 22:44, 15 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. Notability is now fulfilled. m.o.p 07:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interstellar Marines

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

A game that hasn't been released yet being manufactured by a non-notable company. Declined PROD. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no prejudice against making in the future once the game is released and has received multiple reviews from WP:RS. Right now, we are WP:CRYSTAL. For the first game of a new company, I am failing to see how this could possibly qualify. Despite the comments in the article saying "the game exists" - well, that is to be determined. The game needs to be released, reviewed, etc. It existing is not the problem, WP:NOTABILITY is. Turlo Lomon (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment could someone capable of viewing deleted content take a look at the first version of this that was deleted, and determine if this version qualifies for G4? I was unaware of the first AfD until I set this one up, but I obviously can't see deleted revisions, so it'd be great if someone would check that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Turlo hit all the main points. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Turlo. One could even make a case that this is a G11. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Or a G4, for that matter. Still, if someone decides to find and add some independent RS content, it could be salvageable. Jclemens (talk) 01:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - To comment on the first post, neither has Doom 4 been released yet. Many games that have not come out yet still have pages. The game has notability of many gaming sites. IGN and GameSpot both have pages for this; As well as articals about the game on Joystiq and Destructoid. All of this was on the first page of a google search of 'Interstellar Marines'. You can already play demos of the game on the game's website. I feel this warrents enough for notability. Skullbird11 (talk) 14:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Actually, I did do my research. Sure, IGN has an article ... with the last news posting from 2006 (5 years ago). Is their review of the game (from an reliable source, not a fan submitted - of which there are not any of those either)? No. What's Gamespot say? Release date: TBD. Joystiq has some more recent news, but even that is dated from 2 years ago. Destructoid's most recent post is from 1 year ago. Interesting on how it says the site is taking pre-orders and still hasn't released a production game. Doom 4 (ignoring WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for the moment), is from a successful franchise from a known publisher. The publisher of Interstellar marines has never produced a game and given the current status of the site, it is questionable if it will ever be published. A demo does not make a game notible. WP:RS does. There is a big difference between an unknown publisher and Bethesda Softworks which has been producing games for 25 years. So, please WP:Assume Good Faith, and let's move on. Turlo Lomon (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - I'd say the right question is if the coverage meets WP:N. How old it is, or how "vapor" it is isn't important... Hobit (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - good coverage at Kotaku and GameSpot. --Teancum (talk) 13:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'~~neutral for now'~~ the two sources provided above might meet the letter of WP:N. I'd like to see either a few other equivalent-quality sources or one really good one. The sources are borderline for "significant" IMO. Hobit (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC) (see below the line for new !vote). Hobit (talk) 13:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but reduce to a neutral stub - many upvotes at reddit. I'd say keep, but remove all the unnecesary and ad-sounding info. Kibermiaf (talk) 14:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not released yet, limited to no mainstream coverage. Stifle (talk) 10:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no prejudice to recreation when released and real secondory sources are provided. Abductive (reasoning) 14:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in regards to the two above delete !votes. I would again point out the significant coverage at Kotaku and GameSpot, both of with are considered reliable sources, and that whether a game is released is not grounds for inclusion. --Teancum (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I tend to agree with you. That said, it's not clear that the two sources have enough coverage to meet WP:N. Hobit (talk) 03:27, 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, lifebaka++ 17:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whether the game is released or not is irrelevant, the bottom line is whether enough sources exist for an article (per WP:GNG, WP:V, WP:NOR etc.). In addition to the couple of sources pointed out above, Ars Technica (owned by Condé Nast Publications) has two pieces by the same author, Michael Thompson. The first is an extremely useful source chock-ful of info. The second actually looks at what the developers' history and is very pertinent. The sources allow an article to be crafted on what it is, an unfinished project which may never see the light of day, rather than a pre-emptive article on a non-existent video game. Someoneanother 19:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- keep per sources listed directly above. There is now plenty for WP:N. (Struck my !vote above). Nice find Someone another! Hobit (talk) 13:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Always a pleasure, I've used the two sources Teancum has highlighted, but I haven't used the more complicated Ars Technica source yet because it's not the kind of detail to be put up half-finished, hoping to use it at some point though. Someone another 22:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still think WP:HAMMER applies here, and that this game should actually exist before we have an article on it unless it's notable for never being released (which doesn't seem to apply here). Anything we have now is speculation. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But well sourced speculation. WP:CRYSTAL specifically allows well-sourced speculation, which we have here. (And yes, I am amused that Wikipedia is probably the one place where crystal beats hammer. :-) Also note that WP:HAMMER doesn't really apply here (even as an essay) as there is well sourced speculation. Hobit (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of what's there now (and the article is still far from perfect) is directly cited, I don't see what's speculative about it. The demos have been produced, information on how the project is faring is available (and a lot of it is by no means flattering), all the article is doing is reporting the story so far, not claiming that the game is complete. Someone another 20:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I've just cited another minigame and discovered that Cinema Blend has seven small articles on Interstellar Marines. Someone another 20:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as mentioned by others, it's been covered by relevant publications. -- Stormwatch (talk) 01:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think Teancum's and Someone another's RSes are adequate to demonstrate notability. -Thibbs (talk) 15:39, 16 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese footballers playing outside Japan

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

Contested PROD, which was challenged with the rationale "I don't think this article deserves to be deleted." My original PROD reasoning was that the article is "Unreferenced and out of date; nothing more than listcruft" - an assumption I stand by. Giant Snowman 17:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why the hell have you deleted it?

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the precedent set at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Salvadoran football players playing abroad. Bettia Talk 09:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Bettia. Szzuk (talk) 21:02, 15 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 close as redirect, per the last AfD's merge decision. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard the Arch-elf

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

Failed to be merged or tagged with sources Rusted AutoParts 16:54, 9 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. J04n(talk page) 16:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glory of This

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

Band that was signed to a notable record label, but never charted or did anything of significance. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No citations and doesn't appear to meet WP:BAND --ThePaintedOne (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The band released two albums on Indianola Records, which may be a significant enough label to meet WP:BAND criterion 5, and there is some coverage out there - Allmusic review, inweekly.net, inweekly.net. May rest on the importance of the record label and the reliability of in as a source. One would imagine a band that released two albums on a proper label would have more coverage somewhere.--Michig (talk) 06:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I looked at #5 of WP:BAND and was tempted as you suggest, but since Indianola is an indenpendent the critical phrase is (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of whom are notable).. I'm not convinced that Indianola meets that, and if it does it's a close thing. So you have a barely notable band whose notability rests soley on the barely notable status of thier label. All seems too thin to me.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 08:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only possible reason to keep this article would be qualifying under WP:BAND point #5 as discussed above. However, I don't see that Indianola is really a significant indie label. -- Whpq (talk) 17:44, 10 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Osborne Hagger (2nd nomination)

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject of this BLP is a less than obscure retired British civil servant who clearly fails GNG. There is no independent secondary coverage of this person whatsoever. Every Google hit is to a Wikipedia mirror of this article; there are no hits in the Google News Archive for this person; the only hits in Google Books are to Wikipedia mirrors and a directory of UK Civil Servants; there are no hits in Google Scholar.

The sole source cited in the article is a copy of a written statement that he submitted to the 1999 inquiry on BSE (mad cow disease) concerning his recollection of activities in his department period prior to his 1994 retirement. I would think that this is a primary source that could not be used in a BLP per WP:BLPPRIMARY. The gravamen of his statement, if I may be so bold as to summarize it, is that he didn't have much involvement with the issue and just attended a few meetings at which it was discussed. It does not even appear that this written statement was referenced in the report of the inquiry!

The 2005 AFD which resulted in a "keep" does not appear to have been based on any reasoned analysis, as there is no discussion or even recognition that the fundamental requirement of GNG is significant coverage of the subject in independent, reliable, secondary sources. Fladrif (talk) 16:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nom - I can't find any coverage other than mirrors. I'm actually tempted to try A7 since I don't really see where claims to notability are made. SmartSE (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tried A7 [17] but it was quickly denied on the basis that this article had passed the earllier AFD. This is so clearcut that it really should be handled as a WP:PROD. Fladrif (talk) 16:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PROD would have the same issue, FYI. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. But given that the AFD was not a reasoned decision, it really shouldn't preclude A7 or PROD deletion. Regardless, the issue is here now instead. Fladrif (talk) 17:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Fladrif (talk) 14:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - His job was not one that would confer automatic notability. And there are no sources writing about him to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Shouldn't have survived the first afd. NN and no refs. Szzuk (talk) 20:45, 16 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 issue of verifiability not adequately addressed by the links provided J04n(talk page) 16:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fengbo Zhang

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

There are no reliable and independent sources in the article, and a google search does not show anything that would indicate reliability. It might well be the case that there are many sources in Chinese. But something about this article is fishy. The lack of English language, although the article claims that he was a visitor at Harvard and the NBER and is a senior vice president at Citigroup. The tone of the article. The many wikilinks in other articles that lead to this article, see [18]. In fact, if my hunch that there is something fishy about this article is correct, it will be necessary to clean-up quite a few other articles. See for example this article about a self-published book by Fengbo Zhang, Analysis of Chinese Macroeconomy. Pantherskin (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Keep~~ I am having trouble understanding the grounds for nomination. I did a google book search and found almost all of the books referred to in the article, a google scholar search founds much discussion of his work, and the references in the article link to real sources. Analysis of Chinese Macroeconomy is not self-published, it is published by People Press, China, a major publisher. Please withdraw the nomination. Francis Bond (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am more than happy to withdraw the nomination if you could actually provide reliable and independent sources. Google Scholar does not show any discussion of his work, contrary to your claim. The references in the article link to googlepages, blogs and wikis. Google book search shows some of his book, alas they are self-published (i.e. by Xlibrins or by Fengbo Zhang himself). Pantherskin (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies to Pantherskin. I have looked further, and while the Analysis of Chinese Macroeconomy is not self published, the other books do seem to be, and I could not find any supporting evidence. The Citistar reference is only to a web page, and seems to refer to a Frank Zhang not Fengbo. In addition, most of the wiki-references seem to come from a single use User:155ws. So, I change my vote to speedy delete. Francis Bond (talk) 05:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Zhang may be a pseudonym for Fengbo Zhang. It is common for Chinese who come to America to change their name to something more familiar.X20Deepx (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, not being funny, but 'seems a bit fishy' isn't a criteria for deletion. The sources aren't great, but you can request a translation of the Chinese ones. Lot's of g-hits, which without trawling through them all seem to suggets notability. I think it's more a candidate for tagging and research than AfD, unless you can point out something more definite that's wrong with it?--ThePaintedOne (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of sources, the promotional nature of the article and the many wikilinks inserted into other articles, the fact that the deletion tag was removed by a newly registered account. But what makes this article fishy are the claims that cannot be verified. Senior vice president of the Citigroup, but there is no Fengbo Zhang at Citigroup. In fact a look at the homepage of this individual is instructive ([19]). There is a claim that he was a keynote speaker at the China Finance Summit, but the link to the summit shows that he is not in the long list of speakers. And so on. Pantherskin (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete people more knowledgable than I in this area have looked into this in some detail below and concluded the citations required at not there, so I'm switching to delete. However, it's a marginal case and I'd go back if better citations were provided.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 07:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until sources for this article are rock-solid. I can't find more than find 2 cites in GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy Keep I managed to find all of the books as well. As already mentioned, Analysis of Chinese Macroeconomy is published by a major Chinese publisher, so he seems legit. It is difficult to find non-Chinese language sources for Chinese scholars, and I am satisfied with what's there. Perhaps some areas of the article could be developed, but that is no reason for deletion. X20Deepx (talk) 01:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the books exist is irrelevant. Notability does not depend on how much a person has published but on how much their work has been noted. In this case there seems to be almost no cites to the work at all. We also need to examine whether the article on the book Analysis of Chinese Macroeconomy is properly sourced. Are there any independent sources? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, please check these: here for a page of newspaper articles from the Economic Daily, here for published Japanese newspaper articles, and here from the People's Daily. X20Deepx (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Looking harder I could find no solid references beyond the first book. The lack of evidence for major claims suggests that this page is not just not notable but factually incorrect. Francis Bond (talk) 05:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is linked to the article on Chinese economic reform and appears at first blush to be notable. An editor objecting to the content, tone, style, or structure of this article is free to make changes and then defend those changes with verifiable references. Article deletion would be improper. TreacherousWays (talk) 16:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is linked. It is linked from many articles. And "Dr. Fengbo Zhang introduced Western Economics to China, provided methods and theory for Deng Xiaoping leadership promoting economic reform and decision-making." is certainly a claim to notability. But the problem is that there is no source that actually supports this claim. The same is true for many other claims in the article, claims that should actually be easily verifiable with English language sources (i.e. senior vice president at Citigroup, visiting scholar at NBER and Harvard, chief economist at Takenaka etc.) What suggests that even those claims were one could maybe assume that only Chinese language sources exist, are probably not factual either. Pantherskin (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The problem I see here is verifiability for the claims of notability is not satisfied. Although there are reference links sprinkled throughout the article, they are all links to wikis, user submitted profiles, or user created sites (like google sites) which is hosting content of unknown provenance. The article makes extraordinary claims such as "Dr. Fengbo Zhang introduced Western Economics to China for top economic decision-making." which aren't supproted by reliable sourcing. And given the interest in China's economy, should generate some sort of coverage about him in the English language either in business press articles, or academic journals. Yet there is absolutely none, which as the nominator phrases it, "...something about this article is fishy." And I would agree. It might be hoax, or it might be a case of self-promotion and exaggerated claims of accomplishment. It might even be the absolute truth. As stated in our policy on verifiability, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." It may be true, but I cannot verify it. -- Whpq (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please check my post at the bottom for sources. X20Deepx (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A promotional and strangely unverifiable article. Most sentences in the article could use their own [citation needed] tag, and the sources that are listed are often bad (blogs and wikis). We could stub it down to its verifiable core: "Fengbo Zhang is a Chinese economist, the author of Analysis of Chinese Macroeconomy. But is that much worthy of a separate article? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I took a closer look at the sources, and there are many published newspaper articles describing the subject. Look here for a page of newspaper articles from the Economic Daily, here for published Japanese newspaper articles, and here from the People's Daily. Someone with native Chinese and Japanese should translate them. These sources, however, are definitely solid. X20Deepx (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, hmm, my keep vote has been steadily drifting towards delete as I've been watching the discussion. But these do look like they are decent sources, assuming they say what they claim to say. I think it would be useful to have a skeptical chinese/japanese editor have a look at this to make a call on whether they establish notability.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 20:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I looked at the Japanese articles, and they provide solid support that he entered Kyoto University graduate school. Unfortunately the copy is not good enough to read the entire article for most of them. The one on the top right covers more ground, including graduating from Kyoto and publishing the macro-analysis book, however, it is not clear where the article comes from (it is basically an interview of Dr Zhang). None of them provide support (that I could read) for the claim that he was the first PRC citizen to receive a Ph.D. in economics from overseas. Francis Bond (talk) 00:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if he were, that would not make for notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

- - Comment a search on gov.cn shows only three pages are mentioning the economist as a doctor. The first result is a news mentioning a vice city major visiting his unnamed parents to celebrate holidays, so he must be a famous guy to make news for his parents. There is no in-depth coverage of him from reliable sources on the edu.cn ___domain. There are too many quotes from unreliable sources, some with misleading names, some others from personal web sites, making the article looks like a marketing campaign [[.--Skyfiler (talk) 17:32, 15 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.

Result was Keep (WP:SNOW) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic Brahmin

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

There are no "Brahmins" in Christians - "Brahmin" is a sanskrit word that denotes a particular sect of Hindu religion ref : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmin. So stop this nonsense of naming and inculturing Christianity into Hindu fold. this act of "Inculturisation should be stopped", This is once again an attempt to convert people and spread the venomous christianity. So Delete this article or change the name to "Bauman" community as you have given in the page.

