Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 January 10

< 9 January	11 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Horror Movie Timothy Mark Presents Chains

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

Quite un-notable movie that fails WP:GNG. No third party sources, article's creator removed PROD tag. First Light (talk) 23:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A grand total of 18 Yahoo hits. Blueboy 96 00:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 0 gnews hits. Pburka (talk) 00:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:RS. --Monterey Bay (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not many search engine hits, the trailer on Youtube is woefully misspelled. Seems like an advertisement. The Phoenix Enforcer (talk) 06:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looked at the article. Searched for sources withh all kinds of permutations of title, director, and star. This one is unsalvable. Two years after its claimed release and it's still WP:TOOSOON. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:RS, WP:GNG. No sources and un-notable.Pink dog with cigar (talk) 12:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article fails both WP:GNG and WP:Notability_(films) so thoroughly that I'm tempted to link to that Picard/Riker double facepalm just to illustrate my point. DubiousIrony ^yell 00:14, 13 January 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. Bearian (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delaware State University shooting

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

I been looking through Category:Spree shootings in the United States And this is one the events that seems To Fail WP:EVENTs. No lasting impact it seems to be run of the mill crime that just happened to be on a University Campus. put it perspective The School's Student News Paper Didnt even mention on the anniversary of the shooting. An unannounced Training Drill for the Nursing Program that centered on School rampage that caused panic months later did not mention this incident. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No lasting impact except for those directly involved. News hits are all stories within a few weeks of the event. Pburka (talk) 00:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawing. I missed the 2009 news coverage. Be careful about what news articles you consider, though. Some of the articles I found are about basketball, e.g. "shooting guard". Pburka (talk) 01:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. It was actually a major event; it received extensive news coverage. I did interviews with several media outlets for the Foundation regarding Wikipedia coverage of shooting incidents at the time, and I know other Wikimedians were interviewed as well. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 00:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Google search finds me, on just the front page, coverage from Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, NJ.com and MIT, with dates ranging from Sept. 21, 2007 through May 22, 2009. Just on the front page. 206,000 articles alone. I can't imagine how this fails WP:EVENT, the notability is pretty clearly established.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 01:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable event, good sources.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:46, 11 January 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 numbers are equally balanced here but the arguments are not. Some of the keep arguments merely allude to a policy or guideline, while User:Erik, in particular, gives the most considered argument about the article. Erik's concerns were not really addressed, even by the comment and links added by User:Calathan. Recreation is possible if this can be sourced, and I'm not averse to userfying if someone wants to work on this. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saeko Matsuda

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

Contested PROD. Editor stated "reference, rm prod as he was a producer in several notable series per WP:CREATIVE". I don't think that being a television producer is sufficient evidence that this "person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work". In fact, the producer is generally more of an administrative or organizational position, so doesn't fall under WP:CREATIVE at all. While we can confirm that this person exists there's no other biographical information available in the references provided or in web searches. Fails WP:GNG. Pburka (talk) 23:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A producer's role is far more than just "administrative". The are heavily involved with selecting the screenwriters, director, the cast, and other key personal for a television series along with approving scripts. Their role in guiding the overall creative progress of a television series is a important as the director or writer and thus falls under WP:CREATIVE as much as the other two positions. —Farix (t | c) 01:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 01:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Farix. A film's producer is indeed an essential part of a film's creation. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A producer's role is notable, and he has thus had notable roles in notable productions. Dream Focus 15:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Farix and above, passes #1 of WP:ENTERTAINER. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What rationale is being used to include this article in WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:CREATIVE? ENTERTAINER applies to "Actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities". CREATIVE could apply under "creative professional" if we accept that producers are such, despite Farix's claim that their role is solely "selecting the screenwriters, director, the cast, and other key personal(sic) for a television series along with approving scripts", all non-creative tasks. But which criteria of CREATIVE does he satisfy? Pburka (talk) 00:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:CREATIVE #3: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". That the individual's works have themselves been the subjects of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews meets the criteria under WP:CREATIVE. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think that's reading a lot into one word in the credits. While a producer might have a major creative role, he could also be the person who arranged financing for the production or the person who managed the shooting schedule. Producer is a vague term which can encompass a huge range of roles. Without any supporting references I don't think that we have evidence that he played a major role in co-creating these productions. Pburka (talk) 13:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I think notability is primarily determined by how much has been published about the person in question, regardless of their role in film-making. If it were a fleshed out article with plenty of sourced biographical details and career exposition then I don't think that would be a problem, but as just a list of credits then I certainly agree notability has not been established. The producer may have worked on notable films, but the article doesn't tell us anything about the subject. Betty Logan (talk) 07:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely correct. While yes, having coverage in multiple reliable sources is nice for showing notability, it is not the only way such can be determined. The WP:BIO#Additional criteria are set in place to help in determining notability in the lack of significant coverage. Being verified as meeting WP:CREATIVE through contributions to notable productions does not slao demand significant coverage... as WP:V and WP:GNG are not the same thing... asneither are WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. While yes, knowing more about an individual is wonderful for our readers, Wikipedia does not demand that everyone notable must seek or be sought by popular media. Some folks perfer their privacy... and we respect that choice and offer our readers what we are able. That the article lets readers know he has been part of notable projects is decent beginning. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: First, WP:ENTERTAINER does not apply to producers. Secondly, WP:CREATIVE #3 can be applied here: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." I think it's fair to say that a producer has a major role as a co-creator, generally speaking. Can we agree that there is no "collective body of work" that Matsuda has that has been covered or reviewed? That leaves us "a significant or well-known work", and judging from the individual works in Matsuda's filmography, nothing stands out as such. To me, "significant or well-known" is a higher standard than just "notable". My preliminary research shows that none of these works jump out, and I assume that the articles would only become decent through a pretty major scraping-together of sources. With this being the case, the producer may fail WP:CREATIVE #3, and falling back on WP:BASIC, for which there is no apparent coverage of the person itself, the producer fails that too. Can anyone please demonstrate that one of Matsuda's works is significant or well-known? None of them have won any awards and have very sparse IMDb pages, for starters. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contrast Matsuda with Charles Roven, for example. Many of Roven's films are significant or well-known, even though his biographical detail is lacking. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notability (see above comment). Referencing WP:CREATIVE #3, there is no indication that anything that Saeko Matsuda produced is either significant or well-known, which to me is a higher standard than just the works having their own articles on Wikipedia. None of the works have won any awards, and none of them are forthcoming with coverage of fame. Since the topic fails WP:CREATIVE, we fall back to WP:BASIC, and there is no independent coverage of the figure himself. Google News Archive Search in Japanese shows nothing, and Google Books Search in Japanese shows books too old to be referencing this figure. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erik, I was planning to reply to your earlier comment on the notability of his works this weekend when I will have more time. I'll reply now though and try to add more if necessary. Contrary to what you've said, at least one the anime TV shows he produced did when a signifcant award, as Kamichu! won an excellence prize at the Japan Media Arts Festival. Furthermore, I am confident that Kamichu!, Bobobo-bo Bo-bobo, and Xenosaga: The Animation have recieved multiple reviews from reliable sources (which I can link here this weekend when I have time to look them up). I'm sure that it would not require "a pretty major scraping-together of sources" to make those articles decent, depite the fact that they are lacking in references right now. Calathan (talk) 15:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to reconsider if one of the works is significant or well-known; I was not having any luck finding the multiple reviews for the different works involved. Let me know if there's anything you find. Regarding scraping-together, I've just seen citespam in the past to make the topic look especially notable. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, turns out I had no time this weekend. But anyway, Kamichu!, Bobobo-bo Bo-bobo, and Xenosaga: The Animation have all been reviewed by the reliable sources that normally review anime, such as Anime News Network ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]) and Mania.com ([9], [10],[11]). Those sites are well accpeted as reliable sources, having been used as sources in several featured articles here. Since WP:CREATIVE #3 specifically lists having reviews as one thing that shows a work is "significant or well-known", I don't see any way to say that he doesn't pass WP:CREATIVE if it applies to producers. Now, I'm presonally not certain that WP:CREATIVE does apply to producers, but given that you consider it to apply to producers, I don't think it is reasonable for you to say he doesn't pass that guideline. Calathan (talk) 04:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no secondary sources exist for this person. No analysis of his methods, style, etc. Abductive (reasoning) 04:14, 18 January 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 2 Live Crew. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 06:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh Kid Ice

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

Not notable, no assertion of notability, no references unsourced BLP Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2 Live Crew, insufficient standalone notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2 Live Crew. not notable enough for a standalone article, but WP:MUSIC guides us to redirect band members to the band's article. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2 Live Crew and maybe merge some of the material if it's verifiable. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:48, 11 January 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. Creating a redirect at this title would be acceptable (plausible search term), but the consensus here was for outright deletion. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Home and Away cast members

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

This is a pointless page, there are already other lists of characters and so on. It's not even sourced and so on... the only difference is this list is "meant" to focus on the actors. List of Home and Away characters is already in use for the list... plus they get a mention in List of past Home and Away characters.. RAIN..the..ONE ^HOTLINE 22:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete Redundant lists are useless. Perhaps a redirect would work. Redundant lists are useless. Perhaps a redirect would work. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC) Sven Manguard Wha? 23:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant to character lists. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete superfluous other character lists. Jenks24 (talk) 08:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Home and Away characters as a plausible search term. -- saberwyn 22:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cast members are not characters. There is absolutely no problem with having lists about both. Doing so is preferable for navigational purposes. Other soap operas seem to organise cast and characters with separate lists too (see Days of our Lives). The arguments above seem to me to be arguments by assertion. No policy-based reason is given for the deletion. Policy-based reasons are good before we delete the hard work of others.--Mkativerata (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hard work of others? Maybe, but lazy at the same time, a pointless list and not by any policy on wikipedia does it hold it's own because no references, not holding any of the content as verifiable.. The D.O.O.L list has eight references for over 500 characters. These cast members are mentioned once in a list already.
The article was created well before our current referencing standards evolved and it is certainly not unfixable. In the meantime, the information is so uncontroversial that there's no real risk leaving the list up while it is fixed. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why it should be brought up to date in that case, in this case they are mentioned many times in different lists and articles assoicated with this serial. So with that we're evolving the other lists and articles where this information has become more in place, I don't think it helps encouraging leaving orphaned lists lying around wikipedia, because they are deemed non controversial. Cleaning up seems better in my eyes.RAIN..the..ONE ^HOTLINE 01:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It offers no alternative to the character lists, all the information is there in the other ones, just in a different order. Aside from this, there are too many Home and Away lists, and not nearly enough content, verifiable or otherwise, to warrant them. Ooh, Fruity @ Ooh, Chatty 01:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect, redundant. Abductive (reasoning) 04:16, 18 January 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. Redirect is an editorial decision. Sandstein 07:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Roetter

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

Non-notable singer, fails WP:MUSICIAN. Although him beginning in Emarosa at the young age of 18, he was replaced with Jonny Craig wherein the band then rose to their mass success leaving Roetter forgotten and only on the recording of one EP. Roetter, now being 21 now, he has been in two other bands that both do not have Wikipedia articles which leaves Roetter just as not-notable. - GunMetal Angel 21:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Emarosa. Pburka (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Emarosa? Even though he was only in that band for just a year, which is rarely known and was in two others after them that both don't have articles? • GunMetal Angel 00:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's the only thing he's famous for at all, so if anyone came here searching for him sending them to Emarosa would be reasonable. But I've never heard of him or the band and have no objection against deletion. Pburka (talk) 00:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's also famous for Agraceful, and Like Moths to Flames recently. LMTF is getting quite popular. This article was created when Agraceful still had an article, before its deletion after it being removed from a radio rotation. I don't know if this should be deleted or not. As the author, I'll just leave it be. --KЯĀŽΨÇÉV13 19:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sorry but he's not yet notable enough as a celebrity in his own right. Being mentioned in the history of Emarosa is sufficient, and if his new bands achieve enough notability in the future he can be mentioned in their articles. Also note that Wikipedia is not a social networking site. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect, does not pass WP:MUSIC. Abductive (reasoning) 04:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is clear, and no valid keep rationale is offered--Bearian is incorrect in asserting that WP:BAND holds that touring nationally is sufficient to attain notability per the guideline. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Gary