Moreover we have enough knowledge on religion of "Hinduism" and "christianity". We also have the enought knowledge to understand the wicked attempts of certain Christian group which live on getting funds from abroad that are begged to 'reap souls' in a cheaper cost; Either Delete this page or rename it! else we will delete it completely — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilspaul (talk • contribs)

Keep and suggest speedy close. Sorry, it is not a sect of Hinduism. The term Brahmin in the context of caste/community refers to ancestors engaged in the Brahmin varna. The title shouldn't be changed either

Kasbee (talk) 12:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The term "Roman Catholic Brahmin" appears to be extensively referenced and documented in multiple reliable sources, including scholarly sources. Whether the article should be renamed under the alternative term "Bauman", which also seems to be well sourced, is not a matter for AFD. Fladrif (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.
Keep and suggest speedy close. I don't see any policy based reason to delete this article in the nomination. The article is surprisingly well referenced, and it apparently references a caste of Roman Catholics in India. Since "Brahmin" is also an established English word, and the references use that English word in this context, I don't see any problem with the content, either, and this is apparently all a content dispute. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator's argument has no merit regarding the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Christianity in India is documented to have existed from its infancy. The article explains that this caste designation is distinct from Hinduism. Elizium23 (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep under WP:SPEEDYKEEP criteria 2.1. The phrases from the nom: "This is once again an attempt to convert people and spread the venomous christianity" and "the wicked attempts of certain Christian group which live on getting funds from abroad that are begged to 'reap souls' in a cheaper cost." Show that this nomination was purely disruptive. There are absolutely no notability problems with the article. Any content/naming problems can be dealt with on the talk page. Ravendrop 00:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article has enough of sources to prove Roman Catholic Brahmins exist. Either Delete this page or rename it! else we will delete it completely. I wonder what the nom means by this? Sounds like a threatening statement.—Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 11:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep classic case of IDONTLIKEIT. Either Delete this page or rename it! else we will delete it completely sounds like a legal threat to me. And it seems he is trying to delete Caste system among Indian Christians as well--Sodabottle (talk) 13:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KeepSeems resonably well sourced.Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as above - article is notable and nominator definitely has an ulterior motive here. Giant Snowman 13:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as above and WP:TROUT the angry editor who needs a chill pill. "Either Delete this page or rename it! else we will delete it completely" - Is this an attempt at a threat to hack wikipedia or something? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 13:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. the keep !vote did not adress the main concern of a lack of coverage J04n(talk page) 15:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yesenia Ortiz Acosta

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

Delete as decidedly non-notable. Amateurish vanity page. Article's creator notified on his talkpage. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 14:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, not sure how a page about a supposedly dead person can be a vanity page (or a BLP for that matter), unless one of those mediums is channeling her?. No citations at present, but it asserts notability that this is a well known incident in Puerto Rico that has had a lasting cultural impact. If that could be verified with reliable sources then I think this would be notable, but should probably be moved to Disappearance of Yesenia Ortiz Acosta along the same lines as Madeline McCann, as it is the disappearance which is notable, not the person.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are no sources on this person other than news stories at the time of her disappearance. Per WP:NTEMP "In particular, if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." Fladrif (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If the claims of TV shows doing pieces on her on an ongoing basis could be verified, that might show lasting cultural impact. Needs citations to that effect though.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 17:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article's sole reflink (courierpostonline.com talk about Ortiz Acosta, in Spanish) is invalid, thus article is completely unsourced, grounds for deletion as is. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - obviously one of the largest and most covered disappearance cases in the country. Definitly keep.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"[O]ne of the largest and most covered disappearance cases in the country"?? I never heard about it. Which "country" are you referring to? Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it's so obvious and well covered, why aren't there any citations?--ThePaintedOne (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is my question as well. Not to trivialize a tragedy, but wives get murdered by their husbands all the time (her ex-husband was convicted for his participation in this crime in 2006)[20], and those crimes typically get intense, if ephemeral coverage locally. That's exactly the situation we have here. This purely local coverage doesn't make the crime, or the victim, notable. Otherwise, we would have an article for every crime and crime victim whose story got reported in any local paper. Fladrif (talk) 21:00, 10 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) 23:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Karen Campbell

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

Non-notable per WP:BIO, WP:MUSICBIO, WP:AUTHOR and WP:CREATIVE. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Unsourced personal info suggests WP:Conflict of interest by creator. Proposed deletion contested by creator. Borkificator (talk) 14:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Borkificator (talk) 14:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Borkificator (talk) 14:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Borkificator (talk) 14:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A long way from significant independent coverage required for WP:BIO. We seem to have two passing mentions in reliable sources, some blogs, and some token appearances on television shows. The Crave on Music website might have a claim to notability, but that would only warrant an article on the website itself, not the owner. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 14:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails all applicable standards of notability--ThePaintedOne (talk) 17:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails to have significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have never heard of this person, and besides I already see a consensus. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 07:52, 16 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. -- Cirt (talk) 12:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muhamad Naji Subhi Al Juhani

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously discussed in 2006 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhamad Naji Subhi Al Juhani (no consensus) and in 2008 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhamad Naji Subhi Al Juhani (2nd nomination) (no consensus). Despite having been around for so long and having survived two AfD's by a no consensus, the article has just two independent sources, one just naming him in a list of released detainees, and the other spending one sentence on him. There are no reliable indepth independent sources about him, so he fails WP:BIO. (Note that searching for sources is made difficult by the different ways his name is written, and by the multiple persons with very similar names, e.g. Khalid Ibn Muhammad al-Juhani). Fram (talk) 12:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I could not find any independent sources either that go beyond simply mentioning his name. Pantherskin (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unless one buys into the idea that everyone who was detained at Guantanamo is automatically notable just because of that, I don't even see a claim to notability here. This individual was released from Guantanamo and repatriated to Saudi Arabia over 4 years ago, so if he wanted to tell his story to the media since then, he could have done so. But either (1) he didn't want to tell his story to the media, or (2) the media weren't interested in it, or (3) he did tell his story to the media but such reports have not been found and used as sources in this article. In any event, though, what is in this article now does not appear to justify a biography of a living person. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Biographies made up entirely of templates and primary documents do not belong in this encyclopedia.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Franklin Sousley, Harlon Block, and Michael Strank) , John Bradley, Rene Gagnon, and Ira Hayes all have well-respected articles despite their only "fame" being that they were the men in the photograph of raising the flag on Iwo Jima...I see no reason this circumstance is any different. It is a notable case of a miscarriage of justice, and knowing the stories behind the men is important. Papermoneyisjustpaper (talk) 03:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)Papermoneyisjustpaper (talk) 03:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No offence but looking at your editing history i ask myself if you are a sockpuppet. I suggest your !vote should be discounted unless you provide us with the necessary references that would establish notability. IQinn (talk) 03:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- E.g. Harlon Block has this as one of the sources. Where are the comparable sources for Al Juhani? You claim that it is a notable case, but per WP:N, we need independent sources for this, not just your personal opinion. Fram (talk) 07:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject lacks "significant independent coverage" in reliable sources under the general notability guideline. Bulk of the references are primary documents per WP:PRIMARY. Anotherclown (talk) 09:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and Anotherclown. IQinn (talk) 10:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 01:06, 14 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) 23:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ash Verschuur

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

Non notable club dj. Article was previously deleted for non notability and promotion. GcSwRhIc (talk) 12:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is artist notability across the internet, which has recently been updated to wikipedia. Official club website notability unavailable, as the club has now closed down, and the club website also no longer functions. What remains are flyers, articles, club photo shots of said dj playing in the venue, advertisements, and an artist agency article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soultripboy (talk • contribs) 20:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Flyers, and advertising are not reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - self created vanity/promotional page, one of the many bio entries that use wikipedia to register top hits on google search 188.223.6.168 (talk) 18:55, 10 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 delete !voters make the stronger argument. The subject doesn't have enough independent significant coverage Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Karabakh camp

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

Fails WP:N. Mentioned in a couple of US givernment documents, never the topic of a text (or even a paragraph), hasn't received any independent attention in reliable sources. Fram (talk) 12:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:N as per nom. Has also some BLP issues as these are all serious allegations solely based on the primary sources without a single secondary source for the necessary interpretation. IQinn (talk) 14:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —bahamut0013^words _deeds 17:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Taliban. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems notable, Papermoneyisjustpaper (talk) 03:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No offence but looking at your editing history i ask myself if you are a sockpuppet. Your link shows that the article fails WP:N. I suggest your !vote should be discounted unless you provide us with the necessary references that could establish notability. IQinn (talk) 03:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Which of these results is about the Karabakh camp? That two separate words appear in a number of sources (e.g. as part of Nagorno-Karabakh) doesn't mean that the actual subject has received any indepth attention. Fram (talk) 07:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject fails notability. Google search shows names, yet does not reference the "camp" referenced in the primary sources. The subject has not been covered by secondary sources.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject lacks "significant independent coverage" in reliable sources under the general notability guideline. Anotherclown (talk) 09:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep TB base is notable. Coverage exists eg http://projects.nytimes.com/guantanamo/detainees/526-yakub-abahanov . MLA (talk) 22:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your source does not cover the camp and is the same that is already used in the article. Still fails WP:N by a very large margin. IQinn (talk) 05:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: there doesn't appear to be enough coverage to establish notability per WP:GNG. It would probably be fair enough to make mention of the camp in a relevant parent article, but it seems excessive to create a separate article in this case, when it seems like very little is actually known about it. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject of article does not appear to meet WP:GNG. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:27, 15 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) 23:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of History and Social Sciences

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

Article dePRODded by anonymous IP, who also added promotional language to the article. Original PROD reason was: New journal, only 1 issue published yet, apparently not indexed anywhere. Article creation premature, journal too young to have already become notable. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 11:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable.--Yopie (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too new to be influential, frequently cited, or historic, so does not meet any of the WP:NJournals criteria. The only hits in Google news seem to be for a similarly named but different journal, so it does not meet WP:GNG either. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I hope the journal works out for all concerned and that it grows to enough prominence to have its own article, but it's certainly not there today. Zachlipton (talk) 02:20, 10 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. An acceptable stub, this will make. m.o.p 06:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Shift Inc.

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

unreferenced nn Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:15, 9 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) 16:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - WP:VG reliable sources search turns up plenty of hits. WP:CORP states that if the article can be written as more than a WP:PERMASTUB then coverage would be sufficient. Given the sourcing I found it could hit Start class, and that would be simply with a customized Google search prior to other investigation. --Teancum (talk) 18:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is maybe a bit borderline but since this is not a BLP, I don't think it hurts to be somewhat lenient. Teancum's custom search does show a fair amount of interesting stuff. This has potential. l'aquatique[talk] 18:52, 10 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. m.o.p 06:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter King (organist)

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

I don't believe that the director of music at a church is notable enough to warrant an article. References are questionable - self published. Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 11:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Simply not notable. Current references (see nom and article) are insufficient. Probably a nice guy, good musician, just not established as notable enough for a stand alone Wikipedia entry. --Quartermaster (talk) 13:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. References are questionable, originator is virtually WP:SPA. Probably fails WP:GNG. But -- might yet find sanctuary in WP:MUSICBIO, the more directly relevant guideline. My recent experience with the Sedra Bistodeau AfD suggests that people voting on a MUSICBIO don't always go through the whole checklist (on either the Keep or the Delete side). King's website bios[21][22] suggest that there might be enough press on him to clear the bar, though perhaps only just barely. I'll write him directly, maybe he can turn up some verifiable sources. For now, I reserve judgment. Yakushima (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. From clues on Peter King's website, I tracked down this a review in a seemingly reputable source by a seemingly reputable reviewer.[23]. ~~Not so much focus on King, though.~~ Actually a fairly laudatory review -- the reviewer makes detailed comparisons to other work, but keeps coming back to King's interpretation of the pieces on the disc. Need more to meet WP:MUSICBIO, though, I think.Yakushima (talk) 14:11, 10 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) 23:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Murray Newlands

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

I believe the subject is not notable according to WP:Notability (people). There are a whole lot of citations but they seem to be just blogs or suchlike and showing him setting up an award a month or so ago. Dmcq (talk) 10:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Dmcq (talk) 10:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Twenty-one references and not a single one from a Reliable Source. Good example of Melanie's Law: "articles which refer to the subject by first name instead of last name almost always turn out to be non-notable." --MelanieN (talk) 16:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Not notable. - SummerPhD (talk) 07:01, 13 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. Let it be known that I hate you all for making me read through this entire AfD (jokes, of course (but seriously, I work in 8 hours and I'm tired)). The text made my browser lag.

Anyway, a few good points have been raised on both sides. While this article is pretty shaky as a standalone movie article, it has received quite a bit of press attention and fan speculation - enough, I'd say, to make it notable enough. With a bit of rework, I think both parties could be satisfied.

In the event that somebody is upset with this close, I welcome all questions, comments and death threats on my talk page. m.o.p 06:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Godzilla (2012 film)

AfDs for this article:

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

This movie Godzilla (2012 film) is not in production. The article consists of recaps of previous movies, rumours and stories about various people being "attached" to the project. There is no writer, no script, no actors cast. There is no basis for the title being "Godzilla", or that it will be made, let alone released in 2012. The only thing that has actually been produced is a T-shirt. Like every big "franchise" there is always someone who has the rights to a remake/sequel and who generates waffle to keep interest alive. Should be deleted per WP:NFF: "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles." All pertinent information is already noted in Godzilla (franchise)#American_Reboot. Barsoomian (talk) 04:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep - This movie has been proposed for deletion before. It was not deleted. The justification was that this article qualifies under general notability of the film. The number of google hits has only increased. Google "godzilla" and "reboot" now returns 134,000 hits, 66,000 for "godzilla reboot Gareth Edwards", indicating continuing notability as this was announced recently. I should add that the page was viewed 47878 times this month alone. See this link. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The number of Google hits on what? Rumours? And yes, lots of people read the article, and had their time wasted. It will be notable if and when it's made. What few facts are in the article are already at Godzilla (franchise)#American_Reboot. It doesn't merit its own article now. Barsoomian (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's notable already, that's what the hits show. It has been reported by proper, reliable sources, and it has been reported on world-wide. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFF is the criterion for notability in this case. Not rumours that a director "is closing a deal", not how excited the fans get about it. They actually have to start shooting the film. And if there's anything we can be sure of, it's that if it is ever made it will not be called Godzilla and it won't be a "2012 film". Barsoomian (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said elsewhere, this is a quote from wp:nff: "unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." The signing of Edwards alone was reported on in Variety, Hollywood Reporter, Zoom Cinema, CBC, ABC, MTV, NME, TIME, HitFix, New York Magazine, Sky Movies, FANGORIA and more. Take a look at the links in news.google.com for 'godzilla reboot'. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A production that DOES NOT EXIST can't be notable. People have been talking about Godzilla (Next Year) for ten years. People get "signed", "attached"; T-shirts are sold. Variety writes a puff piece. One day it might happen. Until they start rolling film, leave it as a footnote in Godzilla (franchise). Barsoomian (talk) 18:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Non existance" is not a criteria for dismissing notability. A topic having enduring coverage in multiple reliable sources over an extended period is exactly what notability is all about. (for example, see Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Tooth fairy, and other non-existant yet notable topics) That you could write "People have been talking about Godzilla (Next Year) for ten years" shows the enduring nature of the topic making the topic itself "worthy enough of note" so that the topic might be discussed. AS a topic, it is simply not (yet) a film... but then, its notability is not dependent on it being a film, but rather on the enduring coverage of the topic itself over a muti-year period. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are reliable sources, not blogs and fanboy sites. That's enough proof that it exists. They hired a director. That sounds like it's going on, to me. Even if photography has started, a film could be cancelled. As for past efforts, that's irrelevant. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing of substance, regarding a film that may never be made. If it gets to a point where this movie is ever actually being filmed, with actors, then this page can be restored with two click's of an admin's mouse. bd2412 T 16:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

General notability is enough, the deletion nomination is based on a recommendation from a project. To quote: 'unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines.' ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per the WP:GNG, which supercedes all other notability guidelines, this article topic has enough reliable sources to confer notability. Angryapathy (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG does not trump policy, though. The article consists solely of news reports, and Wikipedia concerns itself with topics of enduring notability. A possible film is not enduringly notable. The article inherits its notability (which is a no-no) from the popularity of the franchise itself, and reports can be used as part of a topic of enduring notability, which is the Godzilla franchise. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Policy requires verifiability of any statement offered in the article and that editors refrain from inserting their own opinions and analysis. While any in-depth coverage of a topic in news media is a "news report", if it were one brief flurry of reports, then NOTNEWS might apply. But both policy and guideline find that the notability of any topic may be found in its persistant and enduring coverage in multiple reliable sources. And while certainly any topic may receive media attention due to its relationship to other topics, INHERITED is not being asserted here... as notability of any topic is detemined through its coverage, no matter what may have prompted media to write about the topic. The discussion here is now more about whether proper presentation of this information would overburden another article, or if there is enough to allow a stand-alone as a sensible spinout toward increasing a reader's understanding. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, the news reports do not establish any topic of enduring notability. They all report on movement toward a possible film—that is the encyclopedic topic. This topic has yet to solidify, as projects in the film industry are not guaranteed to reach production. The reports are not looking backward and detailing an attempt at production, so we cannot suddenly reinterpret the reports to declare that the plans for the film, regardless of whether the film itself ever happens, are notable. That is a misrepresentation of sources. A better situation in which to keep is if there is retrospective coverage of a failed project, and contemporary news reports can be used to provide additional details. The news reports are an extension of the popularity of the Godzilla franchise, so it is proper to have such details at the franchise article. The franchise is enduring, and the plans for this franchise-based film are not. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The eduring coverage toward a Godzilla reboot is not some recent news blip. So yes... per policy and guidline there can be found a notability of topic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the spirit of WP:CRYSTAL is that we are not a crystal ball, that we should not have unverifiable speculation. We are often able to verify plans for films, so this is not a problem. These guidelines do not elaborate about films (though it does point to WP:NFF). However, it is worth looking at #1: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." I would argue that this is applicable to films. People can talk about their attempts to put together a festival, and news reports can report on these attempts, but if there is not a near-certain likelihood of the festival taking place, it should not be included. The same logic applies to films. There are always people out there trying to make some kind of film, and if there is some basis for reporting, such as a franchise or a famous filmmaker's involvement, there will be news coverage. But development is not a stage of near-certainty for scheduled release of the produced media. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:FUTURE/WP:CRYSTALL states "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation." But as our core policy specifically states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true"... the truth or not of speculation is not the issue... the issue is whether or not our readers can check for themselevs that the speculation has already been published by a reliable source. And no doubt this is why WP:CBALL continues after that one sentence to clarify "the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." Is there any doubt that the subject matter would be of sufficiently wide interest if it already happened? And toward worthiness of reporting on even speculation toward an anticipated event, it further clarifies, "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." What is even more cogent is in policy specifically stating "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view. In forward-looking articles about unreleased products, such as films and games, take special care to avoid advertising and unverified claims." Policy sending editors to an SNG is nice, but that does not give the SNG the same weight as the over-ruling policy. "Almost certain to happen" is not the same "almost not certain to happen". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

We do not have any issue reporting discussion of a future event. The problem is creating articles solely based on that discussion. That should not happen because as we see with events, we should not include them unless they are near-certain to take place. We cannot have an article that says, "John Doe, famous for something he did a decade ago, is planning a comeback with so-and-so festival, insert details of plans here despite no indication that the festival will come together." Same concept with films; they need to be anticipated with near-certainty. The trade papers will report on every action in the film industry, and the blogs will nag filmmakers about what is happening with so-and-so project in development. None of this means that a planned film is near-guaranteed to be released. The trade papers and the blogs perform this kind of routine news reporting about the future. They were written with the topic of the film in mind, and they cannot abruptly be used as the basis of the topic of plans for a possible film in mind, isolated from the film itself. It is ridiculous to claim that because there was a year or two between news reports of a project entering development and a new screenwriter coming on board means that it is significant coverage that makes it a topic of enduring notability instead of just news as part of the cycle. WP:NFF works because like I said below, development news will peter off, and an article is in unencyclopedic limbo when it does not know what the next step is toward a produced film, if there is ever a next step. In contrast, with a film in production, we know that something will happen with it. It could be a normal release or a failure specifically worth reporting. Relegation of content to the articles that made the related plans worth noting indicates that there are just plans, and there is not a topic of enduring notability to be had. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even as the reduced article is properly addressing the speculation as per the relevant policy on speculation, an insistance of "near certainty" of any event runs contrary to that policy and its instructing us that it is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur. As the article discusses the background of the proposed project and the prospects and development toward its success (or yes, failure) it is just as policy instructs. Policy does not require any certainty of anticipated events, and an allowable speculation is just that - an allowable speculation. And if the coverage somehow peters off... we deal with it if or when that happens and consider and at that time might look to WP:NTEMP to see if its failure still merits inclusion of the topic... for even were it to never be made, the coverage of this topic is already more than just a brief NOTNEWS blip.[24][25][26] The article will need expansion and editing to show the course of events over years, and not simply be of the "latest" develpoments... but that would seem a matter for regular editing. And yes, once any film concept becomes a "film-in-progress", we have a greater expectation of certainty, but certainty is not an absolute in determining topic notability, and even after entering principle photography a film might be halted... so even "certainty" is uncertain until the theaters open. But this might all have been far better discussed on the article's talk page, with continued regular editing addressing on how to best present the years of speculation toward the reboot.. and I see from article's history that indeed editors had been working to improve the article for many months.[27] An AFD in September resulted in a consensus keep.[28] Four months later, and without going to DRV to contest the earlier closer's decision to keep a prior AFD whose nominator used that same erroneous argument about NFF disallowing any policy encouraged speculation, the article was sent again to AFD,[29]. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the film stopped development now, it would not warrant its own article. There would be no topic of enduring notability, and there are no key events that would have happened to warrant a historical article. It would become a footnote in the franchise article. A lot of key events in a project's development could warrant a historical article, but here we have the standard baby steps toward production that are routinely reported by trade papers and blogs. There have been plenty of projects that enter development where editors cited news reports to create articles as if the films were shoo-ins, but they are ultimately reduced to footnotes. The problem is the mentality of creating an article that is more likely to become a footnote than to cover a topic of enduring notability. Projects in development need to start out as footnotes (as discussion is appropriate to report) because they are not near-certain to become these topics of enduring notability. This project is not special; projects of similar franchises have faltered. AFDs are also problematic because the options appear to be black and white (keep or delete), when most discussions like these should be about merging. A project like this warrants mention somewhere, yes, but it does not warrant its own article from the get-go. At the previous AFD, what editors should have seen are Legendary's announcement to produce the reboot and perhaps a mention of the Comic-Con presentation. Instead, the article was filled with unencyclopedic rumors and gossip that exaggerated the "topic" and led it to be kept. Like in past AFDs of similar projects, there is excitement because we think the film will come out. We should not ignore the fate of most projects in the film industry and assume that a planned film is a made film. Erik (talk | contribs) 03:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"most discussions like these should be about merging." I noted in the AFD rationale that there is already a place: Godzilla (franchise)#American_Reboot where the salient facts are noted, using the same references. I'm sure that those following the topic will update that if and when anything happens, so the "project" would not be erased from Wikipedia, it just wouldn't have a stand-alone article. If a formal merger would be preferable for any administrative reason, I'd certainly support that.Barsoomian (talk) 05:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Deletion policy encourages that merge discusions take place on the article's talk page as an alternative to shunting something to AFD. There are even templates that are to be used to initiate such discussion. Did you discuss this with any of the numerous editors who had worked on the article since last Summer? And if so, could you share those links? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since all the relevant information is already at the target, there's no reason to merge. This article is simply redundant, and can be deleted without any licensing problems.—Kww(talk) 14:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any one editor's opinion of what is relevent or not in the "appropriate discussion and argument toward the prospects for success or failure of a proposed event and whether some development will occur", should be measured againt the applicable policy and its specifiacly addressing the appropriateness of such discussion. And while yes, with the bulk of its sourced information removed, the reduced article apears more redundent... but the original was not until edited to more closely mimic the lessor information in the franchise article. Naturally, ANY spinout could be reduced to a few sentences and then redirected to its parent... but this opens another question as to whether or not such reductionist editing actually serves to increase a reader's understanding of a topic, or limit it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're being disingenuous. You know I didn't. You're trying to score some procedural point by implying that I should have. Good luck with that. To clarify: I considered proposing a merger, but after looking at Godzilla (franchise)#American_Reboot didn't see anything important in the then-current Godzilla (2012 film) that wasn't already mentioned in the mother article, so just deleting seemed the obvious option. Obviously though merging is always an option for the closing admin, regardless of what the proposer initially said. Barsoomian (talk) 16:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disingenous? Not at all... as I do not track your edits, and you may very well have discussed the possibility of a merge with the involved editors on other pages. Thank you for clarifying you did not. Your disagreeing with an earlier consensus to keep, and sending an article again to AFD, is not against policy or guideline.. and I just wanted to know whether or not it had been discussed anywhere else before being done. And any one editor feeling he knows best what reaaders might or might not wish to know about the development of this proposed reboot of Godzilla, is an allowable point of view... but that many others worked on improving the article since last Summer seem to show that others feel differently in that readers might actually wish to know something more than just a minimlist mention. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above response is the very definition of "disingenuous", making sundry unpleasant accusations while "thanking" me for clarifying. I won't rise to the bait Barsoomian (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I make no "accusations" and quite politely asked for clarification. I had asked you earlier to not to put words in my mouth, or make unfounded declarations or bad faith assumptions... and as your comments again aproach a violation of WP:CIV, I would ask AGAIN that you stop. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There you go again. Barsoomian (talk) 00:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think by signing the director that it has reached the point of near-certainty of being made. He turned down the directorship of the sequel to Monsters. What is in doubt is the time frame. That's planned, and arguably speculative. Move the article to a non-dated article, such as 'Godzilla Reboot film project'. I would agree with you about self-promotion for many many many projects, (Hollywood is famous for that) but Legendary does not have that sort of track record. And this project is following the normal trajectory leading to a film. I am aware that a previous project exists in the Godzilla line. Banno's "to the max" project was that very type of project, looking for backers, etc. and was initiated independently. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point of near-certainty is when filming begins. It is highly likely at that point that a film will come out, so that is used as the threshold. Even if filming shuts down, such an event will often lead to retrospective coverage about what happened to the production. In contrast, development news often peter out. The trade papers Variety and The Hollywood Reporter report movement on projects, but they rarely report on non-movements. In addition, despite certain franchises being famous, they still have trouble making films. It took years for studios to come out with new Superman and Batman films. It took a long time for the first Spider-Man film to get produced. Jurassic Park IV has been enthusiastically advocated by the supposed director, but it has yet to get beyond development. Justice League was canceled because of a writers' strike, even though a lot of babyface casting was done. Many, many Marvel films have been in development forever, and the formation of Marvel Studios has helped start producing them. Even so, there are films like Ant-Man that drag their feet. I have worked a lot with future films, and there have been numerous articles created because of news reports seemingly guaranteeing a film. To cite a recent example, Priest (2011 film) has been in development since 2005. My point is, WP:NFF was written to avoid the so-called gut feeling that a film will get made. The start of filming is a threshold that we can use because there are far less situations in which there is insistence that there will be a film. Prior to the threshold, reports on plans for film adaptations fall under broader articles, such as the source material (such as Concrete Island) or the famous filmmaker with various plans (such as Neil Marshall#Planned films). It's obviously a mouthful to convey this explanation about how these guidelines have a tried-and-true real-world basis, but I'm trying to do so here to show that these plans are not an indicator of amounting to a topic of enduring notability. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Near certainly" is not what policy requires... it instead requires verifiability that whatever speculaton is being reported is itself well sourced. And my own sense of why NFF was written was to simply avoid an overflow of articles (predictive or not) that lack sources or notability... and wax comparisons aside, even then it is encouraged that such less notable information or discussion might be better included in the main article on a topic.. and then spun out if ovwerburdening the parent topic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with guideline, in general. Really, the issue is how to handle this project, which is notable and suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The question is whether as part of the franchise page or stand-alone. I vote for stand-alone as there are so many others in the franchise, and the franchise page is heavily summarized. Also, there are aspects, such as it being made in America utilizing the Toho design. It's a bit too big for the franchise page, already. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep BUT, this article is not a film article and cannot be treated as one until principle filming begins. As was brought up at the last AFD, the article requires reformatting, the infobox needs to be removed, and the article title needs to be be disambigged to Godzilla (2012 film project) until such time as filming begins, if ever. While often debated, the SNG WP:NFF does not strictly nor absolutely overrule policy or overrule other notability guidelines. It was set in place to prevent Wikipedia being flooded by articles on unmade films... planned projects lacking extensive coverage or demonstrable notability, and as a governor set to limit run-away crap article creation, it serves a valuable prurpose. But it is NOT the only word nor final word. The final word is whether or not a topic has the enduring and in-depth coverage to be enough worthy of note to be in some way discussed. See WP:GNGvsNFF And there is a discussion on just such a similar situation to be found at Talk:The Dark Knight Rises. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing about the "film project" that isn't already covered in Godzilla (franchise), which is where it belongs at this stage. No one can say what the title will be, what year it will be released. With an article, fans desperately try to fill it up with titbits of gossip, contradicted a few weeks later -- the writer, who isn't writing, the monster designs, that were fan made -- just a load of speculation that should be on a fan site. Nobody knows or can say anything definite about this film, it's in development hell along with a million other proposed films. And it IS a film article. It's got a title and a release date, despite both being purely speculative. None of the editors followed through on the reformat and other changes they said they would do several months ago in the first AFD. The reason I took an interest is that I saw it being cited and linked as a real film in other articles. It infects other articles that refer to real films on an equal basis with this daydream. And "See WP:GNGvsNFF"!? An essay you wrote yourself, yesterday, giving it a label to make it look like a WP policy? Sorry, doesn't convince me we should ignore WP:NFF; which is the actual pertinent policy. Barsoomian (talk) 06:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In certain cases, exeptions to WP:NFF are allowed... and we are not discussing "a million other proposed films"... just this one in this instance. Per both policy and guideline, any topic may find itself worthy of note and so merit discussion through its having eduring and persistant coverage in multiple reliable sources over an extended period of time. And no, since it is not a film article (as I stated imediately above in my "keep"), the erroneous appearance of it being a film article is best addressed through regular editing. Since this was not done per the suggestions at the last AFD where this article was soundly "kept", I have myself begun correcting the correctable.[30] The inapplicable film categories need to be cleaned up. Again, what can be easily fixed through regular editing is no reason for deletion.

That you might personally feel this is best discussed at the franchise article, is fine... but well worth noting is that the minimal paragraph at Godzilla (franchise)#American Reboot is a brief 154 words, while this article offers 707 words of sourced prose. Interestingly, what has not even been discussed here is consideration of a merge of the more expansive sourced content of Godzilla (2012 film project) to the section at Godzilla (franchise)#American Reboot, with a possible incubation of Godzilla (2012 film project) to allow it to be further expanded and improved out of mainspace. And while the article's style and format drew your interest, correction of such is always an addressable issue.