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

This was an unreferenced biography also flagged with a notability query since Sept 2008 (soon after the article was created). Consequently it was proposed for deletion yesterday. An IP editor contested the Prod and added a reference showing the subject as a sideman on a record. That is insufficient to meet the notability guidelines for musicians, hence bringing it to AfD to propose Deletion. Note that (1) the subject is also a real-estate businessman, but again seems not to meet Notability in that sphere; and (2) Google brings up another person of the same name (a film director/editor). AllyD (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Basically a session musician. Fails WP:N. Pburka (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete while insufficiently notable (real-esate - music - etc) doesn't meet our standards for WP:V Dusti^*poke* 00:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. My initial problem was finding even a single reliable source to show he even exists in a huge pile of Ghits about an oncologist, a judge, a murderer from Seattle, and various other Brian Garys. I found his own tour page that seems to indicate that he's toured nationally, which is enough for musician's notability. I just can't wade through the 83,000 Ghits to find a better source. Bearian (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Doesn't the touring need to involve notable reviewed concerts and critical discussion of the subject's contribution (#4)? I'm curious, as if it just comes down to a past of touring, then just about every past member of every past band would surely meet WP:MUSICBIO? Coming back to this particular discussion, it is possible that performing in the bands for multiple musicians (Money, Akins, Davis) might meet #6, but that maybe depends on an interpretation of ensemble member vs backing musician? AllyD (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think it should be redirected. --Anna O'Leary (talk) 11:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No secondary sources provided in this BLP of a person who may or may not be a session musician. Abductive (reasoning) 04:19, 18 January 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. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jenier E. Marmolejos

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. ttonyb (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I didn't even have to read the article to see that it was pure fancruft. That being said, I also read the article. It's pure fancruft. Lack of notability as well. 22:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sven Manguard (talk • contribs)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree. Fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE, un-notable.Pink dog with cigar (talk) 12:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC) — Pink dog with cigar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment Is 'I didn't even have to read the article to see that it was pure fancruft' yet more evidence that FANCRUFT as it is currently used in AfD is a facile analysis of an article's notability, or evidence that the nomination did not properly consider FANCRUFT itself when deciding whether to apply it to this article? FAN should not be applied to nominations for deletion as a sole rationale in any case, as it is an essay, and neither it nor its tenets are mentioned in WP:DELETE; for the sake of argument and an examination of this essay's use on AfD though, I will say, both.

However, WP:FANCRUFT itself addresses all three of these concerns:

Fancruft is a term sometimes used in Wikipedia to imply that a selection of content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question. The term is a neologism derived from the older hacker term cruft, describing obsolete code that accumulates in a program.

While "fancruft" is often a succinct and frank description of such accumulations, it also implies that the content is unimportant and that the contributor's judgment of the topic's importance is clouded by fanaticism. Thus, use of this term may be regarded as pejorative, and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil.

As with most of the issues of What Wikipedia is not in Wikipedia, there is no firm policy on the inclusion of obscure branches of popular culture subjects. It is true that things labeled fancruft are often deleted from Wikipedia. This is primarily due to the fact that things labeled as fancruft are often poorly written, unwikified, unreferenced, non-neutral and contain original research, the latter two of which are valid reasons for deletion.

In short, WP:NPOV, or WP:OR are to be considered at AfD, but not FANCRUFT itself, which apart from an internal WP reference to the jargon used by Wikipedia editors, contains two logical premises:

Some FANCRUFT are NPOV or OR
Articles that are NPOV or OR are deleted (the "primarily" in "primarily due to" translates to: "or some other deletion reason")

The logical consequence (conclusion) is left unstated, but a valid progression leads to:

FANCRUFT are deleted if they are NPOV or OR, or some other deletion reason ("primarily" indicating not because of being FANCRUFT alone)

FANCRUFT recuses itself from deletion discussions. It has never been specified as a rationale for deletion on WP:DELETE, and should never be the sole rationale. DELETE mentions only those three rationales specifically, along with WP:OR and some practical/legal considerations such as COPYVIO and vandalism. The standard disclaimer in DELETE, 'including, but not limited to', indicating that it is not exclusive, was never discussed, and only once mentioned in Talk, in 2007. I assert that this wording was not accepted by the community because they believed it was necessary to include essays as the sole rationale for deleting articles, and it should be replaced with a less equivocal sentence, "Other guidelines or policies may be applicable, and in exceptional cases, essays, although these should not be used as a primary rationale".

The article also offers yet more evidence that AllFail is less reliable than IMDb. Allmovie has Jenier listed as Jenifer. Anarchangel (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless somebody is better at coming up with secondary sources than I. Abductive (reasoning) 04:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mecha A.D.: Why Do Robots Fall in Love

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

Non-notable book lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:NOTBOOK. ttonyb (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there are more than 129,000,000 books in the world. Abductive (reasoning) 03:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Just pointing out that the author's page was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenier E. Marmolejos. If the article on this book is deleted, the closing admin should speedy delete Category:Novels by Jenier E. Marmolejos and Category:Mecha Chronicles novels per the C1 speedy criteria. Even if this isn't deleted those should probably be deleted, but might as well wait until the category is empty (assuming that happens) and speedy them. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COMMStellation

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

This sounds like a great thing, but there no reliable sources supporting this project's notability, and I couldn't find any either. Drmies (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Little better than advertising and written by someone from the manufacturers. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Would gladly !vote keep if there were any real references to this project, but it seems like there aren't any at this point. If the project advances and receives enough coverage, the article can be recreated. Zachlipton (talk) 01:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Microsat Systems Canada Inc.

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

I don't think this company is notable. It seems that they have a contract with NASA, but that's all the news I can find--and even that is not on a reliable source. Drmies (talk) 21:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Written by someone from the company and little better than spam. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Also, the sources seem to be containing self submitted information, so are not really sources, per se. Sven Manguard Wha?
Comment The authors full disclosure is available on the users talk page. This article was written in a factual, unbiased and non-promotional manner. If you believe differently, please identify the specific issues so they can be rectified. Sources from the Canadian Space Agency and Industry Canada have also been added for validation. MSCI provided Attitude Control Systems for the following satellites all with entries in Wikipedia; FedSat, CHIPSat, TacSat-2, EgyptSat 1, Proba-2, LADEE, and has manufactured the attitude control system and the entire microsatellite for MOST and NEOSSat also defined in Wikipedia. I believe this makes MSCI's inclusion into Wikipedia relevant and notable.

--Jphil125 (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, company doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Lacks coverage in reliable third-party publications. PK T(alk) 23:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no claim of notability made for this company. Abductive (reasoning) 04:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Unsourced BLP. Sandstein 07:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Wkharrisjr (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isabelle Volpe

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

Does not meet the criteria for Notagle (entertainers). Specifically (1) has not had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions, (2)Does not have a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. nor (3) Has not made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Wkharrisjr (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that person lacks notability. Limited contributions. Adequate sources and references required.Pink dog with cigar (talk) 14:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MicroWheel

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

Non-notable company, does not pass WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Drmies (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Actually it is a product, not a company. But scant evidence of notability and written by someone with blatant COI. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right; thanks for pointing out my slip. Drmies (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The authors full disclosure is available on the users talk page. This article is not about a company so I believe WP:CORP does not apply. The article was written in a factual, unbiased and non-promotional manner. If you believe differently, please identify the specific issues so they can be rectified. Sources from the Canadian Space Agency which is part of the Canadian Government should be considered relevant and valid. MSCI provided MicroWheel's for the following satellites all with entries in Wikipedia; FedSat, CHIPSat, TacSat-2, EgyptSat 1, Proba-2, LADEE, MOST and NEOSSat. I believe this makes MicroWheel's inclusion into Wikipedia relevant and notable.

--Jphil125 (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no secondary sources discuss this obscure product. Abductive (reasoning) 03:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RHaworth. Stonemason89 (talk) 04:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Donald Raymer

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

This person does not appear to be notable, just searching the name on google news doesn't yield results. The references are mostly people. Nominated for speedy deletion, but was contested by page creator. Epass (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No real claim to notability. WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Pburka (talk) 00:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete shows no notability and the sources are all family.--TM 16:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep -- The lack of Ghits for some one who (apparetnly) retired in 1985 is not unexpected. The list of sources includes what appears to be a published work, suggesting that it is not all WP:OR. I would be reluctant to see this disappear completely, but I do have concerns as to notability. Possibly Userify, in the hope that the creator can establish notability. The subject appears to have had a long career, partly as a bible college (i.e. seminary) in mission-field countries, so may have been significant, but this cannot be determined from the article. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, searching by Ivan Donald Raymer and Ivan Raymer finds absolutely nothing on this person. This material does not pass WP:V, let alone WP:N. Abductive (reasoning) 03:47, 18 January 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. Owning multiple bus routes does not appear in the notability guidelines, nor in policy, and the same applies to "it's important locally"; discounting these comments, consensus is clearly in favour of deletion. If you do not make arguments which cite policy, they will not be taken into account; AfD is not a vote. The weight of an argument is what is considered, not the weight of the emotion behind it. Ironholds (talk) 17:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dorset Sprinter

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

Article about a non-notable bus company that operates one regular bus route from Ringwood to Southampton. Does not pass WP:COMPANY. Scottdrink (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Barring the addition of sources that do help establish notability, I don't see, after reviewing the current references, how this subject meets our notability standards. Drmies (talk) 21:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you expand on this please? I do not understand what you are saying. How can adding sources that help establish notability mean that the subject does not meet our notability standards? Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 21:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about a bus operator that runs one single route. Minimac makes a remark below about what's generally deemed notable; I'm not aware of inherent notability for such a company, but I gladly stand corrected. But this one has only one route. It is entirely possible that the company, for one reason or another, generated interest in the press which would make it notable despite running only one route, but I didn't see that. Moreover, the links pointing to for instance council minutes are not evidence of the kind of interest that would make a subject notable. But I fear that you are misreading my comment; my apologies if I was not clear. Drmies (talk) 22:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bus operators that take multiple routes are generally notable. Also, there are published sources which relate to the subject, such as for example: this reference. Even though these references are nationally recognised, the whole article I think still meet the general notability guidelines. Minima c (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is much more to the company than what the nominator had said. That "one route" is actually part of the ongoing saga of the cross country link between Ringwood and Southampton, which has seen a number of operators have a go and then pull out. Dorset Sprinter have now ended that route. That route originally started running from Bournemouth to Southampton (via Ringwood), so it covers a wide area (about 25 miles across), so it's hardly insignificant and the company had serviced a lot of towns and villages. The company have operated other bus routes, and their first route brought in so little money that they gave up running it days after it started - this is against the rules and the company were in trouble with the Traffic Commissioner. The company have been brought in front of the Traffic Commissioner in a public inquiry as well as they've been in trouble a few times. :There are a number of local sources, and there are national sources available, though work does need to be done. As it stands though, the article is well referenced, and I see no reason for it to be deleted. All that needs doing is establishing notability. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 21:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's kind of circular. Are you saying it's not notable now, though it's well referenced, but notability can be established? If so, please establish it, so that the articles passes WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Drmies (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is worth noting that the nominator did PROD the article a week or so ago. The nominator has only a handful of edits, and their intent is questionable. Looking at their talk page, [12], they have at one time seemingly gone round randomly dePRODing article with no explanation, and when asked by an admin did not really explain their actions. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 21:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- True, and I saw that, but that does not mean that every single edit is suspicious. As a matter of fact, AfD is a common second step after a PROD is denied. Drmies (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You state that the company is non-notable, but... the sources and references at the bottom of the article say otherwise. If the article needs expanded, then let's do that. Delete isn't a fixall - if there is more to this than what's in the article, let's add it. Dusti^*poke* 00:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please indicate where any of those references state that the bus operator is notable, leaving out such 'references' as this letter to the editor. The only reference to a secondary and presumably reliable source is this, a sympathetic article in the local paper. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let's take a simple google search. Dusti^*poke* 04:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Indeed. Nothing to show for. I urge you to have another look at WP:RS. The bus line's Facebook page and omnibuses.blogspot are not reliable sources. Besides, 3,630 hits is really nothing (my username, in quotes, scores twice as many). More revealing is a Google search more closely aimed at finding reliable sources: this Google News search. Drmies (talk) 05:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - The only secondary reliable source is a local paper? Don't think so. What about the Buses Magazine coverage? Not only secondary and independent, but non-local too. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        So this this this this this and this (need I keep going?) don't show significant coverage? Dusti^*poke* 13:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Eeh, much as I want this kept... two of those (museumstuff and ireference) are Wikipedia mirrors, one's a Commons category, one (World News) doesn't actually talk about them, one (Fotopic) isn't generally felt to be reliable, and the local news piece is already in the article. So no, they don't show significant coverage, but the topic as a whole does. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<--Thanks Alzarian. Most of what a regular Google search produces does not count as reliable--and that a Commons category is no evidence of notability should go without saying. Above you mentioned the Buses Magazine reference. That's not available online, apparently, but I note that the article is only one page long--it can't be a very in-depth discussion. And I wonder: what do you mean with "the topic as a whole [shows significant coverage]"? Drmies (talk) 16:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Never mind the alleged "questionable" intent of the nom - not being a mindreader, I have no more notion of what that might be than anyone else - let's take this on its merits. The GNG requires that multiple reliable sources discuss the subject in "significant detail." I don't see it. Of all the sources presented, the Southern Daily Echo is the only one that qualifies, and the claim of an article of less than 300 words to constitute "significant detail" is threadbare. That doesn't suffice. "The topic as a whole" shows significant coverage? Which topic is that, please, and what does that have to do with this subject? Ravenswing 18:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mention in 'omnibus' specialty blog and so on doesn't count. EEng (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the page. I live in Ringwood. This company were very important locally, and the cessation of their operation to Southampton at the end of December has had a profound effect on the local community. With regards to WP:COMPANY - one of the worst written pieces of text I have ever read - from what I can make of it Sprinter seem to fall within that too. The Daily Echo source is perfectly acceptable. I've never heard of Buses Magazine, but it sounds like a valid publication. The blog is reliable. It's written by the man who owns Velvet, another local company who used to run to Ringwood, and has all its facts correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.101.184 (talk) 19:16, 14 January 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) 02:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clutch Group