And to clarify, an sng such as WP:NFF is NOT a policy. And as a guideline, it is not ironclad nor an absolute. And while the concepts were finally gathered in User:MichaelQSchmidt/GNGvsNFF only recently, my essay-in-progress is based upon discussions with numerous editors going back several years, and is intended to address a misconception that guideline overrules policy. And as it is specificaly marked as an essay, it does not look nor act as a policy. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What you're doing is special pleading. You're saying this "project" is different from every other unmade proposed movie because ... just because. Really, the "brief 154 words" in the franchise article is already more than this merits now. The "707 words of sourced prose" is trivia and gossip about people who might have been asked to work on the movie, or might not. Fake monster designs. T-shirts. Sourced trivia is still trivia. "what has not even been discussed here is consideration of a merge" . I would have but believe that all the important points are already in the franchise article, but obviously if you want to move the rest and delete this article, I'd support that. But the fans don't want to hear that. And as for "careful editing", no one wants to do that either, no one followed through after the last AfD. Are you going to watch this article and keep it in line? As for WP:NFF, what you're doing is trying to find a way of circumventing it, by pretending you're not talking about a film, but a "film project". If you are successful, every fan of a proposed movie anyone has ever mentioned in will just add "project" to their article title, make a redirect from "X (2012 film)" to "X (2012 film project)" and go on their merry way, immune to deletion if they can find a couple of articles based on press releases to cite to say that it's "notable" because lots of people are talking about it. And then they'll go to film articles all over Wikipedia and link their imaginary "project" in, as the Godzilla fans have been doing with this one. That's why it is "common sense" NOT to have separate film articles BEFORE PRINCIPAL PHOTOGRAPHY HAS STARTED. At least then they show up as red links when fans go and insert them.Barsoomian (talk) 05:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do not to put words in my mouth, or make unfounded declarations or bad faith assumptions toward others. And please, could you refrain from your repeated WP:WAX argument about other things that are not the subject of this specific AFD? Specially as we are not discussing "every other unmade proposed movie"... we are discussing Policy and guideline and its application toward this one topic that is seen by a few editors other than yourself to meet notability criteria. You've really got to get over the notion that NFF is to be treated as policy, as that is simply not the case... and you might try to show a little good faith in others who actually write articles[31] and improve content,[32] and trust that you are not the only one keeping an eye at articles such as this one. Your conclusions are flawed in several ways. An article about a notable unmade film topic is not new nor unique,[33][34][35][36] and is under ongoing discussion by Coordinators and members of WP:Film.[37][38][39] That these other rare exceptions exist has not encouraged a flood of copycats, and indeed has guaranteed that in order to merit consideration, such should exceed the notability requirements as set by policy and the GNG. Sourcing by "a couple of articles based in press releases" will not allow articles to be kept, and your worry that it would open the floodgates, while laudable, has proven to be incorrect. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All the other unmade film articles you cite (hey, aren't you the guy chiding me for WP:WAX?) have a serious investment of money and talent committed. This does not. Nothing has been done except naming a director, and printing a T-shirt. And I see you've already converted other speculative "films" into "projects", trying to sidestep deletion. Well, I hope someone with more pull than I have is paying attention to this attempt to negate the longstanding NFF policy. It is a policy, ("a principle or rule to guide decisions and achieve rational outcome(s)") whether you like it or not. So, no, I won't "get over it" just because of your say-so. I quite dislike your characterisation of me and trivialisation of my concerns. I won't make any more comments at this AfD, so let's see if you are successful in "opening the floodgates" (words that you put in my mouth, a little sensationalist, but not inappropriate in this case). Barsoomian (talk) 10:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again... NFF is NOT a policy... is is a guideline (read its page header)... and the two are not quite the same thing. Definitions of each may be found at WP:POLICIES and WP:GUIDES. The page at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines instructs "Use common sense when interpreting and applying policies and guidelines; there will be occasional exceptions to these rules." And it's not me opening floodgates... but it's rather that through consensus of editors that the few rare exceptions shared above have come into being... of certain few projects being so widely discused in multiple reliable sources over a lengthy period of time that the projects have been found wothy of note. And no, the "floodgates" have not opened. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that it's a guideline, but common sense would indicate that films that fail WP:NFF generally should not have articles, and no one has shown that there is anything particularly unique about this pile of gossip and rumour that would distinguish it from the piles of gossip and rumours that WP:NFF is intended to avoid. Converting it into a "project" article is just sleight of hand.—Kww(talk) 19:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... but common sense and consensus has also allowed a very few rare exceptions to NFF... exceptions that through the depth and length of enduring coverage have demonstrated notability per guideline. And through policy stating "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced" and through the plethora of provided sources, we have one of those rare exceptions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and still a weak keep if there is a certain place where the information can be merged to instead. But per WP:Split it almost seems large enough for a article. The film seems to be more in line with The Hobbit film project that even production hasn't even happened. But if there is a bunch of reliable sources for it as a notable upcoming project it could serve it's purpose. A suggestion is probably read WP:Film project and sees if it qualifies. There's a few yays and nays on that essay supporting this particular kind of film. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 22:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jhenderson, I revised the article and identified the key events out of all the rumors and gossip. What results is a pretty short article, not worth incubating but instead merging to the franchise article, since the franchise is a notable one that led to news reports about this project. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But is it reasonable to remove sourced discussion of the anticipated event simply to justify a merge? And if the reduced article is deemed as mergable, there is a strong case extant for the original version to be incubated and itself improved through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In noting that nearly every sentence in the project article is supported by the provided sources, I am still not adverse to a guideline supported incubation for continued work. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with treating it like a "film project" article, like the Hobbit. That's the best approach. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:CRYSTAL. Articles about future projects don't need to exist at all, regardless of sourcing. Other venues are in the business of sorting and weighing rumors and gossip, Wikipedia is not. Unless and until WP:NFF is met, there shouldn't be an article about this topic. We are not at the mercy of sources. WP:N establishes a bare minimum guideline: no article which fails to meet it should be kept. That doesn't mean that every article that meets it should be kept, though. An article that meets WP:N should only be kept if it is a reasonable thing to include, and speculative film projects that may never occur are not reasonable things to write Wikipedia articles about.—Kww(talk) 19:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1. It's not speculation, they are working on it. 2. You've got it the wrong way around. Project guidelines are to help determine when some article reaches or is expected to reach the general notability guideline. 3. The film type infobox stuff is off the article. It's a general article, not a film article. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Things that may never happen fall under WP:CRYSTAL, and I have nothing backwards: WP:N is not a mandate to include content. There are millions of things that can be reliably sourced to multiple independent sources that should never have Wikipedia articles written about them, and films that fail WP:NFF generally fall in that class. Leave the gossip and rumors to websites where they are appropriate, and don't include them here.—Kww(talk) 19:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure... discussion of future events falls under the policy dealing with such... but it is just that policy that specifcally advises "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced". And the argument about millions of articles we do not have aside, this information would overburden the franchise article. And as it is appropriate per policy to in some manner discuss future events if properly referrenced, we have one of those very rare policy encouraged exceptions to guideline... as long as the article IS properly referenced using the plethora of available reliable sources... and yes, we can certainly leave gossip to the non-rs websites and only use such information as can be attributed to RS. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not paper. We are not under any sort of resource strain to include an article that obviously is of interest, by the numbers of page hits. As I've mentioned above, the project has been reported on by professional news organizations, not just blogs and the what not. Even a film which has started photography can be cancelled. Those that have started filming still must show notability. That's what I meant by backwards. This project has the notability. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 00:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reader interest is completely irrelevant. Neither of you has demonstrated anything intrinsically different about this project that would make it suitable for inclusion. WP:N is not a suicide pact: it doesn't force us to include articles about things that don't warrant an article, and film projects that may never come to pass don't warrant articles, regardless of coverage.—Kww(talk) 02:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With respects, coverage is what it is all about. And with further respects, your conclusion is provable incorrect, as a few rare allowed exceptions do exist. The intrinsic and demonstrable difference between this topic and the others that would not merit being one of those very few rare exceptions, is in it having persistant and enduring coverage over many years and in many reliable sources, showing the topic itself to be worthy of note. And while I have many times happily opined a deletion for unmade films that failed our most basic notability standard... this one exceeds that standard. But as you feel that such exceptions are not to be allowed, you are quite welcome to buck the existing consensus that has allowed a very few and rare exceptions, and re-nominate The Hobbit film project, The Dark Knight Rises, The Avengers film project, and X-Men: First Class (film project) for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that such exceptions are never allowed, simply that the kind of coverage this topic has received doesn't rise to it. All the reliable sources are reporting are the existence of rumors, gossip, and a t-shirt. That doesn't warrant an article.—Kww(talk) 03:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Sorry... what you did write was "film projects that may never come to pass don't warrant articles, regardless of coverage"... and it was that statement that I was addressing, as ANY film, even one that has commenced principle filming, could still die before an actual release, and even the event of failure could be determined as notable (it's happened). Any reliable source reporting on an anticpated future event would, by its very nature of it being anticipatory, be speculation until the event takes place... and if the coverage were minimal or recent, I would tend to agree and be considering delete alongside you... but it's in that speculation and coverage in reliable sources being over a many years period that this topic becomes worthy of note. Yes, we're back to the topic's enduring coverage, but not the seculatuve nature of that enduring coverage, as the inclusion threshold is verifiability, and not about the truth (or not) of what is offered and cited to reliable sources. As an article whose topic is a discussion of the film and film concept and progress over a many years period,[40] it (just) merits inclusion. I am reminded of policy's stance toward anticipated events that have not or might never happen when it advises the "subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred," and "If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented". As speculation is allowed, and as long as Wikipedia editors do not insert their own opinions or analyses, I would think those cautions would certainly apply to an article which is discussing a new Godzilla film. But we can agree to disagree... yes? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eloquently put. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: IMDB's page is now titled Godzilla (2014). Even though IMDB will list just about anything anyone claims is happening, even they don't pretend its getting any closer to production (in Wikipedia terms, achieving notability). Barsoomian (talk) 03:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response: Yes it is... but so what? IMDB is NOT a reliable source and has nothing to do with Wikipedia determination of what consitutes notability. Their errors and lag time in making their own updates does not equate to us doing the same thing. We're faster, and we offer our readers actual sources for what is contained within our articles. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The IMDB change from 2012 to 2014 makes me weigh in on the WP:Crystal side of the argument. WHEN the film is eventually made and at least formally scheduled for release (and release dates often slide) an article could be warranted. Not yet. --Quartermaster (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal does not mean we are not allowed to discuss future events, that policy specificaly allows such topics as long as they are well sourced (as is this one) and as long as editors do insert personal opinion (which no one has). Can you provide any reliable source that speaks toward a 2014 release? IMDB and its unreliabilty would seem to make it useless for such speculation (specially as they do not ever provide their sourcing), and anticipation of future events are by their nature speculative, and per both policy and guideline, that speculation MUST be supported by reliable sources. IMDB just ain't it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The project is started. The only part of the article that is speculative is the date. That would be the same of any film project, as release dates can change. The speculation only seems to be on imdb's part. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should be mentioned that it has always been an expected 2014 project until Legendary announced that they hoped to finish it in 2012. Toho announced in 2004 that the character would be on hiatus for ten years. I was not able to see if it was ever called Godzilla (2012) on IMDB. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, not all film projects which are started are eventually finished. When/if the movie is finished this won't be a problem. I'm sort of thinking of Halo (the movie ... that wasn't made ... but was started up in preproduction several times). --Quartermaster (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. This is the kind of article that WP:NFF specifically attempts to prevent. There's no reason to have an article dedicated to a floundering project, and nothing about this particular floundering project makes it an exception to the general rule.—Kww(talk) 17:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even the topic of film that is never made can be found notable through its coverage, and the excessive anount of coverage meets, and is not an exception to, "the general rule" for a topic that is not (yet) a film. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NFF is a guideline whereby the Film wiki project grants an article notability after filming starts, so that deletion requests are not done. General notability should still be established for even those, but they get basically a pass. An article can still be written on a topic that has general notability, which this project does have. It does not need the film project's thumbs up or down. The hostility is surprising. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It surprises you that there are people who don't think there should be articles about speculation, gossip, and rumors? What project have you been working on? It isn't a matter of needing approval from the film project (of which I am not a member). WP:NFF represents the long-standing consensus of how to decide that the a project has moved along far enough to warrant an article, regardless of coverage. Meeting general notability guidelines makes something eligible for an article, but doesn't guarantee that the topic gets one.—Kww(talk) 18:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's the other way around. Those articles given the NFF guideline green light must still pass general notability. That's the difference between a guideline and a policy. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That has nothing whatsoever to do with "the difference between a guideline and a policy". WP:N and WP:NFF are both guidelines. WP:N is rooted in WP:V and WP:RS, while WP:NFF is rooted in WP:NOT#CRYSTAL. No guideline or policy anywhere on Wikipedia says "it is mandatory to have an article about every topic mentioned in two reliable sources". This topic is one that should not have an article, regardless of sourcing, and WP:NFF explains why. Please note that I'm not saying the topic doesn't meet WP:N, I'm saying that it doesn't matter: the issues raised by WP:NOT#CRYSTAL are substantial enough to indicate that we shouldn't have the article regardless of sourcing.—Kww(talk) 19:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The policy instructions at WP:NOT#CRYSTAL do not state that anticipated events "cannot" merit articles, and instead specifically speak toward editors refraining from opinion or analysis and the requirement of both verifiability of discussed content and proper sourcing in writing about such topics... else even the minimal discussion of this topic in the franchise article would itself not exist. And yes, no policy or guideline mandates an article. It is only after an artcle is written about an anticipated event ("It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur..."), that we look to policy and guideline to see is the topic has the coverage and verifiability of content to meet inclusion criteria. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't demonstrated a single reason that this film is different from a million other unstarted projects, and have demonstrated no reason whatsoever to ignore WP:NFF. Saying we are permitted to have the article is one thing, and I can't argue that the article isn't permitted. What you haven't demonstrated is any reason that we should have an article. There's all sorts of things that people can do that they shouldn't. Writing this article is one of them. There is so little substantial material that it belongs in the franchise article, not split out. I am looking to guideline, the topic doesn't meet WP:NFF, and moving it to a "project" article is simply a subterfuge in an attempt to evade relevant guidelines.—Kww(talk) 22:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