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

Non-notable outsourcing company. Yahoo/Bing search turned up mostly press releases. Blueboy 96 20:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N, WP:NPOV, and WP:IRS. EW_{_i}kist^Talk 21:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Orphaned for six months and backed up only by primary sources. Based on that, it fails verifiability and notability guidelines. —C.Fred (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Also seems to be written in promoting style (CSD G11 should have happened? Unambiguous advertising?). VasuVR (talk, contribs) 06:00, 16 January 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. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Marshall

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

No reliable sources to assert individual's notability. Initial search hits yield personal page, LinkIn, blogs, etc. --EEMIV (talk) 20:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Previous nomination was unrelated to this. No opinion on this nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mangoe (talk • contribs)
Delete No coverage at all except a blog "interview." EEng (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's a bit late to add, but he illustrates a lot of new discoveries (among them being the Sahara crocs and Eodromaeus) and gives our first view of these creatures. Crimsonraptor | (Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 19:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a BLP with poor sourcing. No bar to recreation if better sources are provided. Abductive (reasoning) 03:51, 18 January 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) 02:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry D'Amigo

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

Minor leaguer who has not been in the NHL. Was previously nominated for deletion. The result was Delete. Iftelse (talk) 19:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —DJSasso (talk) 19:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just out of curiosity, do you have a deletion ground you'd like to proffer? Ravenswing 20:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Once he plays for the leafs, or plays 100 games in the AHL (he currently has 32), then the page can be re-created. Ravendrop (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just FYI — please don't speedy this; you're correct in saying that it was deleted before, but the current version is significantly different from it. Nyttend (talk) 21:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY. Recreate when/if the athlete becomes notable in the future. Kugao (talk) 19:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He fails WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY. This page can be recreated when he meets notability to 1 game in the NHL or 100 games in the AHL.USA1168 (talk) 02:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dye Solar Cell (DSC) manufacturers

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

Speedy declined, copyvio fixed; Wikipedia is not a directory; this is an unlikely search term; Wikipedia is not a link farm. Wtshymanski (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable directory entry, does not even explain what dye solar cells are. Hairhorn (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Johnfos (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dusti^*poke* 00:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article can be a basis for an interesting list on DSC manufacturers!

Every List can be seen as "directory"...
Search term is not unlikely for people interested in dye solar cells and list is linked on dye solar cell page
Links have been deleted → no link farm
Explanation about "dye solar cells" can be found on the appropriate page (linked: See also)

Please consider improvement not deletion --BinFlo (talk) 08:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a Directory. Abductive (reasoning) 03:38, 18 January 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. page was moved to userspace (non-admin closure) Dusti^*poke* 00:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren O'Connell

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

seems to fail WP:MUSIC, no references beyond her own youtube channel, and a single Rochester City Paper article, therefore fails WP:RELY. Article as been deleted before and as one main contributor. ccwaters (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources are trivial or unreliable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the main contributor moved it to User:Max bemis is pretty cool/Lauren O'Connell post nomination. Is this circumventing the process? ccwaters (talk) 23:25, 10 January 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 A valid argument is made that the AfD shouldn't be bound strictly by the letter of notability guidelines. But in this AfD, that argument does not have support and consensus is to the contrary. Mkativerata (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Pelc

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

Contested PROD; has never appeared in a fully-professional league, so fails WP:NFOOTBALL, and also fails WP:GNG Giant Snowman 19:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. He has never played in a fully pro league, and he fails WP:GNG, thus making him non-notable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion Hi. Not entirely notable but 'Every Little Helps'. He may become notable if he progressess through the National Team Ranks but I find that unlikely. Thanks, pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 19:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article says he last played at under-17 level, and is now 24 - I very much doubt he will become a full international, and saying he will violates WP:CRYSTAL. Giant Snowman 19:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There's some uncertainty about whether playing in the Canadian League confers notability or not, but if not, then delete per nom. --JonBroxton (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has not played in a fully professional league and so hasn't earned notability. Eddie6705 (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keeep, don't understand this at all, he's played for his country and in a national league, what's the problem? Seems to be an attempt to enforce the letter of the rule over the spirit.--Kotniski (talk) 08:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He has NOT played for his country professionally and don't say he will either because that would violate WP:CRYSTAL. Delete because of failures of WP:GNG Spiderone 09:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did I say "professionally"? He's played, there also seems to be enough press coverage of his various trials and movements to make this article potentially useful (or "pass GNG", as the wikilawyers would say).--Kotniski (talk) 10:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The references provided are nothing more than just run-of-the-mill and having trials does not mean to say that he will ever become a notable player. Spiderone 10:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He has NOT played for his country; he has played for his country's under-17 team - a big difference! Read WP:NFOOTBALL, which says international notability comes from playing in an "officially sanctioned senior international competition", which he hasn't done. NFOOTBALL continues - "Players who have appeared [...] in a fully-professional league" - again, something he hasn't done. As for this so-called coverage, read WP:NTEMP - "it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage. For example, routine news coverage such as [...] sports coverage [...] is not significant coverage." Are you still positive he meets notability requirements? Giant Snowman 14:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't be treating these guidelines as fixed law - he's come pretty close to meeting the guidelines in several different ways, though perhaps not to the letter, to the extent that Wikipedia can provide verifiable information about him and expect that people who might have come across him in various contexts might be looking here for more complete information about him. I just don't see how the encyclopedia is improved by deleting this sort of article. --Kotniski (talk) 14:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly how is he "pretty close"?! He hasn't played at ANY international representative level for 7 years, and he's not signed to ANY team, let alone a professional one...Giant Snowman 15:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could say all of that about Pele too... --Kotniski (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pele has played at both professional and international levels, and so remains notable. This guy has done nothing of note. Giant Snowman 15:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is what I mean - he's almost played professionally (in various senses) and he's played at almost international level. This will be my last word on the subject, but I still think if you put all this together he comes out as meeting the spirit of the notability requirements. The fact that it was 7 or 70 years ago makes no difference - Wikipedia isn't the encyclopedia of Now.--Kotniski (talk) 16:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I almost broke into professional badminton for England 5 years ago (true fact). Should I have an article? Spiderone 16:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestionHi, You just seem to keep going back on yourself and realising your wrong then try to cover yourself.You seem not to know what your saying, 7 years ago is along time ago now.

Even though Pele has no meaning to me he was a superstar. Everybody knows that. Everybody's heard of Pele. Not many have heard of Dan Pelc. What has Dan Pelc done that's signifacant? Anyway, no offence to Canadians, but Canada's National Team isn't the greatest team in the whole world-Especcially the Under-17's. I suggest you get more infomation-That's a start. Thanks, Pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No, we ought not treat the guidelines as fixed law ... but we also have to have a pressing reason to set aside guidelines which enjoy wide consensus. What is the pressing reason here? That, well, Dan Pelc is a swell fellow, and, well, that it'd be awfully nice for him to have an article? There is no evidence that he meets the GNG, he doesn't meet WP:NFOOTY, there is no "spirit" of notability requirements out there for him to meet, and if we handed out eligibility to anyone who "almost" met requirements, then hand me my Wikipedia article: my dozen publication credits in role-playing games are surely good enough. NOT. Ravenswing 21:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE. Recreate when/if the athlete becomes notable in the future. Kugao (talk) 19:16, 15 January 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) 02:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Speziale

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

Does not clearly show notability. Although there are several sources, they are all, to my mind, either trivial mentions or not reliable sources; a few appear to be thinly veiled press releases. bonadea contributions talk 18:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, and WP:BIO. Qworty (talk) 07:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable even if all claims are true. EEng (talk) 20:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Observation. The subject's claim to notability has itself recently been deleted at AfD [13] Qworty (talk) 03:01, 13 January 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. If someone wants to merge this let me know. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bridges Community Church

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

Non-notable local congregation Jonathunder (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources given to establish notability of an organization. tedder (talk) 03:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, unsourced, no significant sources found.. Seems like a run-of-the-mill local church. --MelanieN (talk) 05:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sourced third party references given to establish notability. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a summary to Fremont, California, where it is. This is usually the best answer for locally significant facilities. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:16, 16 January 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sergei Lepmets

(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. Although Liga I is fully pro, he has not played for Politehnica. No reason was given for contestation. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 19:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE. Recreate when/if the athlete becomes notable in the future. Kugao (talk) 19:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he is being tested and close to a contract in Romania, FC Timisoara [14] (fully professional league). So wait at least some days. The transfer-window is opened in 26 Jan. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, that's speculation in violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Second, he would only become notable if he were to actually play for Timisoara. So, for the time being anyways, this is not relevant. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:ATHLETE is very clear. Abductive (reasoning) 03:54, 18 January 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) 02:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spa closures in Singapore

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

Blatant soapboxing WuhWuzDat 17:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following related page has also been listed for deletion:

Do not delete- notable.Spa closures in Singapore is notable due to:
newspapers reports, news TV programs about many spas closing.
huge amounts of monies, many people involved.
change in law of Singapore due to these closures.
it being a discussion in the Republic of Singapore Parliament.
its impact on consumers' rights.
its influence on consumers in Asia where these same spa operators operate.
many internet forums on this topic.
the fact that so many have been reported to be victims of the spa closures in Singapore. There is link to the culture of Singapore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spaofvictim (talk • contribs) 07:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable as a phenomenon, and none of the individual spas whose closings are sourced to actual news are notable enough for a mention. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~DO NOT DELETE~~ - it is a notable event. if it is not notable in Singapore, it would not have been discussed in Parliament and featured on TV shows like Singapore Talking and BlogTV and Channel News Asia. Also, there have been many articles which talk about the individual spas which closed. The closure of BIG Spa operators have led to the openings of many small Spa shops in the heartlands of Singapore. — Spaofvictim (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment: Closing admin should note that, as of now, the first two "do not delete" votes are from the same user. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Duplicate vote struck out. WuhWuzDat 20:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sorry, this is a definite WP:SOAPBOX violation. Ravenswing 22:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The editor in question is using this article and others as part of a campaign to right great wrongs, as his user name indicates. Wikipedia is not a consumer protection site. It's possible that there's an article in here, but the current form of the article doesn't appear to be salvageable, and is definitely not neutral - . Acroterion _(talk) 22:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Irretrievable WP:SOAPBOX article from WP:SPA contributor who seems unlikely to be able to improve it. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:11, 12 January 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. Davewild (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptomechanics

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

Neologism which gives no GBook or GNews hits whatsoever, and other searches turn up Google traps or false hits, primarily on mechanical cryptography. Mangoe (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: none of the online citations in the article even mention the term, no Google News/Books hit. No indication that this topic exists, let alone that it is notable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since the term does not seem to have been used in any book or scholarly article. Mathsci (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 11 January 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. Davewild (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

De rigueur

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, particularly not a French dictionary. Powers ^T 17:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deletez. It's part of the English language now, but there's nothing more to say than its definition. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is just a dictionary definition, Wiktionary already has a better one, so there is no point in transwikiing. Thryduulf (talk) 18:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Supprimer: (That's what they say at the French Wikipedia's version of AfD, anyway) WP:DICDEF. Ravenswing 22:08, 11 January 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, as follows:

This is a person, but not a live one, so the guideline in question is Notability (as opposed to the more restrictive Biographies of living persons policy).
Thus we're looking for evidence that the subject of this article has been covered "to a significant degree by independent sources."
Unpacking the general notability guide...
- As indicated, he's a person, so we go down a level to Wikipedia:Notability (people)...
- Then one more level to Wikipedia:Notability (academics)

Working back up from the bottom and looking at the point-by-point on "academics"...