?? Ah, but I have indeed demonstrated the policy and guideline supported reasons for consideration: The topic of a future event being worthy of being discussed if prperly sourced specifically due to its enduring and persistant coverage in multiple reliable sources over a many-years length of time... thus making the topic worthy of note... and such worthiness IS the distinction between this and your millions of other projects... others who do not have that persistant coverage and lacking such are are not worthy of note. As it is not (yet) a film, film templates and film dismbigs are not to be used. Correcting that is not "subterfuge". And finding the proper ways to deal with increasing a reader's understanding of a topic is also not subterfuge... it's editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No actual film, just rumor and speculation, none of which is in itself terribly notable. Moving the article to "Godzilla (2012 film project)" mid-AfD is a bit of a jack move, IMO. Tarc (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No film, but a project exists. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Semantic masturbation as far as I'm concerned; a "project" doesn't mean anything other than "we don't have enough info to call it an actual film yet". As long as it is only in the conceptual stage, it warrants a mention another article, i.e. one about the movie franchise in general, not a standalone article. Tarc (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No matter the extensive coverage of a topic of a project in deveopment, as a disambig, Title (film) is not to be used, nor is a film infobox to be used, unless or until principle filming has begun. And when an amiguous article Title needs to be disambigged in these rare cases, Title (film project) is the format. So not a "jack move", but one that is intended only to remove any misimpression to Wikipedia readers that the the article is about a finished film. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Incubate~~ per notability guidelines for future films and rewrite the article because it is a stream of news reports, including reports from unreliable sources like Latino Review. The reports give the article the false appearance of being a fleshed-out article. Better to have a brief summary of news reports from reliable sources at Godzilla#American films. This film is stuck in development hell much like Jurassic Park IV. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:ATD, incubation and rework is acceptable to me, as even were this project to never become an actual film, its coverage would show notability in its faiure to be made. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per my rework; no need for incubation. As I suspected, so much of the article was extraneous. There are only three key events so far: the project being announced in March 2010, the Comic-Con presentation in July 2010, and the Monsters director being attached in January 2011 with a need to rewrite a screenplay. That's all there is; the rest are rumors and indiscriminate speculative details. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, when you strip out details or comments, there is very little article. There is no need to be terse. Wikipedia is not paper. What is wrong with comments from the director? What is wrong with comments from Legendary's president? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 22:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I restored a quote, but we have to be cautious about using them; Wikipedia has a policy of maintaining a neutral point of view. For example, the old revision had this quote: "Our plans are to produce the Godzilla that we, as fans, would want to see. We intend to do justice to those essential elements that have allowed this character to remain as pop culturally relevant for as long as it has." Boy, does that sound good! The problem is that every producer/filmmaker making an announcement says something just like that. I did restore the Edwards quote since it was a bit more substantial, at least mentioning the 1998 film. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A look around the net indicates this is still in development and even IMDB shows the date has slipped to 2014 so the article title is incorrect. There's no guarantee that any film that is only in development will ever actually be filmed and to stop articles like this existing Wikipedia:Notability (films) states "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date." There's no reason why this film should go against that. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I know the policy and guideline discussions above have become TLDR, but NFF is not the final nail in the coffin of demonstrable notability, as some very rare exceptions have been allowed. And through discussion about it elsewhere, IMDB is never to be considered a reliable source for informations on projects in development. And also to be noted is that and even a project that fails to be ever produced could still have a demonstrable notability through that failure or because of their production hell. The article as much reduced by Erik would fit nicely into the franchise article... just the place where policy and guideline suggest it be if it would not overwhelm. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course NFF isn't the final nail but there's nothing that convinces it's one of those "rare exceptions" that should be let through. I actually did read the comments above, after I'd formed my opinion independently, and I'm not swayed by any of the comments. As for IMDB, that it's unreliable is actually a good thing here as it demonstrates that nobody really knows what's happening with this. Despite the unreliability, fan rumours are often correct. The project doesn't meet WP:GNG either, as most of the pages that mention it are unreliable. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you read it, as the page has become quite long. Interesting conclusion, and while I know that unreliability is why IMDB is unsuitable, I had not realized that media sources with otherwise accepted reputations for fact-checking and accuracy could also be determined as unreliable if it is speculation upon which they researched and reported. No doubt WP:RS will be modified in the future to clarify that despite requirement of such sources by policy, coverage of an anticipated event in reliable sources will be determined unreliable and not count toward confirmation of that the speculated event itself being covered, even if in otherwise reliable sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I feel like !voting for delete just because all of yesterday's edits are AWFUL! Do you guys really write so badly? Embarrassing. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CIVIL. The previous revision used a blogspot.com reference, reported on rumors about a possible director and a possible script, used references redundantly, talked about online confusion about real and fake designs, had a misleading passage about Bekmambetov being involved, a couple of fluff (promotional) quotes, references IMDb for the release year (when they have no basis for the year), and reports indiscriminate marketing details that are barely pertinent to the actual topic of the film. The current revision is streamlined, highlighting the key events related to the project. ~~When~~ If the project enters production, there will be actual events and details to report. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry -- should have put a smiley in there. :-) I often forget. Not a comment on the content, but the writing. ;-) ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the current version is quite different from the original... that's for sure. :) As Wikipedia's goal is to aid a reader's understanding of any topic, there should some reasonable way to contextually add back some of the sourced historical background of its early development, rather than overlooking all coverage of the development processes that led to more recent events... for as with any article there must be balance, and that the project has evolved is worth contextual discussion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weighing in, as a film it has no weight for Reception or Notability but the article is not about the film itself and should be an exception to the notability guideline. I am not excusing that any film project with coverage could retain its own article but until the film is real, the article speaks and must focus on the project in and of itself and that is what has received coverage in the real world perspective. My vote would go toward Keep. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 02:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most editors adding to it are treating it as an article about a film. Every few days someone restores the "Film" infobox. And the Godzilla (2012 film) redirect encourages it being linked in various lists and other articles as if it were a completed film. I don't think that documenting all the hot air that the promoters create is worthy of an article; and if it were a much less gullible attitude should be taken, as most of the pronouncements of what the film "will be" are pure wishful thinking/crystal balling. Barsoomian (talk) 06:29, 17 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 Result was Speedy delete (G11 Unambiguous advertising and G12 unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.ktk.edu.pk/school_info%20detailed.html#whtisktk) by Ironholds (talk · contribs). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KTK School Systems

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

Extremely problematic text. May be better to just start from scratch. delete UtherSRG (talk) 10:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - AfD notice removed db-G11 (blatant advertising) tag possibly due to edit conflict. --Kudpung (talk) 10:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatant spam and as a copyright violation of the school's website (so tagged). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:08, 9 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sick Animation

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

Delete. Lacking significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Refs provided are dead. Could not find reliable references outside of primary sources and social networking pages and forums. Cind.amuse 10:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - per G11. Completely promotional page for a non-notable subject. Kuguar03 (talk) 08:58, 12 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 Elizabeth High School (New Jersey). m.o.p 06:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sam E. Aboff Alternative School

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Article says that it is part of part of the Elizabeth Public Schools, but their website doesn't show the school. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Looks to be part of the Elizabeth High School campus, and then merged into the school in 2009. That would explain why NCES doesn't find it. So, merge any content and redirect to the high school. tedder (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect There is nothing to merge, since Elizabeth High School (New Jersey) already has more information than this. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 23:03, 9 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) 23:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Neumark

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

Fails notability; no significant coverage in independent third-party reliable sources. Sources cited seem to be essentially blogs. JN 466 10:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article because this is a notable musician. None of the sources are blogs, and they are all unrelated. How could they not be independent? Pianette7 (talk) 14:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, all the references are to self-published sources: http://neumarkmusic.com/about.html http://www.quiescencemusic.com/ http://www.piano-heaven.co.uk/ http://homepage.mac.com/kathyparsonspiano/timneumark/Personal837.html The following site is a commercial site, but it fails verification: http://payplay.fm/genre/solo+instrumental – there is no reference to Neumark on it. The artist's music, too, is self-published. His youtube channel has 125 views. In summary, there are no professionally published sources whatsoever, and no other evidence of notability. It's the piano equivalent of a garage band.
Looking at your edit history, a substantial number of your edits appear focused on Neumark and the music he likes. [41] [42] [43] [44]
Your first edits do not seem like those of a novice editor. Have you ever edited Wikipedia under another user name? --JN 466 15:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not edited Wikipedia under other names. I am proficient at MediaWiki because we use it where I work. I don't think a "substantial" number of my edits are about this guy, I just went to two of his concerts and felt he deserved a page. I like good piano music and that is where my edits were focused. Based on WP:MUSICBIO which is discussed below, I think he passes #1. If you don't think those three interviews are valid then I guess he doesn't. Did he require an interview from the NY Times or something? You are correct that he is not on that payplay site now, but he was there for a long time. I don't understand the requirements for your sources if three interviews about a musician or band is not enough to pass your first rule there, then what is? I realize this guy is not David Lanz or Yanni, but he's not a garage band either. I do understand that he is not hugely famous, but I did not think fame is a requirement because there are lots of small bands or unknown artists on this website. If I misunderstood rule #1 there then I agree with deletion, but then Wikipedia needs to delete lots of small band articles or most of the List of New Age music artists, some of which I have edited. I added this page because I am a fan and I thought he needed a page. If Wikipedia now accepts only some references and not others, then how is an editor supposed to know what to add? That seems pretty biased to big media. This is the type of stuff that keeps honest editors from helping Wikipedia. Pianette7 (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. The sources that you cited are self-published sources -- they are websites established and run by private individuals, without editorial oversight. Such sources may not be used for biographies of living persons (see Wikipedia:BLPSPS#Avoid_self-published_sources), nor do they demonstrate notability. Imagine: anyone can create three blogs under three different names and write about himself. Three friends could write about each other, etc. The presence of a handful of private websites or blogs referring to a band or musician does not establish "notability". This is so even if there is no relationship between any of the parties. See WP:MUSICBIO. You have made a number of edits about Tim Neumark that have been inappropriate; for example inserting him as a "famous Columbian" in the Columbia, Maryland article. If someone is genuinely famous, they will attract coverage in newspapers or books. There is absolutely no evidence of this here. --JN 466 22:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concerns about people creating a bunch of fake blogs to gain notoriety for something, but this does not appear to be the case here. One of those websites is from the UK, and the Kathy Parsons website used to be a site with what you call "editorial oversight" when it was SoloPianoPublications.com. That site was removed and all reviews moved to her site. You can see that I made a revision with this new link in April 2008. Those websites are not fansites of this artist so it seems you are using the letter of your rules and not the spirit of them. I have read MUSICBIO as you suggested, and I thought he passed #1. This debate is solely based on the interpretation of those websites and rule #1. I think Tim is famous because I have been to his concerts and there are websites in other countries that have interviews about him. He is in one book from http://www.musicandspirituality.com/ but it is just a quote from him about music so maybe that doesn't count. I don't know anyone who uses newspapers now so that seems like a pretty dinosaur method of judging someone. I am really flummoxed that an article that is three years old would be deleted. If someone had given me these reasons immediately I probably would have understood but since you are doing this now it seems rather odd. Did you not nominate this earlier because it had references from SoloPianoPublications? What is the point of deleting this type of article, and do you do it for all small bands and artists? Your site is filled with hundreds of them. Go ahead and delete if you must, but you had better get rid of all the other ones like it. Pianette7 (talk) 13:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for the person who made the nomination, but I guess that the most likely reason they didn't nominate this for deletion earlier is that they didn't notice it. No, we don't delete articles on "all small bands and artists", but we do on those without evidence of notability. You are absolutely right in saying that there are hundreds of similar articles in Wikipedia, and that they should be deleted. Perhaps you would like to help by nominating some of them for deletion. However, the existence of those articles which should be deleted is not a reason for not deleting this one. 80.168.174.190 (talk) 16:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I do not have time or desire to spend my time on Wikipedia. Pianette7 (talk) 14:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No real WP:RS. Seems to be vanity article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, level of success does not yet seem to be enough to meet WP:MUSICBIO. It has been suggested that this is a vanity article by User:Timneu22 via a sock, which would not help it much either. Daniel Case (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to pass WP:MUSICBIO due to self-published references. Perhaps it could be recreated if the subject receives more substantial press. Kaldari (talk) 18:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. None of the sources cited seems to be independent. Promotional in tone. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand deletion from the sources not meeting your standards, but I was sure to write this in a non promotional tone. Pianette7 (talk) 14:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am seeing no evidacen of notability here.Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 11 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cougar Camp

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

I initially tried to save this article from being a CSD G11/promotional, but as I got to trying to source the article I ran into a brick wall.

The only thing I could verify in the article was that some of the people who are associated with the camp are also associated with a school the camp apparently has some sort of relationship with.

This is pretty much the extent I could verify here. The camp has no mentions on gnews and the only mentions I could find on Google were a few incredibly short database entries and some links to the camp. Nothing here asserts the camp even remotely meets the general notability guidelines or can be verified. OSborn^arf_contribs. 03:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- OSborn^arf_contribs. 03:37, 25 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per references indicating notability.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No references in the article indicate notability, the two that are there are minor confirmations that two people associated with the camp are employed somewhere else. OSborn^arf_contribs. 00:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is typical of how this user weighs in at Afds to be honest. Tarc (talk) 16:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable topic - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As above, a very typical !vote from this person, who rarely provides substance. Tarc (talk) 16:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom, no evidence of notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaksar (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox (talk) 05:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Independent reliable sources are needed to establish notability, preferably 2 or more. There don't seem to be any for this subject. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I actually find quite a lot of hits on the Google News Archives, but they are all for some sort of sports accelerated training camp. I can't find anything that seems to relate to this camp. - ManicSpider (talk) 08:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems more like an advert than anything else. It is not even a very good advert, because it is not all that clear what Cougar Camp is offering and who it is for. (It is probably 100% clear to people who use these camps, but not to foreigners like me.)--Toddy1 (talk) 11:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notability in the article (would have been an ideal speedy delete candidate, none to be found otherwise. A search of "Cougar Camp" plus Maryland turns up the camp's own website, then quickly falls into the other kind of cougar. (Which I note now is neither a standalone article, nor is it mentioned in the target of the redir, but that is outside the scope of this discussion). Tarc (talk) 16:08, 9 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. postdlf (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Secret German Aircraft of World War II

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

Rejected prod. Bizzare list that claims to list "Secret" German aircraft designs - or, to be more specific (and honest), the "napkinwaffe überweapons that would have won the war for Hitler if he'd just had six more months!" Nothing about these designs was especially "secret" except in the minds of sensational authors; most of the links are red; not all the projects are even from WWII (the Fw 42, for instance). In addition, this is redundant to both redundant to Category:World War II fighter aircraft of Germany and List of World War II military aircraft of Germany. And how do we decide what's "secret" enough to be included? It appears somebody merely trawled through luft46.com and assembled a list of what was there...

tl;dr: This is a list that has absurdly WP:OR-based inclusion criteria, is and likely forever will be mostly redlinks, is redundant to other, better lists and categories, and smells distinctly of fanboysim. Fails WP:OR, WP:LISTCRUFT. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is obviously redundant to List of World War II military aircraft of Germany as these aircraft proposals/designs are in no way 'secret'. Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm suprised that this got de-prodded. I seconded it with "doesn't seem to be any secrets about this list, and its redundant to Category:World War II fighter aircraft of Germany and List of World War II military aircraft of Germany, poorly referenced, mostly redlinks", and still feel the same way. There is really nothing encyclopedic about this list at all, and simply smacks of some fanboy sensationalistic cruft. bahamut0013^words _deeds 14:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Nick-D, redundant to List of World War II military aircraft of Germany. There is nothing on this list that defines why these were "secret", or how that classification would make them different to any other aircraft operated by Germany at the time. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination. Anotherclown (talk) 09:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:SNOW WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 22:43, 13 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Kukolj Kuki

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

Can't find reliable, secondary sources to demonstrate the notability of this Serbian singer under WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO, but the trouble of digging through some of the combinations of searches with the simple nickname "Kuki" is troublesome enough this could use more eyes, wasn't comfortable enough to PROD. j⚛e decker ^{talk to me} 04:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Person is obviously not notable. Truthsort (talk) 07:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. —ManicSpider (talk) 09:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —ManicSpider (talk) 09:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Delete - I am unable to find any English-language sources, and I don't understand any of the others enough to comment on their reliability or contribution to notability. - ManicSpider (talk) 09:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a lot of results on Google for this guy's name. There must be some good content in there somewhere. But I don't want to do the work to save this article. Maybe somebody else will come along. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 04:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with Google Hits is that it includes things like torrent sites, YouTube, music fan sites, blogs, forums and music stores, almost none of which are reliable sources. As a perfect example, look at the first page of results on the subject of this article. The Wikipedia article, a MySpace page, several YouTube videos and FIVE torrent sites. Pages 2 and 3 of the results continue along the same lines. I'm sorry, but even looking through the Google results, I can't see anything that would pass WP:RS - ManicSpider (talk) 04:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, a lot of the results that turned up for torrents and mp3 download sites. Truthsort (talk) 17:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And wikimirrors, indeed. Of course, if someone would point me at a couple that were reliable, and be specific, I'd be happy to withdraw my nomination (presuming I agreed). --j⚛e decker ^{talk to me} 23:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unable to find significant coverage in any reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 19:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ManicSpider. Fails WP:GNG and WP:V. Tooga - BØRK! 19:31, 12 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pure dead brilliant

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

WP is not a dictionary, or even a slang dictionary. We should not have articles on individual words, or three word expressions of which there are millions. Jaque Hammer (talk) 04:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 06:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete per nom. —Tamfang (talk) 00:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pure dead delete. Keep if my phrase catches on. Szzuk (talk) 20:48, 16 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 for I Got a "D" in Salami and Hank Zipzer, no consensus for Niagara Falls, or Does It? and Barfing in the Backseat: How I Survived My Family Road Trip with leave to speedy renominate the latter two. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I Got a "D" in Salami

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

Also nominating the following articles for the same reason. Prods were contested because "author is famous" per WP:NBOOKS #5 though I dont think these books meet "historically significant", especially since the author is "the Fonz" and these are children's books.

Keep This book seems to me to be notable. It is recommended reading for teaching learning disabilities in the classroom here, it was also used [45] as a teaching resource for reading cognition, is mentioned as a high-interest resource in this book on teaching kids with trouble reading and it was mentioned in the article Fictional Characters with Dyslexia: What Are We Seeing in Books? and in the book Children's Book Corner: A Read-Aloud Resource with Tips, Techniques, and Plans for Teachers, Librarians, and Parents : Level Grades 3 and 4 but I can't access those because of paywalls. The same for the articles available on a Google News Archive search. Meets WP:NBOOKS #4. - ManicSpider (talk) 11:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Two book reviews in reputable sources exist:

Fernandez, Elizabeth. "I got a D in salami". School Library Journal, Oct2003, Vol. 49 Issue 10, p142

NIAGARA FALLS, OR DOES IT?; I GOT A "D" IN SALAMI (Book). Publishers Weekly, 6/2/2003, Vol. 250 Issue 22, p52

In addition, WorldCat shows 593 libraries own copies of this book. That alone doesn't establish notability, but still should factor into the equation. The article does need work, but the subject (the book itself) is notable enough. If closed with KEEP I will add book reviews as sources (unless someone else does). --Quartermaster (talk) 14:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment how about the other books nominated above.--RadioFan (talk) 14:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least the "blanket" Hank Z. one as its about the whole series; neutral to weak merge on the rest Purple backpack89 03:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hank Zipzer (the books have sold 3 million copies in the US [46] and appear in multiple non-trivial sources[47][48][49][50]) and Niagara Falls, or Does It? ([51][52][2 reviews listed] + it is the first book in a notable series). Merge the rest, none of those are notable enough for their own article. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 03:44, 16 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 Speedily Kept - Peripitus (Talk) 11:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pogo_(electronic_musician)

AfDs for this article:

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

In relation with WP:DEL, this article commits the following which justify its deletion: copyright violation (audio and video was ripped from copyrighted sources leading to various violations), advertising, lack of reliable sources, failure to meet at least one notability guideline specified at WP:MUSIC or WP:N Kandazburg (talk) 03:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Re-nomination of article just kept at AFD by sockpuppeteering single purpose account.--Michig (talk) 06:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Disruptive nomination by probable sock puppet. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per above. --sparkl_!sm ^hey! 09:04, 9 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. The sources are rather weak, but might be enough to pass GNG. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chaim Rabinowitz

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

Delete as no prima facie evidence of sufficient notability. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 03:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Creator of article notified. In addition I would posit that the totally unsourced/unreferenced page appears to indicate that Rabinowitz is notable for the nexus of friendships and/or connections to other people, not for any accomplishments of note in his own right. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 03:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only way that major rosh yeshivas are "appointed" is by their association and approval with/from others such as themselves. They would certainly not come to WP or its editors to seek approval of their appointments before they get appointed. The so-called "friendships and/or connections" you attack are the ultimate references and recommendations that determine if a Talmudic scholar is to be appointed as a rosh yeshiva or not. That system cannot be changed or "rejected" to suit WP deletionistic trends by some editors who are unfamiliar with that world as evidenced by your comments that reveal a total lack of WP:AGF about both the subject and creator of this article. IZAK (talk) 09:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sad to see again what has become a very predictable response from you IZAK. Nom has made some observations, which you instinctively take as bad faith. This is one of the very types of behavior described in WP:FAITH2 as "bad faith"! With all due respect, I hope that we might all please stick to relevant policy issues and leave points of view out. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Agri: Kindly avoid personalizing and violating WP:NPA just because you obviously have your very limited POV. IZAK (talk) 05:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Telshe yeshiva, as what notability he has is for his role at this institution, and much of the info in his article is also in that one already. Qwfp (talk) 11:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Article has no sources, which is wholly sufficient for deletion. However, I suspect there will be appreciable effort to find such and they may be forthcoming. Reserve an opinion till later. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 18:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. I added ~~one source~~[two sources] for now. He was apparently the lead scholar and dean of the Telshe yeshiva, one of the most prominent and historic yeshivas of higher learning. Merging this article to Telshe yeshiva is analogous and makes as much sense as merging Laurence Tribe to Harvard Law School.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only thing in the article that would make him notable would be "Rabinowitz developed his own method of Talmudic analysis, which became renowned throughout the yeshiva world." However, I can find absolutely no reference to this system, let alone references to the person himself, online or in any Jewish encyclopedias, etc. The rest of the material (if it can be referenced/verified) is better off on the Telshe yeshiva page. Ravendrop 00:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How myopic because one would have to be part of the yeshiva world to know this information. IZAK (talk) 09:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IZAK - please be respectful of other editors and maintain WP:AGF. As far as your comment "because one would have to be part of the yeshiva world to know this information", then that would seem to indicate that the information in question could only be garnered by WP:OR, and is likely not confirmable independently nor necessarily reliable/objective. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 16:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Rms, WP relies on expert editors, per Template {{Expert-verify}} that reads:

<!--{{Expert-verify}} begin-->{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>NAMESPACE}}|<includeonly>[[Category:Pages with incorrectly substituted templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]</includeonly>|}}{{Ambox
| type  = content
| text  = This {{{1|article}}} '''requires authentication or verification by an expert'''. Please assist in recruiting an expert or [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} improve this article] yourself. See the [[{{TALKPAGENAME}}|talk page]] for details. {{#if:{{{date|}}}|<small>''({{{date}}})''</small>}}
}}<includeonly>{{DMCA|Articles needing expert attention|from|{{{date|}}}}}<!--
-->{{DMCA|Wikipedia articles needing factual verification|from|{{{date|}}}}}</includeonly><!--{{Expert-verify}} end--><noinclude>

So obviously if one is not expert in a field their views do not count for much as they make a laughing stock out of themselves in the eyes of truly well-informed editors. Sure anyone can vote anywhere, that is just a sign of a democratic freedom, then again, there is WP:NOTDEMOCRACY as well. Just use your common sense man, also required per WP:IGNORE. People who know nothing about a subject should not come into arguments in violation of WP:LAWYERing just to make points per WP:IDONTLIKEIT against certain types of articles. I have said this many times, I know nothing about rocket science and astrophysics THEREFORE you will never find me venturing into ANY AfDs about those subjects even though I or you can do so, because I KNOW that I am an ignoramus in those fields so I find it incredible that editors feel very comfortable sticking their heads into subjects they OBVIOUSLY know nothing about and simply rely on this or that rule which makes them sound like policemen rather than serious editors of an all-inclusive encyclopedia that is being built step by step. IZAK (talk) 05:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable rosh yeshiva and per Brewcrewer's sources. Kindly note WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 09:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not entirely sure DONOTDEMOLISH applies here, especially as this page has been around for four and a half years with only a couple dozen edits. I have attempted to find info, but couldn't find anything. And as per your above comment, as has been pointed out, it doesn't matter if this is well known in the yeshiva world, if it's not verifiable (which, as it stands, I believe it isn't) then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Ravendrop 03:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Four and a half years, wow!! DO NOTDEMOLISH of course does not apply. Amazing how defenders of this article did nothing to make the article enyclopaedic for years but now fight for the status quo. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rms: Firstly, try avoiding sarcasm, it's not a substitute for logic. Secondly there are not that many Judaic WP editors, and even fewer who know much about the yeshiva world! Thirdly, WP is barely ten years old, and that's not a long time. Building articles takes years in tough subjects and domains -- don't make fun of hard work! Fourthly, if you were truly sensitive and cared about this subject you would not wield a hatchet to it but would do more to find out about it, try by contacting WP:JUDAISM. Finally, there are very few Jews in this world, and even fewer religious ones and far fewer who are busy in the new online medium. I would think it benefits WP to bring in material that at least passes muster with WP:JUDAISM (and they do nominate many article for deletion too when appropriate). One either cares about this subject and wants to see it grow encyclopedically or one does not and engages in deletionistsic tirades against it. Have your druthers. IZAK (talk) 05:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He was a notable rosh yeshiva. Three volumes of Rabbi Rabinowitz's lectures on Talmud have been published by the Telz Yeshiva in Cleveland, under the title: Shiurei Rebbi Chaim MiTelz.--Bobbyd2011 (talk) 19:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC) confirmed sockpuppet -- œ ^™ 16:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How can anyone who is not from the "yeshiva word" gauge his notability, then? Arcane references alone don't do it. At least if he had been a mohel we could see the career he carved out for himself.Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pun unintended. But seriously, the publications Bobby mentions do establish notability. They are no worse then foreign language or general off-line sources. Notability is not limited to tomato eating contest winners who have thousands of ghits. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder. We do not traditionally judge WP:N by publications, but rather the impact associated with publications. Is there demonstrable impact of these 3 volumes, for example are they mentioned in independent sources, are they cited by other scholars, etc.? Agricola44 (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Don't be absurd Agri! You are making up your own rules that do not exist over the length and breadth of WP or in the history of article creation on WP. IZAK (talk) 05:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please be WP:CIVIL. He's not being absurd or making up anything. Being notable for one's publications falls under either WP:TEACHER or WP:AUTHOR, and both of them require evidence of third-party attention to the publications, not just long lists of pubs. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David, where did you pop up from? Do you monitor all votes relating to famous rabbis and Jews? because that's the only time I encounter you. Let's be logical here, who would be a Wikipedian "third party" that reads or studies works written by a rosh yeshiva do you think, unless they are other Talmudic scholars and Jews who read such works? How is that to be "quantified"? That someone wrote an article online for a magazine? Wouldn't that be absurd? Like expecting that scientific theories need to be "validated" by proof readers. It would make no sense. Only other scientists can validate the works by scientists. Similarly in this case, works are cited and they are known in the yeshiva world and Talmudic world which should be sufficient. Relying on the expertise of long time proven editors is also an act of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, otherwise you may as well call such editors liars or worse. IZAK (talk) 05:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Despite your continued problematic disrespectful tone let me address the substance of your remarks. I monitor Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators; rosh yeshivas tend to get listed there, though not so much ordinary rabbis. In the case of scientists, the importance of their writings can be indicated by the other scientific works that cite them. If Talmudic writing has no similar system, and there is no non-subjective way to determine whether the writings are important, then perhaps that makes it unsuitable as a general class of subjects for Wikipedia articles. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David, let's get this straight, Talmudic writings are judged to be important the same way scientific writings are deemed to be important, when other Talmudists acknowledge them -- which is the same way that other scientists acknowledge scientific writings. Therefore it is irrelevant and absurd to expect either non-Talmudists or non-scientists to pass judgment on either Talmudic writings or scientific writings. That is a good basis to build articles, and WP is still building articles which is the main job of good editors and reliable contributors. To go beyond that is just being pedantic and the worst form of WP:LAWYERing. IZAK (talk) 23:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this straight. Are you trying to argue that only Talmudic scholars are qualified to judge the Wikipedia-notability of other Talmudic scholars? Because I completely reject that position. On Wikipedia, we don't judge by the credentials of an editor, but by what that editor provides in the way of verifiable and reliable sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David, don't twist my words please. My point is simple, that each field has it's experts (not referring to WP users, some of whom may indeed be experts too, which is key in many instances) and if works are notable in that field, then they are notable period. If a great Talmudic work has been written and popularized and it is known among Talmudic scholars and yeshivas then that creates its notability. WP's job is to to try to convey that not on some "mechanical" basis of rules alone (although they are important and must be met as much as possible) but by welcoming and inspecting and incorporating what reliable editors and basic references have to say. Most articles start out that way, and then they grow over time with more references. Creating, writing and editing articles is like a life-giving birthing process and not like a check-out experience in a super-market. I have been on both sides of the AfD issue and it takes a good sense of the subject to know one's way around in each AfD, otherwise it seems like misinformed activity that is best avoided. That should be logical enough. IZAK (talk) 06:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic attack on the nominator's choice of username elided

NOTE to all right-minded Admins: The nominator of this AfD User Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs) has been in constant violation of Wikipedia:Username policy#Internet addresses a most basic rule of WP. He has pleaded and claimed that he is "exempt" from this rule, thus, there is the utterly absurd anomaly that this nominator takes for himself the "right" to break current WP policies with his own self-justifications and twisted arguments, while at the same time he seeks to impose WP policies, as in this AfD, on articles and users. Um, isn't that what is called hypocrisy in English? He will claim that he has a "papal dispensation" from admins someplace to be in violation of rules that all Wikipedians must adhere to once those rules come into effect. For example, no one on WP (not even User Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs)) would be allowed to cite the easier standards for including articles when WP first started years ago, so why should a user be allowed to be in violation of current policies and guidelines and have the self-appointed "right" to impose stricter rules and guidelines on articles he does not like and other users who refute his POV as in this AfD? Therefore: Until such time as User Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs) rectifies his own user name and behavior that is presently in flagrant violation of WP policy, he should withdraw this AfD, in addition to which he should also be censured until such time that he changes his name and follows the rules as they exist and apply to everyone at this time and not the way things were ten or five years ago. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 05:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have less intention now than ever of changing my username which I am allowed to keep, according to ArbCom. Anyone who has a problem with that can take it up with them. As far as withdrawing this nomination, no way in HELL. I do not understand why IZAK is concerned about my username which is none of his concern, although I suspect that it is just because he doesn't like this AFD. Talk about IDONTLIKEIT, jeez! The above shrill, hateful, pointless and bizarre diatribe should be seen for what it is by "all right-minded Admins" (and everyone else), as should the fact that IZAK would raise the username issue here rather than at a more appropriate venue, i.e. WP:ANI, although it has already been raised more than once by more knowledgeable editors. IZAK appears to be clearly ethically bankrupt and cares only about getting his own way. I am sure that if I were in violation of anything I would have heard about it by now from someone who is qualified to make such a judgment. And just because I am not an ultra Orthodox Jew doesn't mean I cannot question something related to that topic, any more than the fact that I am not a British knight or a porn star or a pedophile priest or a United States Senator would mean I cannot edit or question the validity of pages related to such topics. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: You do not have the right to "impose" any policies, certainly not ones as serious as AfD policies that rely on complex layers of past WP rules and policies that have changed over time, if you do not abide by WP:USERNAME policy. You cannot rely on uncited "exceptions" that allow you to do as you please while other users are forced to abide by the latest WP policies regarding articles that do not recognize any exceptions. IZAK (talk) 03:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Rabbi Rabinowicz was the rosh yeshiva of Telshe yeshiva in Lithuania for 26 years (for those who don't know, Telshe was one of the crowns of Lithuanian Torah scholarship). I have added a few references to his appointment and to his development of the "Telshe derech", a method of Talmudic analysis which distinguished this yeshiva. The article needs more biographical information, but is certainly notable per Wikipedia:Notability (academics) criteria #6. Yoninah (talk) 11:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. By happenstance, there is currently another AfD for the president of a small bible college, where this same point has come up (WP:PROF #6). The opinions seem to be that such an school does not a qualify as a "major academic institution" in the context of #6. I think the same may apply here, given its extremely small size (about 40 total students according to universities.com). Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Dear Agricola: The Rabbinical College of Telshe in Cleveland, Ohio cited by universities.com is a rabbinic ordination program in the larger Telshe yeshiva network, so of course it has fewer students. (The total student body is over 300, according to this website: [53].) Anyway, this has nothing to do with the Telshe yeshiva in Lithuania that Rabbi Rabinowitz headed. Yoninah (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read that article? It plainly says "The yeshiva was transplanted to the United States during World War II, when two of its roshei yeshiva ("deans") chose to re-establish it in Cleveland, Ohio, where it still remains". Pretty clear, it seems. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