As noted by several of the commentators, the evidence that he's "made significant impact" varies, and it does not appear that the participants in this debate are convinced enough to decalre consensus on that issue.
None of the other criteria were raised.

As such, the rough consens to delete appears to be in line with policy.

With respect to the information provided by User:Dr Fil...

Firstly, as noted, the material is presented in a manner that makes it very difficult to get to the heart of. Of the 4,700 total words int his debate, 3,700 were by this single user. While I do understand the passion, please try to be somewhat more concise in the future.
The presence of multiple other articles that (allegedly) have lower bars to inclusion, the remedy there is to either A) go to the pages were the inclusion criteria are set (as linked above) and get them loosened or B) nominate those articles for deletion. These deletion debates are purposefully inconsistant in this regard, and do not in any way go by the least common denonimator.

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul R. Hill

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

A punt from Wikipedia:FTN#Paul_R._Hill. People trying to find independent, third-party, reliable sources for this biography have been unsuccessful. This would seem to indicate the guy fails WP:BIO. jps (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent secondary sources found to establish this individual's notability or verify the highly detailed work history given. He may have a following within UFO subculture but nothing found that might satisfy WP:PROF.- LuckyLouie (talk) 22:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retain What do you mean "no independent secondary sources"? Which "people"? It seems to me some "people" like LuckyLouie aren't trying very hard to find anything and instead are deliberately trying to write this man out of aviation history simply because they don't like some of his views expressed in his book on UFOs. Here are many links to Hill's extensive work for NASA/NACA from the NASA history web site: [15] EXAMPLES: This NASA web page shows Hill being born 1909, starting employment with NACA in 1939, and continuing through NASA days. [16] Another one with Hill's contribution to NACA's 1950s Project HYWARDS (hypersonic weapons R&D)[17] "As the work progressed, a number of other specialists were added, notably: Paul Hill, configuration and propulsion..." Here's a book on the history of NASA Langley Research Center mentioning several of Hill's research positions.[18] EXAMPLE (p. 233) "The Lunar-Orbit Rendezvous Concept: Paul R. Hill of the Aero- Space Mechanics Division was in charge of a committee on propulsion, flight testing, and dynamic loads." (p. 274) "The First Space Station Task Force: (Photo caption) Two key members of Langley's early space station research were Paul R. Hill (left) and Robert Osborne (right)." Here's another one with a little bit of history on Hill's contribution to the flying platform and early thrust vector research along with another aviation pioneer, Charles Zimmerman: [19] And that was with a very brief search. "LuckyLouie" is also guilty of deleting the ENTIRE article on Hill except for the opening sentence, then the article was quickly marked for deletion. Strikes me as dirty pool. How is a reader supposed to judge the value of an article when you delete 99% of it? Hill was indeed a pioneer in aviation`and deserves an article.Dr Fil (talk) 00:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links. Do you have some additional verification to justify that Hill's was a "lifetime spent on the cutting edge of research and development", he was thought to be "pioneering", and that his career and views were the subject of serious, in depth coverage by mainstream sources? I'm asking because, in the links you gave, I only see Hills name mentioned in passing among literally dozens of other, equally obscure employees. Also the article seems to be functioning as somewhat of a coatrack for Hill's views on UFOs, which weren't given much attention at all by mainstream reviewers, and as a result would not warrant any degree of coverage here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Hill's views on UFOs were your "coatrack" or rationale for wholesale deletion of the article, something for which you have never provided a decent reason for, other than it personally rubbed you the wrong way, which is totally irrelevant. As for "mainstream sources", how about all the NASA/NACA publications of Hill's? I will continue to look for others (though I doubt you will ever consider them adequate--the moving goalpost thing). For some of his pioneering research, maybe you should have read the article first before deleting it. From the article, here were some of his major R&D contributions in the field:

==Sample personal research involvement==

P-47 aerodynamic design: Early in World War II, personally did aerodynamic prototype design and wind tunnel testing of P-47 Thunderbolt fighter and long-range bomber escort plane.
Ram-Jet design: Wrote first published NACA report on supersonic Ram-Jet engine theory. Subsequently set up and supervised ram-jet research and flight programs at NACA’s research facility at Wallops Island.
Wind tunnel design: Complete design responsibility for first supersonic wind tunnel in the United States operating at Mach 2 at full supersonic temperature. Design responsibility of NACA’s Flutter Research Tunnel, the first tunnel to use denser freon gas rather than air and in which high heat generated had to be removed by refrigeration.
Flying platform research: First kinesthetically-controlled “flying platform” research program, 1950-1953. Eventually led to the Lunar Excursion Module (LEM) design. (Hill also applied research to analysis of UFO dynamical performance, such as observed wobble and falling-leaf motion.)
Spherical solid-fuel motors: Initiation of research on spherical solid fuel motors.
Space station technology: Initiation of space station research in the 1960s in inflatable and other self-erecting space structures, regenerative life-supports systems, closed environmental chambers for life-support systems tests, laboratory for study of direct gyroscopic control.
Lunar low-gravity simulation: Invention along with David Thomas of lunar low-gravity simulation for lunar transport-flyer research; directed

Dr Fil (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at each of our articles on those subjects, and I don't see Hill mentioned, which would be odd if he indeed played a notable role in their development. There are hundreds of aerospace engineers who worked on such programs who have equally diverse resumes, however that doesn't qualify them as particularly notable and deserving of their own Wikipedia article. Are there any mainstream publications or authors that have written works specifically devoted to Hill? A biography of his life or a review of his work? Perhaps there was an obituary published in a major newspaper or magazine? I'm just not seeing the sources that would indicate the high degree of notability you feel he possesses. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasons for deletion keep changing as the former ones get proven bogus. You were first questioning whether Hill was even a research aerospace engineer for NACA/NASA, and here under reasons for deletion claimed literally no independent, 3rd party references existed. Your latest argument seems to be that Wikipedia is allegedly the world's most comprehensive, accurate, and authoritative source of information. If it isn't currently written up in Wikipedia, it just isn't worth mentioning. Of course, we all know that isn’t true. Like any encyclopedia, it can’t go into great depth on much of the subject matter. Thus you are misleading the readers again with your argument that Hill isn’t notable or he would have been mentioned in the Wiki articles on the research he was involved in. The Wiki article on ramjets doesn't even include a section on development in the U.S. It briefly mentions Naval research but not NACA research at the time, which Hill headed. There is no article on the history of flying platforms. Maybe that explains why Hill isn't mentioned. The space station article doesn't discuss early research, which Hill headed at NACA on a rotating, inflatable space station. The article on rotating wheel space stations is little more than a stub article, again not detailing research. Articles on wind tunnels, supersonic wind tunnels, and hypersonic wind tunnels generally discuss principles and do NOT have comprehensive histories, particularly for later supersonic and hypersonic wind tunnels, which Hill was deeply involved in. You won’t find a single name of one person involved with these listed in these Wiki articles.

Wiki basic guidelines on notability of academics, research scientists & engineers, etc. are that they are considered notable in their field, i.e., widely respected by colleagues, did pioneering research, were influential in their field, etc. It does NOT require that their work or life be written up in detail. The point here in the Wiki guidelines is that many people in research fields who do significant work are largely unknown outside of their fields and not rock stars who may be extensively written up. I am, however, trying to get Hill’s writeup in “Who’s Who in Technology”, but it will be several days before it can be retrieved from library storage.

Here is one recent example of where Hill is noted as being highly respected in his field of aerodynamics, in fact one of the leading experts of his day. (I have previously provided a reference where Edward J. Ruppelt of Project Blue Book referred to Hill as "a very famous aerodynamicist" and "high-ranking civilian scientist" for NACA.) Hill is mentioned twice (pp. 31, 45-46) in Dr. Robert F. Brodsky’s 2006 memoir “On the Cutting Edge”, with Brodsky devoting about half a page to Hill’s contributions in his slim 200 page book. Hill was on a specially-assembled advisory panel of “great men” aerodynamicist advising Sandia Labs physicist like Brodsky in the early 1950s why their atom bomb fin designs were breaking. Besides Hill (“Chief of NACA’s Pilotless Aircraft Division”), the “great men” Brodsky names are Jack Northrop (of course, founder of Northrop Aircraft), George Schairer (Chief of aerodynamics at Boeing), Ira H. Abbott (“a legendary engineer”), Ed Heinemann (Chief engineer Douglas Aircraft), Dr. Alex Charters (“a famous ballistician”), Al Sibilia (Vought aircraft chief of aerodynamics), Dr. Charles Poor (Chief Scientist Army’s Ballisic Research Laboratory), and “several other distinguished engineers”. Of the group, it was Hill and Charters whom Brodsky labels the “heroes” who quickly figured out what was going wrong, though Brodsky says at the time they were ignored. It wasn’t until a year later that the Sandia scientists realized they were right. “Both experts were correct, but they were too far ahead of us technically. This was not surprising, since they were the only ones present with ballistic-type experience.” You’ll notice that of these other “great men”, only three have Wikipedia bios and four do NOT. I myself had only heard of Northrop. That doesn’t some how prove they weren’t “notable” in their fields, only that nobody has written about them on Wikipedia. They were certainly considered very notable in their day, or they wouldn’t have been selected for this high-level advisory panel. Brodsky makes this very clear. (Incidentally, Brodsky also doesn’t have a Wiki bio either, despite being considered another aerospace pioneer, including well-publicized research on a space station “lifeboat”. You also won’t find that mentioned in the Wiki articles on space stations either, so obviously he too must not be “notable.”)

Others of comparable “notability” to Hill have bios on Wikipedia. One example is Charles H. Zimmerman. He is primarily noted as performing the first flying platform research at Langley 1950-1953. The research literally would never have gotten off the ground without Hill. Hill championed the research, as noted in a national newspaper article I have already cited, in fact was in charge of it. They co-authored NACA technical reports, which I have cited here. Hill was at least Zimmerman's coequal in that research. If Zimmerman is "notable" for that alone, so is Hill.