PS: counting high-schoolers in the figure of 300 still does not make this a "major academic institution", IMHO. Respcty, Agricola44 (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry, I don't understand what's clear to you. The Telshe yeshiva in Lithuania continued until 1941, when the entire town of Telshe was massacred by the Nazis. The only people from the yeshiva who got out were Rabbi Elya Meir Bloch, Rabbi Chaim Mordechai Katz, and a small number of students. Everyone else — the roshei yeshiva, faculty, students and families — were killed. Perhaps the article you read needs a rewrite. Yoninah (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, now that you've unilaterally changed that article, you're right, it does indeed no longer say that. Neither version was sourced, so who is the reader to believe? Unsourced material and perceptions of POV-editing are precisely what give WP such a poor reputation in the academic world. I suppose that if we collectively permit this sort of editing behavior to continue, then WP will never really be anything more than some webpages someone uses as a provisional check on their way to more authoritative sources. That said, there are now 12 "sources" to this article, 11 of which are either webpages with trivial or no mention of subject or published books having just a trivial mention. The one legit source (student newspaper article) says he was a Telshe rosh yeshiva, suggesting the proper policy-based disposition of a merge. Sigh. Agricola44 (talk) 16:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Look, I am not trying to sabotage articles. The Telshe yeshiva article is admittedly awful and I have put it on my list for editing and adding sources. There are plenty of online sources to verify its whole history. But I took out the sentence because it was obviously misleading; had you read the section right before it, you would have seen that the yeshiva wasn't "moved" to Cleveland, but that it flourished in Lithuania until the Holocaust, and two of the rabbis who went fund-raising and thus were saved from the Holocaust opened a branch in Cleveland. After the Nazi massacre of Telshe, the Cleveland branch became the de facto yeshiva. Yoninah (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Telshe yeshiva. I think this is the most sensible disposition for 2 reasons: (1) The Telshe article already has biosketches of some of the rosh yeshiva and right now it only mentions Rabinowitz in passing – his section could be expanded with some of the information in this article, so that the contents here are not lost but instead serve to flesh-out the Telshe article more completely, and (2) the sources to support a dedicated article on Rabinowitz himself are demonstrably lacking – refs 2 and 5 are just web pages, ref 3 is a trivial mention (the sum-total on Rabinowitz is "Chazan went to Telshe to further his education with Rabbi Chaim Rabinowitz") and refs 4 and 6 are similar. The extent that he or the Derech are mentioned in ref 1 is unclear. I think ref 4 would be a good source for a Telshe merge because it does actually state that he was one of the Telshe rosh yeshiva. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
COI discussion, see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaim Rabinowitz. IZAK (talk) 05:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per GNG/sources that are now reflected (and were otherwise discoverable).--Epeefleche (talk) 08:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources presented do not constitute significant coverage. Rather, they are passing mentions, with scant information, mostly about other people who at one point studied under this person or about the Telshe yeshiva. The best is given here, but even that is so limited, and does not appear to be a reliable source. Quantpole (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The depth of coverage of the subject in the article's sources is, frankly, bad, and my searches didn't turn up anything better. But we do have sources attesting both to his role in the Telzer Derech and as rosh yeshiva of the Telshe yeshiva. The sources in our existing article about Telshe are equally bad, and we don't have an article at all about the Telzer Derech, but I was convinced through the coverage of both subjects in Google books that they are both unquestionably notable. So as a person with an important role in two different notable things, I think Rabinowitz escapes WP:BIO1E and should be kept. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I turned to Google Hebrew and found additional mentions of Rabbi Rabinowitz in a Hebrew sefer and also in an article about the Telshe yeshiva written by Rabbi Mordechai Gifter. The latter speaks about the high level of Rabbi Rabinowitz's Talmudic lectures and the fact that his lectures were all recorded, relocated to Cleveland, and made available to Telshe yeshiva students in their handwritten form. Yoninah (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good if some of those sources could be incorporated into the article. Sources don't need to be in English to be reliable. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I put them in already. Yoninah (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article as it currently stands provides adequate sources to establish notability. One also needs to reflect on the lack of sources about the Yeshiva world that are available online and in English that would be readily available for most comparably notable individuals outside that milieu. This it does not surprise me that one would be able to find additional sources in the Hebrew Wikipedia. Alansohn (talk) 00:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes criterion 1 of WP:ACADEMIC and criteria 1 & 2 of WP:AUTHOR Avi (talk) 02:34, 16 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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Felipe Nunes

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

Contested PROD. Concern was: Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG, and who has not played in a fully pro league.. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I tried to find evidence that he played in the Copa do Brasil or one of the Brasileiro competitions, but found nothing. I suspect he's never played in a fully-pro league and doesn't appear to satisfy the general notability guideline. Jogurney (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 17:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Couldn't find any significant coverage myself and it appears Jogurney couldn't either. Doesn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG. Jenks24 (talk) 05:58, 13 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

World Leader Pretend

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

Non-notable band. Apparently prodded before. Released only one album on Warner Bros. No sources found besides a singular review. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A quick search found CMJ New Music Report and SPIN (brief) on Google Books, and PopMatters, MTV, and Daily Herald on Google News, and there's more out there. There's also an Allmusic bio, and a couple of reviews there ([54], [55]). These were not difficult to find.--Michig (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 29 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 2 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) 01:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this article gets kept, I recommend a rename to World Leader Pretend (band), because of the R.E.M. song by the same name, which is better known. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why has the nominator not withdrawn the nomination? It's a clear keep. To add to Michig's sources, there are reviews of their album Punches in Pitchfork and Allmusic; the Associated Press gave Punches an honorable mention in the top albums of 2005; other newspapers that reviewed the album include The Buffalo News (July 24, 2005; p. H3), Dayton Daily News (July 8, 2005; p. GO7), The Times-Picayune (July 8, 2005, p. 24), the New York Daily News (November 19, 2005; p. 29), and Billboard (117 (18): 42). The Chicago Tribune reviewed their SXSW performance in 2005 (March 22, 2005; p. 27). And so on. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:29, 13 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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Donohue

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

Found this at Prod. I think the position is possibly notable, as chief of police of a major city, but I'm not sure what the consensus will be. My own view is uncertain. DGG ( talk ) 01:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Closest criteria is WP:POLITICIAN though I'm not sure a police chief fits that. In any case, he was police chief of the capital city of Hawaii for six years.. He was also on the Honolulu City Council for a short time in 2010, so that meets WP:POLITICIAN C2, "members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city." The article needs cleanup but the subject is still notable. --Crunch (talk) 02:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think being police chief is enough and I don't believe that being appointed to fill a vacant city council seat for a couple of months satisfies the spirit of WP:POLITICIAN. His martial arts activities also fail to pass WP:MANOTE. Astudent0 (talk) 17:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems to boil down to whether or not you think a police chief is automatically notable since I see no other claims of notability and I don't think that it is. Papaursa (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article's sources fail to show notability. One source is a dead link, one is an article about his successor, and the third one is about his son being the family's third generation of police officer. None of these show the subject is notable. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 19:09, 14 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James J. Thomas

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

seems to fail WP:ENTERTAINER, the article as been recreated multiple times be a single contributor who may have a COI. ccwaters (talk) 14:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC) ccwaters (talk) 14:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ it has references, although if it has COI issues it will nead cleanup. George Alfred Scott (talk) 15:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC) This editor has been blocked as a sock puppet of Crouch, Swale. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC) [[[reply]

Weak Keep: I do agree this article is mostly copied and pasted from another website, due to the large amount of external links, unreliable references to the IMDB and the fact that his filmography is typed in capital letters only. Though, this actor is notable and is the sole reason this article should be kept. I will try to get the article in question this up to wikipedia standards. Mr.Television (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have recently cleaned up the article to Wikipedia's standardMr.Television (talk) 16:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Sorry. If the original entry for James J. Thomas wasn't inputted correctly to Wiki standards, that's my fault (as the interface can be incredibly challenging for some and the guidelines stringent). I do, however, completely appreciate the goal and relevance of said guidelines. However, I cannot imagine whether I put the term 'Filmography' in capital letters or not - should reflect James Thomas's validity. He is a working actor, has starred in a number of films and tv shows and as a friend - and I was only trying to help. As poorly inputted as someone may have found my submission to be, it was only because I didn't know the appropriate format (I still can't, for example, figure out how to add his photo). I also appreciate the work someone did assisting in cleaning the page up btw. I was only trying to help him out and would sincerely appreciate if someone did similar here for me. Sorry about this and I'll read through documentation to try and figure out how to better adhere to the wiki standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodbuzz (talk • contribs)

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) 00:53, 26 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 14:10, 2 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) 01:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. I was going to punch this "no consensus" but someone removed the AFD tag from the article. I restored it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I only see multiple minor roles in minor TV series and obscure movies. Fails WP:ENT.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 04:09, 9 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. Whether this constitutes significant coverage is disputable. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kadamba Kanana Swami

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

There's no coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. He's only mentioned in passing in RS cited in the article. Gaura79 (talk) 08:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 14:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep -- First grand-disciple of Swami Prabhupada who made it to be a ISKCON Guru, notable and sources independent of him confirm this fact. Wikid ^as© 12:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per Wikidas. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 4 gnews hits does not cut it for WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 05:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Restate Strong Keep Subject was the president of Krishna Balarama Mandir from 1990-95. The subject is a senior religious leader as he is an ISKCON Swami and Guru. This is cited in the article and more than meets the requirements for notability. Independent citations have been provided in the article as well. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you cannot !vote twice. LibStar (talk) 23:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's why the word restate is used. Please note that the closing admin.'s don't count votes, its about meeting the requirements of Wikipedia's policies. If you have any constructive comments concerning the discussion at hand, please feel free to share. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No academic stature worth mentioning to pass WP:PROF, so I pass directly to the general criteria of WP:BIO. There, I cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources which are intellectually independent of the subject. The news article coverage involved appears to be trivial, rather than addressing the subject in depth. Ray^Talk 20:06, 14 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Sexton

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

The article fails WP:GNG due to an on-going lack of significant impact demonstrated in independent sources. The business might have a claim of notability but an article about the tailor does not appear able to address the criteria of WP:BIO. I previously raised this as a PROD, but would prefer wider discussion as this appears to be a marginal case. Fæ (talk) 12:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 12:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 12:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:BARE. There are two reliable sources in the article, but it's skimpy. Bearian (talk) 00:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Would it not be better practice to consider merging to Savile_Row#Nutters_of_Savile_Row and considering a new stand-alone article for Nutters of Savile Row which logically ought to have stronger grounds for notability compared to one person within the company? Fæ (talk) 11:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - There are two sources that discuss the subject in-depth, as noted above. It's a scraper. Tarc (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Super Robot Wars. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of series featured in Super Robot Wars

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

I'm nominating this list for deletion because I feel it violates WP:PLOT. Wikipedia is not a place for indiscriminate plot information and appearances. I was looking originally to see if I could improve this list, but essentially it's just an un-referenced list of cameos in a video game series. Nomader ^(Talk) 21:55, 2 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) Nomader ^(Talk) 22:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Nomader ^(Talk) 22:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The list got seperated from the series's article because it's very long. I'm neutral on matter to delete or keep it. But if it's going to be deleted, it's better to merge the list back to main article. L-Zwei (talk) 04:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about a merge, but I feel a random list of appearances by various anime shows really shouldn't be in Wikipedia at all-- it feels like something that could just be mentioned in the main series article or in separate game articles if at all, and even then it seems somewhat fancrufty. The list is extremely complicated to navigate for those who have no understandings about what the shows are; maybe someone could go in and try to fix it up so it's understandable to those not familiar with the series? Either way, the AfD should hopefully be successful in driving discussion about it. Nomader ^(Talk) 05:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Alternately, maybe it can be merge to games list, possibly by list all series feature in each game with debut serie's names in bold text. But I think that will make the infobox...messy. L-Zwei (talk) 12:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm!. To the best of my knowledge, the main attraction, in large part the point, of Super Robot Wars is the way it smashes numerous works together. Often wildly incompatible ones. This is therefore an important part of our coverage of the series, and we should not consider the matter closed until we have worked out a good way to cover it. I have seen about ninety too many AfDs where the "victors" stomped away without even bothering to de-link the redlinks they'd created - that did not improve the encyclopedia, it killed a Wikiproject. Attemntion must be paid to a satisfactory conclusion. Enough ranting. A merge or deeming this a valid spinout and keeping it where it stands seem good to me. --Kiz o r 21:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I understand where you're coming from... but I'm not sure if we should have all in a centralized list. Could we put it in each game article, or have the information in the notes of the main list of games instead? Nomader ^(Talk) 03:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As has been pointed out, the whole crossover thing is the signature of SRW. However, if it absolutely must, it could be merged back into its original article. The core of the list is about 4 screens on my computer; if it were put into a tabular format with 2 or 3 columns, I expect it would go down to around 1 screen, which would be perfectly reasonable. On the other hand, this would also be reasonable for turning into categories - a supercategory for SRW, and then each game gets a category and all the respective series get tagged with 'Category:Included in SRW 3' or whatever. --Gwern (contribs) 16:01 4 February 2011 (GMT)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Gwern. Edward321 (talk) 02:38, 13 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Castillo (filmmaker)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - zero independent sources to establish notability. All the references are press releases. Couldn't find actual sources to establish notability.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 04:14, 9 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of events of the DC Universe

AfDs for this article:

List of events of the DC Universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}|View AfD]] • AfD statistics)

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

This list fails several important Wikipedia guidelines. The most important being that it's completely WP:INDISCRIMINATE with a WP:MADEUP and arbitrary grouping of information. What constitutes an "event in the DC universe"? The lead provides some original research about what an event means, and even then it's completely unhelpful as it defines an event as "stories with a major impact".

These problems cannot be fixed by adding sources. (And at this point there are none. Zero.) Primary sources aren't sufficient to meet WP:V and WP:N. And while there might be third-party sources to verify individual events, there are no third-party sources to WP:verify notability of the group as a whole (see WP:LISTN), let alone which members should belong here or not. Because the entire concept is a WP:MADEUP grouping that no third-parties have discussed in direct detail.

It's also a WP:CONTENTFORK of an article called DC Universe, which is also completely unsourced. I think that article actually has a chance of being improved though, unlike this list which has zero chance. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of deletion rationale: Basically, the scope of the topic is original research, with no third party sources and no clear criteria for inclusion, and basically duplicates content at DC Universe. (Sorry I was trying to anticipate the objections / discussion.) Shooterwalker (talk) 01:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Shooterwalker (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Shooterwalker (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending a rewrite of the nom which actually articulates a cause for deletion more than it throws around various WP:VAGUEWAVEs. So it's a list of fictional events without clear inclusion criteria or third-party sourcing, that replicates content in another article? If so, say that, then. Jclemens (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems you understood my nomination. I was just trying to anticipate the various (and inevitable) objections. Sorry if I got too wordy. It comes down to sourcing problems, and an ill defined topic that's an indiscriminate and arbitrary fork. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With no references at all, the article doesn't meet the criteria of verifiability since there are no references independent of the subject from third-party sources, and, because of that, it also doesn't have notability. And while the article does not need to meet the criteria of the general notability guideline since the article is supposedly a list, I also don't think that it meets the criteria of appropriate topics for lists because the list falls into what Wikipedia is not by being an indiscriminate collection of information and an unnecessary content fork of the article DC Universe. Also, the article is mainly written with an in-universe perspective that lacks real-world perspective to justify such trivial details for a list-only article. As a navigational aid, it is also unneeded because there is already a template that has that function, {{DC events}}, and also a category, DC Comics storylines. In my opinion, this article falls into the criteria of reasons for deletion and I don't see a good reason to keep it around. Jfgslo (talk) 18:39, 6 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) 01:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lists should be useful to readers. To someone who is not already a fan this is impossible to understand. Better to write an article on the general topic for us non-fans and have a category or template for these items. Fans do not need them explained. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This really isn't even what the title says it is; it's just a list of story arcs and/or limited series and/or crossovers. postdlf (talk) 14:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list is an index to our numerous articles about major DC storylines such as Crisis on Infinite Earths. These have great notability and so there would be no difficulty sourcing each and every entry if anyone doubted them. Lists are well established as navigational aids within Wikipedia and are not inferior or superseded by categories or templates, as suggested by others here. Lists are superior in that they are able to support references and other supporting content, whereas categories and templates are not so capable. It is therefore absurd to criticise the list for a weakness when the competing formats are even weaker. Please see the guideline WP:CLS which explains this further and which supports the continued existence of this list. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as both notable and useful. Plenty of references exist for the concepts of events and crossovers in comics (see this and this and a list of events in the DC universe is a perfectly natural extension of that concept per summary style. This is a different topic from DC Universe, which should deal primarily with the cosmology and fictional description of the DC Universe, and I don't think there is any real question as to inclusion criteria - DC signposts their events pretty clearly. --Cerebellum (talk) 21:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above. dposse (talk) 02:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- with zero sources this article fails our verifiability policy and "event" is such a vague word that there can be no discriminate treatment of this topic. It can only ever be whatever the fanboys declare to be a "significant event". Reyk _YO! 06:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Sources can be placed in there, that isn't much of a big deal. And "event" is what DC says it is, not what "fanboys" do. dposse (talk) 23:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The problem is there isn't a source in the world that verifies that these are "events", let alone quotes from DC. It really is just original research. Some storylines that fanboys want to highlight. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - There isn't a source in the world, huh? We're on the internet, we can finds sources from all over the globe. ironic, huh? Let's take a upcoming comic. Does the Boston Herald count as a reliable enough source? [56] At Comic-Con, these large publications are discussed before thousands of people. Is that notable enough? Again, its not what "fanboys" say. It's what the multi-billion dollar comic book industry does and says. dposse (talk) 03:09, 16 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Piers Morgan Tonight episodes

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

As an everyday News Magazie show, that is essentially the same in format, the show itself doesn't need a listing of episodes, as this will eventually grow into the thousands. It should be like other CNN news programs and only list notable episodes. Not every single one. I believe this falls under the category of WP:listcruft. Ravendrop (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say the same thing that I said when I removed the notice when I was not logged in. We can create seperate lists for episodes by year such as for The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, and Late Night with Jimmy Fallon. That way, the lists won't beocome as cluttered. - Cartoon Boy (talk) 24:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, there is no reason to list every appearance. To do so seems crufty. Soxwon (talk) 23:19, 4 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) 01:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason we'd need a list of every one of these episodes. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of info. LadyofShalott 02:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 04:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for that kind of show, this is simply pointless, it is just a bland, tv directory-ish recitation of facts and figures. Looking now through several of the Late Night... shows I see these have some fairly awful and pointless ones. I love Letterman, but List of Late Show with David Letterman episodes is a sloppy, unnecessary disaster of an article, for example.