Hill had a better or at least equal resumé and did at least as important or more important work than many listed and bio’ed over on List of aerospace engineers. (Like any similar Wikipedia list, it is hardly exhaustive. Just because someone isn’t listed there doesn’t mean they aren’t somehow noteworthy.) Just one example, check out Ron Ayers. (This is no criticism of Ayers BTW. Nor is he special. I started with “A” and he was the first one with a similar bio to Hill’s.) Like Hill, he was an early R&D aerodynamicist. His main listed "notability" in the Wiki article was for “aerodynamics of the land speed record-holding vehicle, ThrustSSC.” Well, I guess that has some minor notability, but is it really that important in the history of aeronautical engineering, in contrast to say Hill’s ramjet or flying platform/LEM or inflatable space habitat work for Langley Research Labs? Ayers also worked on design of a post-war British nuclear bomber, much like Hill designed the aerodynamics of the P-47 Thunderbolt. In my judgment, the P-47 was the more important historically. After the War, like Hill, Ayers worked in missile and aerodynamic research; like Hill headed up some departments. The total listed source material for this are two short bios on Ayers, one by himself, and an interview with Ayers on the ThrustSSC web page, thus basically self-sourced and NOT independent, disinterested, source material. Besides the lack of what constitutes proper Wiki “reliability” sourcing, what exactly makes Ayers more notable than his many colleagues who he worked with, or other department heads like himself? Yet you are putting the exact same knocks on Hill as suitable justifications to delete the article. In what way is Ron Ayers deserving of “notability” and a bio but not Hill? Why isn’t there a similar push to delete Ayers? I see a double standard at work here, and it is clearly related to the labeling here of Hill as a “crank” and “fringe” for daring to write a book analyzing possible UFO physics and engineering. Dr Fil (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the outstanding research by Dr Fil which establishes Hill's notability. Just because he held some eccentric views on UFOs doesn't mean his long aerospace career wasn't notable. Cullen328 (talk) 01:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I believe the article satisfies notability for the subject. I would strongly suggest that section 5 Interest and Research in UFOs" be heavily edited for NPOV, if not removed entirely for its lack of reliable sources. If reliable sources -- something other than excerpts from his own book -- can be found to substantiate this section then it may be applicable to keep. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 13:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think as long as it is made clear that these comments on UFOs were made by Hill, there is no reason to delete them. Many things in any of our lives are impossible to verify through a second source, and many biographies on people are necessarily based on their own autobiographical information. E.g., astronomer Clyde Tombaugh reported six UFO sightings, only one of which he officially reported. Are we supposed to never mention what Tombaugh said because there is no independent way to verify the information? Hill, like Tombaugh, did report one of his UFO sightings and has a second source already included in the article, Cpt. Edward J. Ruppelt, who headed the USAF's public UFO investigation in the early 1950s. Ruppelt also mentioned Hill's notability in his day: "While discussing the huge 1952 UFO sightings "flap", Hill’s sighting was briefly described (with some variation from Hill’s) by Project Blue Book head Edward J. Ruppelt in his 1956 book, but with Hill's name not given. Ruppelt referred to Hill as a 'high-ranking civilian scientist' from NACA, and concluded saying that, 'the man from the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics was a very famous aerodynamicist and of such professional stature that if he said the lights weren't airplanes they weren't.'" Ruppelt, Chapter 12 Hill's 1952 UFO sighting can also be found in the list of official Blue Book unknowns.[20] (See case 598, July 16, 1952; Tombaugh's sighting is also there, Case 248). Anyway, thanks for your vote to keep. I will be checking other "mainstream" sources to see if Hill is mentioned there.Dr Fil (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Working somewhere, with someone, on something, isn't enough. If the very enthused Dr. Fil can't do better than that, I don't think anyone else will either. EEng (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Followup My above comment apparently overlapped Dr. Fil's adding thelist of research and invention. That's all fine, but where are the sources for these things? EEng (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These were quick searches of Google News, Google Books, Google Scholar, also the NASA history website. Hill also has at least one patent, which I haven't listed here. The point is "Paul R. Hill" is quite easy to find in mainstream, independent sources (such as his NACA/NASA publications) and the claims of those pushing deletion that no such sources existed were made up. These searches also turned up references to Hill in a recent memoir by Dr. Robert Brodsky, who refers to him as one of the "great men" of aerodynamics in his day. He is also supposed to be listed in "Who's Who in Technology, 1989", which I have on order from a local university library. I will report what I find when it comes through. (Unfortunately other biographical information in two other books are not available through the library.)Dr Fil (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is yet another search of the Web. Please don’t say again there isn’t any independent, mainstream material on Hill to verify anything in the Hill article or his book. Is this “mainstream” enough for everybody? It was even being questioned whether he ever worked for NACA or NASA.

1990 Obituary, From Google News, search "Paul R. Hill" [21]:

Pay-Per-View – Hampton Roads (VA) Daily Press - Apr 12, 1990, "PAUL R HILL. HAMPTON Paul Richard Hill 81 died Monday April 9 in James River Regional Convalescent Center Newport News. Mr Hill was a native of Odebolt Iowa ..." (Sorry, but you’ll have to pay $3.95 to get it)

‎ Paul R. Hill search in Google Books[22] (stopped at page 10): (Sorry, had to delete all tinyurl links, since they were considered spam by Wikipedia, so just do your own search and the following will turn up)

Listed in “Who's who in Technology: Indexes”, Amy L. Unterburger – 1989

Apparently biographical information here:

Engineering Educators: Herbert Kroemer, Robert C. Michelson, ‘’’Paul R. Hill’’’, Antonio Pérez Yuste, Richard Felder, Petr Beckmann, Robert Seamans

Listed in 2010 “American Aerospace Engineers: Neil Armstrong, Robert Zubrin, Wright Brothers, Howard Hughes, Samuel Pierpont Langley, Geoffrey A. Landis….Paul R. Hill…”

Research:

“The effect of altitude on bomber performance”, Wartime report, Paul R. Hill, John L. Crigler, NACA, 1943, 19 pages

“The effect of external shape upon the drag of a scoop”, Wartime report, Irven Naiman, Paul R. Hill, NACA, 1941, 22 pages

Generalized selection charts for bombers with four 2000-horsepower engines, Wartime report, Maurice J. Brevoort, Paul R. Hill, George W. Stickle, NACA 1942, 31 pages

Previous article mentioned here in 2009 book by Philip M. Parker, Engines-Webster's Comprehensive Bibliography (1590-Modern Times) under entry “Hill, Paul R.”

Three of Hill’s early NACA articles listed in Aircraft Engineering, Vol. 20, 1948

Ramjet work:

Technical information pilot, Library of Congress. Science and Technology Project, Library of Congress. Science Division, Library of Congress. Technical Information Division - 1949, PARAMETERS DETERMINING PERFORMANCE OF SUPERSONIC PILOTLESS AIRPLANES POWERED BY RAM-COMPRESSION POWER PLANTS, by Paul R. Hill. nd 43p. diagrs. table (Wartime rept. L-755, originally issued June 1946, as Advance confidential rept.)

ARS journal: Volumes 24-25, American Interplanetary Society, American Rocket Society, “An Analysis of Ducted Airfoil-Ramjets For Supersonic Aircraft”, by Paul R. Hill and AA Gammal, NACA, Sept. 1947 (Declassified 1953)

“A method of computing the transient temperature of thick walls from arbitrary variation of adiabatic-wall temperature and heat-transfer coefficient”, Paul R. Hill, Langley Aeronautical Laboratory, NACA, 1957, 54 pages

ARS journal: Volume 28, American Rocket Society, American Interplanetary Society – 1958, “High-Temperature Oxidation and Ignition of Metals”, by Paul R. Hill, David Adamson, Douglas H. Foland and Walter E. Bressette, NACA RM, March 1956 (Declassified from Confidential by authority of NACA Res. Abstracts, 1957)

More on Hill’s work on flying platforms:

“Preliminary experimental investigation of the flight of a person supported by a jet thrust device attached to his feet”, NACA research memorandum, C. H. Zimmermann, Paul R. Hill, T. L. Kennedy, NACA, 1953, 31 pages

“Flight tests of a man standing on a platform supported by a teetering rotor”, NACA research memorandum, Paul R. Hill, T. L. Kennedy, NACA, 1954, 26 pages

Flying platform research mentioned:

Aviation Week magazine, Vol. 64, 1956, “At NACA in 1951, he joined with ‘’’Paul R. Hill’’’ to extend the research using supersonic air jets to support the platforms. The team proved that directional control could be achieved by shifting the body weight of a person standing on the…”

3rd Party biographical commentary on Hill’s space station/flying platform research:

Astronautics, Vol. 7, American Rocket Society, 1962, “PAUL R. HILL and EMMANUEL SCHNITZER, coauthors of ‘Rotating Space Stations’ on page 14, head research groups at NASA Langley Research Center. Long a research leader at Langley, Paul Hill carried out the first jet- and rotor-supporting flying platform research there…”

Flying platform research and lunar lander:

“A simulator study of the control of lunar flying platforms by pilot body motions”, Paul R. Hill, David F. Thomas, David F. Thomas (Jr.) - NASA, 1970 - 52 pages "This paper presents the results of an investigation of body-motion control of lunar-flying-platform configurations utilizing shirt-sleeved operators and a simulator with five degrees of freedom. The results show that lunar vehicles with moments of inertia up to…”

AAS science and technology series: Volume 17, American Astronautical Society - 1967 , “COST OPTIMIZATION OF MULTISTAGE ROCKETS Paul R. Hill* The optimization of large rocket systems for minimum cost rather than minimum system weight may possibly save millions of dollars per flight. A simple method of optimizing ...”

Dr Fil (talk) 00:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your personal research in digging Hill's name out of a variety of technical publications, Dr. Fil. However, we need a source that specifically states what makes Paul R. Hill more notable than, let's say, "Emmanuel Schnitzer"..."David F. Thomas...."T.L. Kennedy", or any of the dozens and dozens of engineers who are also listed in these publications as working on these projects in contributor or supervisory positions. (Also can you please avoid cutting and pasting large masses of text to the discussion? It makes it difficult for others to follow. A link will do.) - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not allow tinyurl links, which I wanted to use. The original links often run several hundred characters, typically longer than the summaries. I listed everything in detail to refute the unsupported allegations that there were no independent, "mainstream", 3rd party sources on Hill to be found. Even his existence as a NACA/NASA research engineer was being questioned.

Hill was one of the pioneers of the ramjet, the flying platform (eventually incorporated into the lunar landing module), directed Langley's research into an inflatable space station (an idea that still has legs), designed the streamlining of the P-47 Thunderbolt (at one time the fastest propeller plane in the world), designed the first hypersonic wind tunnels for Langley. Those contributions alone would make him a "notable" in aviation history, at least as "notable" as most of the people listed over on Wikipedia's List of aerospace engineers with their own biographies. If you are like me, I have never heard of at least 80% of these aviation "notables" listed there. Ever hear of Roy Fedden? Anton Flettner? Raoul Haffner? What exactly does "notable" mean anyway? Celebrities are widely known to the public, making them "notable", though not necessarily particularly important, e.g. Miley Cyrus. But many people work in specialties generally not known to the public but well-known and respected in their fields in their day, who do make important contributions. Hill was one of those in aviation engineering R&D.

Hill was also a notable in the subject of Ufology for the book he wrote on the subject, applying his aerospace engineering background to analyzing the principles he believed behind their operation. (So did another aviation pioneer, Hermann Oberth, who, unlike Hill, was very publicly outspoken on the topic.) That is Hill's real "sin", and the real reason why skeptics are trying to delete the article on him, whether they like to admit it or not. They are also currently on a campaign to delete biographies on other UFO-related notables, people widely known in the field and considered to have made important contributions to it, but because the subject is UFOs are deemed worthy of censorship.Dr Fil (talk) 19:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Get off your soapbox, please, and assume good faith. If he's notable for being a UFO-related crank, or for his other non-cranky academic work, his article should be kept, and if he isn't it shouldn't. We shouldn't be defending or attacking the subject here, only reporting on how it is received in the mainstream, and we shouldn't be basing our decision on whether to keep or delete the article on whether we want to defend or attack the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Unconventional Flying Objects, trim all the uninteresting material about his day job, and keep, per WP:BIO1E. Hill himself does not appear to pass WP:PROF or to have any notability beyond that of his book. However, a Google book search convinces me that his book is widely cited in the UFO literature. The current article is far from neutral (it takes the WP:FRINGE point of view that all of this is true rather than reporting any mainstream criticism) but I don't think deleting it is the right way to address that. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought, delete. As above, Hill has no notability independent of his book, and I think that a mention of the book in the UFO article as Xxanthippe suggests below should be sufficient. The more this AfD drags on, the more this article's proponents are convincing me that maintaining a properly neutral article on its subject is likely to be very difficult. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Hill himself does not appear to pass WP:PROF or to have any notability beyond that of his book." "As above, Hill has no notability independent of his book." Please see my more detailed reply to LuckyLouie above. I would like to understand why Charles Zimmerman is considered notable enough for a separate Wiki bio including for his research on the flying platform at Langley from 1950-1953, when Hill was his boss, made the research possible because of his own interest in it, contributed as least equally to it, and coauthored with Zimmerman and separately authored NACA technical reports on the research, three of which I have cited. Zimmerman's entire short bio is based almost entirely on NACA technical reports from the 1930s. Why don't Hill's approximately 30 NACA/NASA technical reports from 1940-1970 also count in a career more diverse than Zimmerman's? Similarly, I would like to know why British aerospace engineer Ron Ayers, with a similar, perhaps less impressive resume' than Hill's, is deserving of his own Wiki bio and meets notability requirements, but not Hill. Please also explain why Dr. Robert Brodsky, himself considered an aerospace pioneer, in his memoirs refers to Hill as one of the "great men" of aerodynamics in his day on a special advisory panel Brodsky assembled to figure out why their A-bomb designs were screwing up at Sandia Labs. I would think somebody like Brodsky, who actually knew Hill and obviously thought very highly of him from his book comments, felt him highly "notable," but people here who know nothing about Hill claim he is not. My point is that the "notability" standard here seems entirely arbitrary.

"...a properly neutral article on its subject is likely to be very difficult (therefore delete)." This is now getting ridiculous. Hill's career at NACA/NASA can and has been objectively verified right here. This is nothing but a matter of historical record. Why should there be any problems with neutrality on that? The ONLY thing that seems to be controversial are the views in his UFO book. Since when is it a proper Wiki rationale to delete matter simply because some of it is controversial? Clyde Tombaugh, Hermann Oberth, Michio Kaku, Gordon Cooper, Edgar Mitchell, and Peter Sturrock have also express controversial views on UFOs, but their career facts aren't in doubt. Should we delete their bios too because of their controversial UFO opinions?Dr Fil (talk) 01:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and put a mention in UFO article. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Low citation count. Abductive (reasoning) 03:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete without prejudice to recreation iff proper sources are found and used. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apache chemistry

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

PROD removed. Still no third-party, reliable coverage. No indication of importance due to non-existent coverage. — Timneu22 · talk 16:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, unless reliable sources can be found. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 11 January 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. -- Cirt (talk) 15:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ira Joe Fisher

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

no external sources or claims to notability Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:BIO, etc. Qworty (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to offer a very weak keep, given that he WAS a major weatherman in New York (the number one TV market in the US). Didn't know about his non-weather interests. Raymie (t • c) 05:03, 10 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) 16:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. What looked like two existing sources (the CBS bio and the New Hampshire recitation contest) in the article are really only one, since one is a close paraphrase of the other. But I added four more full-length articles entirely about him, from two different newspapers and a weekly magazine. It's enough to convince me of a pass of WP:GNG. It's also enough to make me wonder whether the previous participants in this discussion even tried clicking on the "news" link at the top of the AfD, per WP:BEFORE. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. I've greatly improved the quality of the sourcing; it includes full-length articles about him in the New York Times, New York Post, Cincinnati Magazine, and three local papers, as well as lesser but nontrivial coverage in a book, another NYT article, and IMDB. This seems well more than enough to pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Ironholds (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Huntley

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

Article doesnot meet Wikipedia requirement of Notability as per (WP:N) BurhanAhmed (talk • contribs) 04:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have renamed the article to Asylum case of Brandon Huntley. --Banana (talk) 06:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Weak delete. ~~Seems like a clear case of WP:1E to me.~~ See below. - htonl (talk) 23:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:1E applies to articles about people. I think the petition of asylum is notable, but not the person himself.--Banana (talk) 22:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose so. It suppose that, treated as an event, this meets the requirements of WP:GNG; on the other hand, I don't think it meets the level of lasting effects or in-depth coverage required by WP:EVENT. So my vote changes to "weak delete". - htonl (talk) 22:35, 8 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) 16:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment could this article be merged into Crime in South Africa, White South African, or Racism in Africa#Post apartheid racism? Apokrif (talk) 18:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe the depth of the coverage as well as the political effects of this satisfy WP:EVENT.--Banana (talk) 04:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BLP1E is the applicable WP:POLICY. Abductive (reasoning) 04:01, 18 January 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 consensus here is that the subject of the article is not notable, or if he is, it is only for one event. There's no clear and acceptable target for either a merge or redirect at the moment: see Rms125a@hotmail.com's question near the end of the discussion. If a suitable target arises, I would be happy to userfy content to be made use of in another article. This would not be inconsistent with the consensus here, which is that a separate article on the subject is not appropriate. Mkativerata (talk) 22:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jaroslaw Bilaniuk

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

A concentration camp guard - one of thousands - of no particular note - no evidence of special note or even of any involvement in any crimes at all. Unless all concentration camp guards are notable then he isn't. Off2riorob (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article does not really assert notability, or even say anything as to why this (now dead) person is important.Jaque Hammer (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)*[reply]

Keep: Obviously as the creator of the article I would vote to keep, but I think it is clearly notable. Numerous articles on concentration camp personnel in Wikipedia so that is not an issue, but added notability for having been denaturalized, which is pretty rare. If someone wants to listify people who have been stripped of their United States citizenship I could support that. That he is now dead (deceased) is irrelevant, unless we only keep articles on living people now. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep emphatic. Notable, documentable.--Galassi (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but an article about a bunch of these guys collectively, incorporating this person's info, would be acceptable. This particular individual doesn't seem notable but the phenomenon of people being stripped of citizenship due to wartime crimes is.Faustian (talk) 23:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The page is about one person, out of thousands. Unless the individual did something historic to make himself notable, then no... it's gotta go. Dusti^*poke* 00:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pursuit of Nazi collaborators, which oddly enough has subsections for many countries, but not the United States. Merge to List of denaturalized Americans. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't be merged until list is created. The ball is in your court. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Presto! Clarityfiend (talk) 03:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, pretty impressive. But then Bilaniuk remains as a redirect to your list, no? Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Canceling my lvote again, since Bilaniuk's denaturalization status is unknown. I'll vote for a redirect for Pilij though. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Er, I think you mean "Palij". Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come on. Lemme Pilij ... and lute and Bern. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously though, Palij's article is also at AfD and unless there is a shift in the vote trend will also be deleted or exist only as a redirect, so a redirect of Bilaniuk to Palij is highly unlikely. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 04:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both articles to a general article about denaturalization attempts against alleged ex-Nazis, or failing that delete. The topic is notable, but the individuals are not for lack of detailed coverage. Sandstein 06:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Jakiw Palij already made into a redirect to List of denaturalized Americans. However, Bilaniuk is not on the list due to questions regarding the finality of the denaturalization proceedings at the time of his death, and, thus the consequent ambiguities. So where should/can his article/info be merged to?? Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 15:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim to notability, per CSD#A7. The denaturalisation process was wp:oneevent at best (and that's being generous with only 21 google archive hitS). ^walk victor falk^talk 21:57, 19 January 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. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 06:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sangokujin

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

Violates WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is an obscure word in Japanese. Articles about non-Japanese people living in Japan are certainly worthy, in which this minor word could be mentioned. Jaque Hammer (talk) 15:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, ~~Wiktionary~~Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but this is not a dictionary definition. This is an article about a group of people, not about the word. It could be significantly improved but that is not a reason to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 18:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep the use of this particular word has received extensive coverage in press and scholarly literature. As you can see by comparing the wiktionary entry with the wikipedia entry the amount and kind of information in the article is very different from that in a dictionary. Francis Bond (talk) 01:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Calling for a WP:SNOW closure when you're only the second commenter is a trifle premature! Thryduulf (talk) 02:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It's now mostly about (use of) the word, but has obvious potential to grow to cover the group to whom the word is applied. —Tamfang (talk) 02:54, 12 January 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. Davewild (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Saunders (author)

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

Subject does not appear to satisfy WP:AUTHOR, WP:BIO or WP:GNG. A search of Google News archives, including all dates, using "Grace Saunders", turned up no hits that I could see for an author under this name. Non-notable author and journalist. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. Nothing in the article as it stands amounts to a claim of importance or significance. --Jayron32 16:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Jayron32 Dusti^*poke* 00:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hyland Language Centre

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

Self-promotional article about a language learning school that does not meet the criteria for inclusion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nom, blatantly promotional. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG, WP:NOTDIR, and is not a mainstream 11 - 18 high school or tertiary college per WP:WPSCH. Hyland is one of many high street language cram schools and accredited CELTA centres in Madrid. --Kudpung (talk) 02:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Some of the cited affiliations are neither awardsnor accreditations, they are merely paid-for memberships of TESOL organisations requiring no specific qualifications or standards for membership. --Kudpung (talk) 02:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spam. Abductive (reasoning) 03:39, 18 January 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. Davewild (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

American University of Mayonic Science and Technology

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

No indications that this for-profit educational institution has been the subject of significant independent coverage, as required by the criteria for inclusion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete besides lacking sources the article just about asserts the non-notability of its subject by saying the school does not seek accreditation. Mention the school in the article on the subject being taught or on the person who founded it. Jaque Hammer (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability or even independent references. Pol098 (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I thought schools were almost always kept? Even if notability isn't established? Dusti^*poke* 00:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accredited higher education institutions are presumed notable. This school is not accredited. Therefore it needs to pass WP:ORG/WP:CORP. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Schools (accredited or not) must pass WP:ORG. Most accredited colleges and universities do, but the criteria must be verifiably met. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 10:44, 11 January 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. Davewild (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yu Hwang-Wu

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

No indications that this article meets the criteria for inclusion. Cited references are all self-published press releases or blogs on CNN's "I-Report" service, a self-publishing initiative. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are too feeble. No general notability, certainly no academic notability apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Reluctant delete. I suspect that there may exist enough reliable sources in Korean to pass WP:GNG. This one, for instance, looks like it might be ok, though there is not much in it about him personally. But too many of the hits on Google news archive (for either the Latin or Hangul spellings of his name) appear to be either press releases or malware sites, and Google translate doesn't produce very readable text from Korean, so I can't be sure. And in its current state, with only primary sources, there is no reason to keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:41, 16 January 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 List of denaturalized Americans. Consensus is that the subject is only notable for one event. A merge has been suggested by a number of participants, but there is no clear proposal (what will be merged to where) that has received any support. The arguments for deletion are policy-based and enjoy consensus support. However, the redirect suggested is a viable option that is not inconsistent with the reasons to delete the article. No delete !voters have raised any objection to it, and in this case, redirection achieves the objectives of the delete !voters: removal of a separate article. So redirect it will be. No-one has raised any reason why deletion of the page's history behind the new redirect would be appropriate, but I am happy to consider any reasons to do so on my talk page. Mkativerata (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jakiw Palij