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GreenBrowser

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

Non-notable web browser. Prod contested on the basis of inclusion in browserchoise.eu, but inclusion is not the same as substantial coverage. (See recent discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TheWorld Browser.) Pnm (talk) 23:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove this article. Njbob (talk) 00:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Would you care to explain why it should be kept? -- Whpq (talk) 14:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - PC World review via the Washinton Post, PC World Polish review, About.com coverage, PCPro review are all coverage where GreenBrowser is the primary subject. Note that a Google News search also includes lots of Asian language results. I didn't investigate these as I would have to rely on machine translation, and the preceding sources are sufficient to demonstrate notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 4 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) 01:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nom per Whpq's sources. --Pnm (talk) 03:20, 13 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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Reed Middle School IHP Program

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

Contested prod by article creater. This is a middle school gifted program at Walter Reed Middle School, which already has its own article. The program in question is already mentioned there. While I would ordinarily merge, there is little encyclopedic content in this article and no citations. I'll note that the article was already vandalized within its first hour of creation. Zachlipton (talk) 01:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Keep the redirect, as they are cheap, just merge it in to Walter Reed Middle School. tedder (talk) 03:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 03:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing here worth merging - the page has no references and looks like it was written by a seventh grader - and there is a no point in a redirect since a search for it will automatically suggest the Walter Reed Middle School page. While we're at it let's consider whether to merge Walter Reed Middle School to Los Angeles Unified School District. I find nothing at that article to suggest that this middle school is notable, and the normal practice would be to merge it to the relevant school district. --MelanieN (talk) 04:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think this article should be kept on wikipedia, because it was seemed to be written on personal knowledge and is there for informational reasons. There is nothing inappropriate nor bad and is all for information. This middle school is very notable for the fact that it has been nominated and has won many accomplishments and awards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbananacookies (talk • contribs) 05:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Superbananacookies, please understand that we are not trying to put down your school or its program. We're not saying there is anything inappropriate or bad in the article. It's just that a subject has to meet certain criteria to have an article here - read WP:N and specifically WP:SCHOOL for details about what is required. And please don't be discouraged if the article is deleted. Your good-faith contributions are welcome, but you might start out in a smaller way, by reading articles and making small corrections, until you figure out how things work here. --MelanieN (talk) 14:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable middle school program written in an a promotional manner. "...written on personal knowledge" is itself a reason to delete. Standard Wikipedia practice is that awards do not confer notability. Note that Superbananacookies is associated with the program (see their userpage) and created the article. OSborn^arf_contribs. 14:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable program at a middle school of questionable notability. Edison (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Noom _talk ^contribs 21:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article does not provide any references from reliable sources to prove that article's subject has meet WP:GNG. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:07, 15 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) 02:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Gillese

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

Was restored (by me) per a request at WP:REFUND. I do not see a significant claim to notability for this entirely unsourced BLP. l'aquatique[talk] 00:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete-wow, a completely nn autobio who's related to two more nn's nobody ever heard of! Wikipedia at it's, um, well...--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably keep. Did you look for sources? Driveby !votes like Kintesubuffalo's aren't worth making, please make some more effort. He has received press coverage, e.g. Winnipeg Free Press,[57] New Zealand Herald,[58] Edmonton Sun,[59][60] Creative Loafing Atlanta,[61] Access Atlanta,[62]. An alternative to deletion, if he's deemed non-notable despite media attention, could be a selective merge to Dad's Garage Theatre Company, where he is the artistic director. Fences&Windows 22:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the horse you rode in on. Keep your snide comments to yourself. I looked at what was there, which is what is being called for deletion, and saw nothing worthy of note, nor in your sources. You make your edits, I'll make mine. Demeaning me for opposing you on a dubious bio is against NPA.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 22:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand and improve through regular editing. Sources in the article show meeting WP:GNG for multiple events, and additional sources as offered by User:Fences and windows put the icing on the cake. Notability to Canada is notable enough for en.Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Great job on the article rescue! Bearian (talk) 17:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Rudybowwow (talk) 15:38, 15 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voice of Blood

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

No independent citations. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 10:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The filmmaker noted in this article has also been listed on AfD. ~~One has to read the filmmaker's article to appreciate why. I recommend reading the article about the filmmaker before deciding here.~~Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 13:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article about the filmmaker of this film has been deleted in AfD as non-notable with no independent citations. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 21:35, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 1 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, →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:24, 9 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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Fall of Pagoda (book)

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

No sources, and no evidence of notability. Searches fail to show much independent coverage. PROD was removed by the author of the article without explanation. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 26 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —ManicSpider (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. —ManicSpider (talk) 00:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Delete I can't find anything English-language, but a search of Google Books or Google News Archives shows various articles in Chinese, but of course I can't make any comments about their content or reliability. - ManicSpider (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Eileen Chang is not a minor writer, and the book has some value as "the first of two semi-autobiographical novels". It book can be found online with its reference ISBN 9888028367. A page on the HKU Press can be found here [63]. olivier (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to keep. I have made some research and changes to the article. I have also moved it to a more appropriate title. The book is reviewed and mentioned in English in quite a few places on the internet. The material of the book formed the basis of another book from the same author which was a bestseller in Asia in 2009. The article needs quite a lot of rework, though. olivier (talk) 15:35, 9 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Destined for Greatness

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

Crystal ballery? Maybe. He's listed on iTunes but that doesn't mean anything--and any mention of Imperial Records is conspicuously missing. Imperial doesn't mention him on their website either. Add to that the unavailability of reliable sources, and we have a non-notable album, by someone who is probably a non-notable artist (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyssero (2nd nomination)). Drmies (talk) 03:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 26 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not reliably sourced thus nothing notable about the album itself and artist doesn't have an article. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 23:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are very few reliable sources on this, and as per WP:NALBUMS - it is only "in a few special cases, [where] an unreleased album may qualify for an advance article if there is sufficient verifiable and properly referenced information about it". - ManicSpider (talk) 00:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Fair City characters. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dolores Molloy

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

Nothing to prove notability, not even existence. Only external link is broken. Page contains no real world information but only some piece of a plot. Magioladitis (talk) 01:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fair City. Jclemens (talk) 03:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fair City characters makes much more sense. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:09, 1 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, →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 10:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to List of Fair City characters. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:50, 14 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joner Hall

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

No third party reliable sources to establish notability. Unclear claims to notability (mere appearances on shows is not notable). Google news archive brings back nothing. CutOffTies (talk) 00:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 10:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The best I can find is that in here one of his senior performances was mentioned as "solid", and he won a District Chorus competition and represented his school in another competition. Doesn't pass WP:NACTOR. - ManicSpider (talk) 01:19, 9 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Fahey

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

Nothing to prove notability, not even existence. Page contains no real world information but only some piece of a plot. Magioladitis (talk) 01:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of real-world notability. Plot-only summary of fictional work. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fair City. Jclemens (talk) 03:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly? There is no validation that the plot is accurate and we have Storylines of Fair City already. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Playing devil's advocate, plot details do not generally need verification citations as their accuracy should be apparent to anyone watching the relevant episodes. I'd still say delete rather than merge though as this would be an inappropriate level of detail in any other article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no verification, anyone can claim that the plot is different of what is described. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No they can't, because the show itself establishes one person as correct and the other not. The show itself is the source, as long as the relevant material can be extracted from it without synthesis. And it doesn't need to be cited because the source of the material is obvious from the context of the text. To put it another way, you could add an inline citation at the end of the plot, saying merely "Eastenders (TV Show)", and at a basic level that would meet our verification policies (although at FA level you'd certainly want something more specific), but it's not strictly necessary as (a) it's not material likely to be challenged, as no one could reasonably say "I don't believe this is accurate" without themselves having watched the relevant shows, and (b) it's obvious from the context of the article what the source is. Plot summaries for books are generally not cited, for much the same reason, although specific quotes from the book may be. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you never participated in edit wars whenever a character did something or didn't. I could find a lot of examples I guess. For instance in Heroes (TV series), there was a discussion for almost 2 years if a certain character had a superhuman ability or not. Many editors were coming and adding it claiming they have seen the power being used in-show. Some other kept using trailers as sources. Many times the writers give misleading clues just to make the show more exciting. And there something else: If an editor comes here and adds character to this specific show that never existed, how can I check it? Do you expect me to watch the last 20 years of this soap? There are not even dates of appearance in most cases, making verification impossible. That's also one more reason reason we need trusted third-party sources. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The material must be apparent from the source without synthesis; i.e. requiring no deduction or analysis. Your Heroes example was not obvious on the source, so you'd need a secondary source to back it. The Jo Fahey article (which I am still in favour of deleting, as above) cites each storyline to a specific year, which may be appropriate on a soap like Eastenders where plots can trail on for months. Yes, you would need to watch a year of stories to contradict the claims. It's no different from having to read a 400 page novel to contradict plot claims from that which can't be sourced to a single page or chapter, or watch a three hour movie. The difficulty in proving a negative is one of the reasons why we generally have to assume good faith. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:13, 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 10:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability, no real-world information. –anemone projectors– 23:43, 9 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arash Farboud

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

Fails WP:CORP. A promotional article about a non notable company. Farhikht (talk) 13:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. —Farhikht (talk) 13:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, refrences cant pass WP:RS. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 17:33, 30 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:12, 9 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scrandy

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

Does not seem notable. Contested PROD. Chzz ► 14:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Computer engineer mixes scotch and brandy to make "scrandy", gets a place for links to his website... sorry, no. Mandsford 17:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WP:Spirits should be notified of this AfD. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 26 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be literally something made up one day. I find no hint of coverage in reliable sources, or any indication that this has become a notable drink in B.C. cocktail culture, or anything else to support notability.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:38, 9 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lakendrick Terrell

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

Never played a game in the CFL, fails WP:ATHLETE Delete Ibluffsocall (talk) 14:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is about an athlete who fails his sport's notability guidelines. Xajaso (talk) 22:42, 26 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 10:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep CFL players are notable. MLA (talk) 22:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes, CFL players are presumed to be notable, however this guy did not play a match in the CFL (or any other fully professional league) and therefore does not meet the sports notabilty guideline. In conjunction, he has received no significant coverage, so doesn't meet the general notability guideline either. Jenks24 (talk) 03:55, 13 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EZRA - Parish Management Software

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

PROD contested by article creator. Mostly promotional article on software that does not appear to meet the general notability guideline. No references about the topic. Encyclopedic paragraph about the history of parish record management cites unreliable sources and doesn't belong in this article. Pnm (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Highly specialized back office software. No showing of historical, technical, or cultural importance for the product named in the title. Otherwise redundant to parish register. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:30, 28 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability. Perchloric (talk) 04:20, 9 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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Verax NMS

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

No assertion of notability per WP:GNG, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, borderline WP:SPAM. Borkificator (talk) 10:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages by the same creator, because they similarly assert no notability:[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Borkificator (talk) 10:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, blatant advertising for yet another group of back office software "solutions":

Verax NMS: a highly scalable, integrated network management and IT service assurance solution for cross-silos management and monitoring of networks, data centers and applications. Verax NMS was developed by Verax Systems. Verax NMS helps management of large enterprises, IT infrastructure and networks by providing scalability and flexibility in mission-critical environments.
Verax OSS/BSS Suite: Each functional element of the Verax OSS/BSS Suite is open via Java RMI or web-service interfaces and relies on interfaces exposed by other services, which can be implemented by different back-ends. Such a design allows EAI-style (Enterprise Application Integration) integration of suite components with third party applications. The integration may take place directly or via an Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) solution such as Tibco or WebMethods.
Verax APINI: a Web 2.0 project portfolio management and collaboration system compliant with PMI, Prince2 and Balanced Scorecard methodologies.... The module provides project portfolio management database and project controlling functionality with key performance indicators.

Should be a speedy delete but it's probably a good idea to make a firm precedent against re-creation here. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:N, lack of significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. --Pnm (talk) 03:27, 13 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boulder Chamber Orchestra

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

Non notable orchestera. Gnews only appears to have adverts taken out by them. Fails WP:GNG as no significant coverage Worm 16:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article references a couple of pieces from a local paper. Aside from that, I can find a bunch of event announcements. That's not enough to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Enough is here to establish local notability, and I see no good reason to impose a tougher standard than that. Many, many of the articles in Category:American orchestras are similar to this one, which suggests that the community standard supports keeping articles like this one as part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of orchestras. (See, for example, the recent discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Long Bay Symphony Orchestra).--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been notified to WikiProject Classical music. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Whpq. It does seem to be an amateur group. If a couple of reviews can be found, I'd be delighted to change my mind. --Klein zach 01:38, 10 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chickenfoot (software)

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

Non-notable Firefox extension. It's not even in the official repository. Damiens.rf 17:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A quick search turned up no substantial coverage in reliable sources. Article contains no claim of notability. --Pnm (talk) 23:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete found a cnet article but there wasn't much else. Noom _talk ^contribs 21:51, 9 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SimilarWeb

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

Yet another non-notable Firefox extension. Damiens.rf 17:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I found a brief CNET article but wouldn't call it substantial. --Pnm (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would say that individual Firefox addons aren't notable as a general rule, unless this are special circumstances significant mainstream-media coverage, which this doesn't seem to have. Herostratus (talk) 13:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete opinion for this is similar to Chickenfoot (software). Firefox extensions just aren't really notable enough. Noom _talk ^contribs 21:53, 9 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiLook

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

Yet yet another non-notable Firefox extension. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a catalog. Damiens.rf 18:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I found nothing in a quick search. --Pnm (talk) 00:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would say that individual Firefox addons aren't notable as a general rule, unless this are special circumstances or significant mainstream-media coverage, which this doesn't seem to have. Herostratus (talk) 13:03, 9 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.