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

Article doesn't appear to assert any kind of note, an individual losing his citizenship is not in itself noteworthy - or any kind of test case or ground breaking legal descision - he appears not to have played any notable part in any crimes as such just failed to declare the detail. I prodded the article but it seems to have been at AFD previously and deleted and was recreated - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jakiw_Palij - article was the subject of a request at the BLPN also here. - Off2riorob (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination, appears to be a clear WP:BLP1E. ukexpat (talk) 15:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - being stripped of the US citizenship is unusual, notable and easily documentable.--Galassi (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Jaroslaw Bilaniuk in a joint article about the case. Their case is probably notable but they make no sense as two distinct bios containing redundant information. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is not possible per WP:COATRACK.--Galassi (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why? It seems that the Palij-Bilaniuk case is indeed a notable case, and a single article oughts to cover it. What coatrack are you talking about? (Besides, WP:COATRACK is just an essay: a very sensible one in some places, a very wrong one in others). --Cyclopia ^talk 22:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Jaroslaw Bilaniuk page also has a pending AFD, created January 10, 2011 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011), so merge is not really appropriate, as the page may be deleted completely. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(comment) I once worked with a number of displaced persons after WW2 that originally came from Eastern Europe: Poland, Latvia, Ukraine. A number were rabid anti-semites which you could provoke if you pressed the right buttons. Then again the Poles hated the Ukrainians, and the Ukrainians hated the Poles, and neither liked the Latvians, etc. They kept much to there own groups with an air of righteous hatred for the other groups. All appeared to have done whatever it took to survive and/or travel across Europe in various forced labour gangs, Except for one who eventually showed me a personal memoir of travel of walking across Europe (the exact country was never revealed) and being cold, shoeless, and begging for food. They were all fairly secretive above life during WW2 even with the memoir one had a feeling that a lot was being omitted. In over 18 years one only got snippets of information out of any of them. What I'm saying here is that some of them did terrible things, some willingly, others drafted or forced, and others were just part of labour gangs. All were secretive, and I'd surmise that if they got from where they were at the end of WW2 to the US or the UK, they were bound to have done something that they didn't want the authorities to know about. John lilburne (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting anecdote, but what's its relevance here? --Cyclopia ^talk 19:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The relevance is that there were a lot of people that made it from the Polish/Ukrainian area after the war to the West. Most were driven or fled westwards as the Soviet forces drove the Germans out of the area, some were nasty little shits and others were caught up in events. If there is evidence they should be deported back to where they can face trial. As with Demjanjuk there should be no Amnesty, let the law take its course. If the authorities aren't prepared to prosecute then all there is is rumours. That this person didn't declare his full involvement with the Nazis is not particularly unusual in the aftermath of WW2. John lilburne (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unlikely subject for any reader to seek information about. And WP does not have articles on everyone who has had citizenship revoked, which is a case of "otherstuffexists" at best. Collect (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but an article about a bunch of these guys collectively, incorporating this person's info, would be acceptable. This particular individual doesn't seem notable but the phenomenon of people being stripped of citizenship due to wartime crimes is.Faustian (talk) 23:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I think the topic is notable but not the individuals involved. --Kumioko (talk) 00:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While it's a sad story in itself, what makes the man himself inherintly notable? He lost citizenship for not disclosing information, was found guilty but not deported, and died? This doesn't fail WP:BLP because the guy isn't living, but I really don't see a need for a seperate article here. Dusti^*poke* 00:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as an example into the relevant section of the Trawniki article. John lilburne (talk) 13:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect: (Caveat: I created the page). Still hold he is notable for the sum of his actions, life story and stripping of U.S. citizenship. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Complete deletion is not appropriate anyway in light of inclusion in the List of denaturalized Americans which would mean that if article is not kept name should be a redirect to the list, created today. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - looks like BLP1E from here. Qrsdogg (talk) 20:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of denaturalized Americans. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:38, 12 January 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. I'm definitely not seeing a consensus for deletion here. The prospect of a merge was proffered by the nominator and those supporting keeping might be okay with that, but there isn't consensus for that either. Decisions about what to do next can be made via the normal editing process. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guru.com

AfDs for this article:

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

Article about a very minor company that has had insufficient press coverage to write a proper article, and therefore fails WP:CORP. Jehochman ^Talk 14:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added some additional notes on the orignal company along with significant press coverage from sources such as a 7 page article in Inc, an article from the Portland Business Journal and a mention from Paul Saffo in the Washington Post. Add this to the existing cited media coverage from BusinessWeek, the San Francisco Chronicle and a Salon article and I think this article does meet the notability requirements. 77.99.132.140 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: the most recent of the thin sources is 7 years old, too little for an article. Dewritech (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article really deals with two companies, that happen to have the same name. The original company Guru Inc was found in San Francisco in 1999 and acquired in 2003. So its appropriate that the sources that deal with it are from a decade ago. The Inc magazine article alone is a very substantial piece entirely devoted to the founding of the company. The San Francisco Chronicle article is again a substantial piece that is primarily about the company. Both of these are reliable, printed, secondary sources that meet WP:RS. These together with the other, lesser, sources seem to reach all the requirements of WP:CORP, as far as I can see. 77.99.132.140 (talk) 16:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - You might be right in part. What is the other company? An appropriate result may be to merge this article into the article about the other company. Jehochman ^Talk 14:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 2 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, Davewild (talk) 19:01, 9 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 77.99.132.140. The article can be improved but certainly meets standards for inclusion with the new sources. (In this case, the age of the sources is irrelevant.) --Pnm (talk) 03:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Unicru, the company that acquired Guru.com in 2002. It would be much better to put all the information in one place, because both articles are very short. Jehochman ^Talk 14:29, 17 January 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. Davewild (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Klonaridis

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY as the player has not competed in a professional league match (which would be the Superleague Greece in this case). Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 11:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 11:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Good find. Delete per nom. Spiderone 18:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 19:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Recreate when/if the athlete becomes notable in the future. Kugao (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Having never appeared for AEK's first team, he fails WP:NSPORT. He also fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:22, 16 January 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. Davewild (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Up (Justin Bieber song)

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

no expansion on why this song is significant enough to warrant its own article Transcendence (talk) 10:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article has just been created. Maybe we shouldn't bite the newbies ? --Ezhuks (talk) 11:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a slightly tricky song to Google, but I can't see any evidence of it yet having reached a high chart position, or one any awards, sufficient to satisfy WP:NSONGS. I will gladly change my vote if anyone can find something I have missed. Oh, and nominating an article that has no references and no claims to notability or importance is not biting the newcomers. Articles can be drafted in userspace and should only be moved to mainspace when they have at least the minimum information required to satisfy the WP:GNG. If there is no sign of the article creator making immediate improvements to the article, then I don't see why anyone should feel under any obligation to hold off on dealing with it on its merits.--Korruski^Talk 11:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NSONGS. Not a single, no significance otherwise. Tarc (talk) 14:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NSONGS Doesn't belong on as it's own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Breawycker (talk • contribs) 15:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete didn't chart, no sources, WP:PUTEFFORT, unlikely to be used as a redirect. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dusti^*poke* 01:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 11 January 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. Not transwikied as it has sourcing issues and may contain WP:SYNTH. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Portagee

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

"Portagee" is a slang word for "Portuguese" used in some parts of the USA. Not a suitable topic for a WP article due to WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Jaque Hammer (talk) 08:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this article describes the usage and history of a word, which is the province of dictionaries. Powers ^T 02:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary, which is a dictionary, but which doesn't have an entry for this word. Thryduulf (talk) 18:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Dictionary definition of slang phrase. Carrite (talk) 00:37, 13 January 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 CSD G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thodoris Moschonas). The new version of the article did nothing to address the issues leding to deletion last time, and there is no point in wasting everybody's time on another discussion. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Theodoros Moschonas

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

Moving to AfD as an IP recently deleted the Prod. I agree with Soccer-holic's prod which states: "Fails WP:NFOOTY as the player has not competed in a professional league match (which would be the Superleague Greece in this case". --Gnowor^T_C 08:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. J Mo 101 (talk) 10:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. J Mo 101 (talk) 10:30, 10 January 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 Expatriates in the United Arab Emirates. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 06:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Danes in the United Arab Emirates

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

if all the article really states there are 2000 Danes in UAE (which is a tiny fraction of the total 5 million ie 0.04%, there really isn't much going and I don't see this article meeting WP:GNG. any useful information can be contained in Denmark – United Arab Emirates relations. I've moved the population figure into there now. LibStar (talk) 08:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the nominator's WP:NOTBIGENOUGH fallacy notwithstanding --- I don't see any evidence that the coverage of this topic in reliable sources meets the standard of "multiple" and "non-trivial" per WP:N. News about embassy reopenings, Danish capital being invested in the UAE, individual Danish citizens in the UAE, or statements by consular officials about world events with slim relation to the UAE ([23], the only other potential source I could find) are generally off-topic or cannot be generalised to the topic of the Danish community as a whole, and don't contribute to the development of this Wikipedia article. cab (call) 02:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

as I said any relevant info can be placed in Denmark – United Arab Emirates relations. A tiny expat population is hardly going to generate much coverage unless they do something very significant or controversial. LibStar (talk) 02:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article creators should be admonished to concentrate on improving the existing stubs they have created about dozens of minor groups in the UAE and South Asia, rather than striving to create even more of these uninformative articles just to fill up templates. cab (call) 02:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

agree with above statement. LibStar (talk) 02:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to ~~and create~~ Expatriates in the United Arab Emirates. Obviously the UAE has an extensive expat community and all of this micro stubs should be merge and redirected to an article on them. The information is useful but I do not see it passing WP:GNG.--TM 18:21, 11 January 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. Davewild (talk) 08:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chile–Pakistan relations

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

a country pairing with not even a medium level relationship. many have argued that trade is a good indicator, well trade is less than USD70 million which is about 0.03% of Chile's GDP. in other words Chile is not reliant on Pakistan for trade. whilst the cited article goes on about boosting trade, it says nothing about any meaningful trade at the moment, nor do the countries have any trade agreements. article cites Pakistanis in Chile number 200 which is pitifully small in a country of 17 million. the discussion of a Pakistani arrested or place names after each other is stretching it for bilateral relations. those wanting to keep should provide evidence of actual indepth coverage and not just say "as per economic relations." LibStar (talk) 07:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chile-Pakistan relationship are still developing

Chile-Pakistan relationship are new and still developing. Chilean mining companies have already invested billions of US$ in Pakistan mining projects, once these projects are completed, it will generate revenue in 10s of billions of US$,. The limited people traffic between the countries is because of the very vast geographical distance between the two countries. Though Pakistanis make a very tiny portion of the Chilean population, you also need to see that there are just 4,000 Muslims living in Chile. The figure of 200 Pakistanis apply for 2005, latest figures for 2011 can run as high as possibly 250. Pakistani community also owns a mosque in Iquique. Now given the small size of Muslims in Chile, these numbers make an important representation of Muslims in Chile. Chile also recently recognised the Palestinian state, see http://www.jta.org/news/article/2011/01/09/2742457/chile-recognizes-palestinian-state Now given that the Palestinian issue has strong prominence in OIC, of which Pakistan is a lead member, see Pakistan-OIC relations, these are all significant developing relationship.

The Pakistan-Chile developing relationship are most evident from the fact that Chile is considering to open an embassy in Islamabad, see my main article for reference, whereas Pakistan embassy in Chile was only opened in 2008.

Also I want to know, why Pakistan-Chile article is being considered for deletion, but the Chile–Israel relations enjoys better privilage, even though the Chile–Israel relations cites no trade links, no reference for military links, no Chilean investment in Israel, and zero Israelis living in Chile.

Whats better, 200 Pakistanis living in Chile, or 0 Israelis living in Chile? Just because 0 Israelis live in Chile, would you delete the Chile-Israel relations page?

LibStar, as I can see, you are also one of the author of the Chile-Israel relations page. How do you justify page written by you?

(Jalal0 (talk) 13:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Response to above

there is no evidence billions have been invested, companies say they may invest but have yet to. You can't project future notability as per WP:CRYSTAL
Chile–Israel relations see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you don't think it's notable feel free to nominate it.
Pakistan-OIC relations is irrelevant here as Chile is not an OIC country.

LibStar (talk) 13:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response According to the FT article, see http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1df0dad6-0145-11df-8c54-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1AdZfyurh, the deal between Pakistan and Chile’s Antofagasta and Canada’s Barrick Gold was worth US$3 billion. (Jalal0 (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

[rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/12/28/chilean-senator-calls-local-jews-israeli-agents/ this article] says there are 15,000 Jews in Chile, that's substantially more than Pakistanis in Chile. LibStar (talk) 13:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response

All Jews are not Israelis, nor are all Israelis Jews. Anyway the article you cited is a blog page, and therefore considered an unreliable piece of information. The OIC discussion is relevant, because non-OIC countries use pro-Islamic political policies (in this case recognition of Palestine) to gain wider and friendly diplomatic and trade deals with Muslim (OIC) countries. And we all know that Pakistan is a key OIC member. (Jalal0 (talk) 13:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

non-OIC countries use pro-Islamic political policies (in this case recognition of Palestine) to gain wider and friendly diplomatic and trade deals with Muslim (OIC) countries is synthesis on your part. As for the article yes it's a blog but I can guarantee there are more Jews than Pakistanis in Israel. Secondly, all Jews have a connection to Israel, and most qualify by heritage for an Israeli passport. Thirdly, the Israeli Government will strongly defend Jewish interests worldwide. LibStar (talk) 14:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

if you do a search here mfa.gov.il/MFA/Treaties/Amanot.htm you will see Israel has 9 agreements with Chile including a trade agreement. How many does Pakistan have with Chile? LibStar (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yet another non-notable X-Y relations article. Trade and routine diplomatic contacts are not out-of-the-ordinary. Tarc (talk) 14:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It meets the Wikipedia threshold for coverage. Using artificial markers like trade and embassies doesn't work. There is minimal trade between North Korea, Cuba, and Iran and the US. Just stick to reliable sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

that's a strawman argument. there are particular reasons why US has notable relations with Cuba, North Korea, Iran because of long standing hostile political tensions and sanctions. LibStar (talk) 00:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While there will doubtless be a number of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT complaints voiced about this "X-Y Relations" article, the fact is that this article meets notability guidelines based on current sourcing. Presentation is factual and informative and encyclopedic in tone. Esoteric, but worthy of retention. Carrite (talk) 01:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Pakistan clearly values Chilean relations and I'd say it passes mildly WP:GNG with multiple, non-trivial reports of the relations.--TM 02:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's reliable coverage that matters, and as far as that is concerned, I don't see why this article would fail. Pakistan also maintains an embassy which further proves that contact between both countries is fairly visible. Let's not just judge the book by its cover or engage in synthesis such as how many Pakistanis there are in Chile, or how many Jews there are in Chile, what connection they maintain to Israel or how X is better than Y, vice versa to prove the point. Mar4d (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

migration is another indicator of relations. there are very little Pakistanis in Chile compared to the total population of 17 million. that is a fact. it's also stretching it to say it's significant because they are a higher percentage of the small Muslim population in Chile. LibStar (talk) 02:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This topic and others like it are not nearly so trivial as some would think. It certainly shouldn't be deleted. This one even has a good amount of substantial references. SteveStrummer (talk) 03:27, 13 January 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 Yeshivas Rabbeinu Yisrael Meir HaKohen#Affiliates and branches. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mesivta of Roslyn

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

While schools have a certain amount of "inherent notability" in Wikipedia, this is a defunct school that only existed for 10 years. It had no (as per a quick search) news coverage or notable alumni. Joe407 (talk) 20:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect in very abbreviated form to Yeshivas Rabbeinu Yisrael Meir HaKohen#Affiliates and branches its parent institution. IZAK (talk) 00:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Highschools, and especially colleges, are generally accepted as inherently notable.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noted this in my nomination. It is a defunct highschool that was a branch of Yeshivas Rabbeinu Yisrael Meir HaKohen. I'm starting to like IZAK's suggestion. Joe407 (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Joe, that's why I already prepared the groundwork here. Quite often there are valid AfD's but they would result in the loss of some key information and that is why I often favor the "Merge and Redirect" solution that in effect facilitates the AfD but by the same token preserves a key piece of information or two that can be gleaned from a below par article and should and can be preserved in another directly related article. IZAK (talk) 10:07, 9 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, Sandstein 06:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect per IZAK. A reasonable solution. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with IZAK. רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 06:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect - if it does not exist it can't be notable. Kudpung (talk) 16:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between "it does not exist" and "it no longer exists". The latter certainly can be notable for Wikipedia purposes. Mandsford 17:40, 19 January 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. Davewild (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rice King

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

Dubious notability, no sources. Another editor tried to nominate but didn't finish the job. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 06:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I was distracted before I could finish the nomination. The notability probably is too low for the article to exist, and the article has numerous problems anyway. --P C B 00:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a quick look through the major restaurant publication offers nothing on this chain. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 11 January 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 but merge. Normally I would just redirect it and advise that content can be pulled form the page history for a merge, but the intended target is itself a redirect to Breast implant, so it seems that article, this one, and possibly Breast ironing should all be merged into an omnibus article on the subject at Breast augmentation. I would add that the nominator ought to know better than to make such a useless, unhelpful nomination statement that does not cite any policy, or anything at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thailand breast slap

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

...no. Just, no. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I initially laughed at the idea of this, but it actually appears to have made national news coverage. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - largely unsourced, unencyclopedic garbage. 'News' coverage is limited to titillating (if you'll pardon) sections in the British Independent. Big whoop - Alison ^❤ 08:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep You would expect at least a little coverage in google books to substantiate and expand upon what the news discusses, even if it was cheesy pseudoscience books, but there's nothing. And the scant amount of news coverage is really not enough to justify keeping the article. Is there a possible redirect target? If not, then outright deletion is the only option here. Silver seren^C 10:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources below have changed my mind to Weak Keep. If one more source can be found that has more than a paragraph on the subject, i'll change to full Keep. Silver seren^C 20:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely better sources found now. Changed to full Keep. Silver seren^C 20:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the article states, the Thai government has endorsed this procedure, pseudoscientific though it is. That in and of itself is enough to make this notable. There are almost certainly going to be lots of Thai-language sources and news articles that could be used. Stonemason89 (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a horrid approach to article writing. If you are going to write about a foreign subject then make a bit of effort to find sources yourself. People around these parts scream "WP:BEFORE WP:BEFORE WP:BEFORE WP:BEFORE!" to those proposing article deletions, so how about a little bit of a push in the opposite direction; don't make vague hand-waves at "sources that may be out there somewhere" in the subject's native language. If you can't be bothered to do it, then don't write the article for the English Wikipedia in the first place. Tarc (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then where are these Thai sources? Google News, Books, and Scholar gives nothing on the subject. A general web search just gives a bunch of blogs and unreliable sources. If you say that these sources are over the place out there, then you should be able to link us to some, right? Silver seren^C 18:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources, thus failing the WP:GNG. Tarc (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment [updated to KEEP]: Finding Thai news sources is always a challenge because translations are difficult (there always are multiple possibilities), so I don't know what "Thai Breast Slap" was translated from. One blogpost I saw from 2008 dates the procedure back at least to 2003 (in terms of government approval), so I'm not convinced its just garbage because it sounds silly.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2001 source from google books seems to confirm identity of inventor (not sure if source discusses the procedure from only a snip):, "One Thai breast therapist, Khemika na Songkhla, believes that breasts, being the symbol of feminity, should be big: "Smart women should consider breast enhancement. Women are like cars. After years of use. the car needs some repair".[24]--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inane analogy fail on the part of that therapist. :rollseyes: - Alison ^❤ 19:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hehe, i knew someone would like that quote.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other sources (will edit to add to this comment if more found) [25] (possible trans. from a thai paper - uses term "breast pat"); *freep link (blacklisted forum): www.free[removethis]republic.com/focus/f-news/841844/posts* (purported 2003 article in Bangkok times, refers to "breast massaging" for same technique); [26] ("Slap on back improves bust"- confirmed June 6, 2001 article in Thai paper "The Nation"); [27] (forum copying purported 2003 article in The Independent) [28] 2007 german article in de:Der_Freitag about process and meeting Khemika; [29] (I am pretty sure bantobnom.com is the main site for Khemika, it has screen shots of tons of thai press stories about the procedure)... --Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The bouncing breasts on the "official" website made me laugh pretty hard. Silver seren^C 20:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure its official, because there's an english version too and it discusses cost, etc. I have also found youtube clips of the woman appearing on Thai news shows[30][31] (demonstration on a mannequin included). I know the article and topic is somewhat absurd, but this procedure appears to have received significant coverage in thai press over the last 10 years.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to the society and culture section of breast augmentation as one of the many ways people try to enlarge there breasts. Not sufficiently notable for its own article.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Currently, there is no breast augmentation article; the term is just a redirect to breast implant. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into breast augmentation, per Doc James. I understandd it is currently a redirect, but it should not be so. Augmentation and implants are different albeit intertwined subjects. Obviously breast augmentation should then be "augmented" with the other prevalent methods.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So your vote is that this should be merged to breast augmentation and that breast augmentation should be turned into its own page? Silver seren^C 01:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Sorry if that wasn't clear.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to breast augmentation. Seems like a fly-by-night oddity with little solid verification. Enough to add as a side fact in the aforementioned article for sure, but not enough for its own stub. Steven Walling 00:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per Doc James above. When the results of the study come out we'll maybe get more RS. -- Brangifer (talk) 09:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Expand per Doc James et al. As an aside, can we just call this something like "Breast Slapping"? The current name sounds like a service you would pay for in Bangkok... -- RoninBK _{T C} 12:15, 17 January 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 SNOW Keep. Step hen 01:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stray animals in Indian airports

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

Declined an inappropriate speedy on this one, and bringing to a wider audience to determine whether this phenomenon is worthy of an article. Step hen 05:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As described by Indo-Asian News Service, it is a general phenomenon common at Indian airports [32]. "Animals on runway, it’s usual in India" Major mainstream media in India and even international media have noted stray animals pose significant problem in Indian runways. Neptune 123 (talk) 05:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Neptune's points. The article could stand a better title though. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since it seems to be notable. Kitfoxxe (talk) 08:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment probably a keeper, but "Stray animals at Indian airports" would probably convey the meaning better. The subject is the danger of animals that stray on to the runways, posing a significant threat to safety. My first impression was that this would be something inside the terminal. Mandsford 00:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Stray animals at Indian airports. --Neptune 123 (talk) 01:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. Clearly meets WP:RS, but title seems like a lightning rod. I think the best existing merge candidate would be Transport in India#Aviation. Haus^Talk 01:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Transport_in_India#Aviation is a brief overview of aviation in India, so merging this content will be problematic as it will consume most of the space. As it is a significant phenomenon in India, a separate article will be good. --Neptune 123 (talk) 02:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without merging Neptune's argument against merger is convincing. The presence of multiple reliable sources directly addressing the topic, when combined with many useful tangential reliable sources, is a demonstration that we should have an article on this topic. Nyttend (talk) 04:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep without merging - the topic is notable on its own and has enough GNG directly relating to it.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. SNOW? Stonemason89 (talk) 11:13, 11 January 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. Davewild (talk) 07:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

McKenna Gibson Band

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

Poorly sourced Vanispamcruftisement article about a non-notable musical group. Fails WP:CREATIVE Dolovis (talk) 05:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete actually WP:BAND applies here. nothing in gnews [33]. LibStar (talk) 08:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Northvegr Foundation

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

Article serves solely as an advertisement for a non-notable site hosting widely available public ___domain material :bloodofox: (talk) 05:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete [Full disclosure - I have translated for and advised an alternative resource site on what heathens know as "the lore."] I did a thorough online search drawing on my knowledge of names of people involved with Northvegr, and found nothing demonstrating notability under Wikipedia's terms. The site is not only referenced but discussed in blogs and on mailing lists and forums, and was in still more that have now been taken down; but none of these qualify as reliable sources. Its online versions of texts are referenced in numerous books, some of them scholarly; but all of those references that I can find are simply using the URL to cite the text. Moreover, those links and the mainpage link in the article are now broken: the website has been relaunched under new ownership under the name New Northvegr Center, which also claims to be a private educational foundation but is apparently physically located in the UK and therefore should not be assumed to be a successor and simply included in the article (2009, now at www.northvegr.org - an announcement of this appears in a similar range of pagan places online). There is no usable material on Northvegr Foundation itself, and nor could I find reliable sources on its 2 founders under any of the names they have used that are known to me, or reliable sources on the books one of them published. Just internal heathen and other pagan references. Also, Northvegr transcribed at least some of its texts and some of those citing them note errors, which mitigates against any argument that the site was notable as a repository of texts. Recognizing that notability does not expire, I still do not see any evidence that the Northvegr Foundation can be shown to be notable using reliable sources, and its claim using entirely pagan and heathen sources is weak in my judgement. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no secondary sources exist on the topic. Abductive (reasoning) 04:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 07:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Smith (ice hockey)

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

Disputed prod on the basis of meeting WP:NHOCKEY #4. The USHL is not a major junior league in comparison to those in Canada. Consensus in the past indicates the NCAA is the highest amateur competition in the United States, and therefore, NHOCKEY refers to the CHL in Canada, NCAA in the US. Grsz 11 04:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —DJSasso (talk) 12:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: This player was a USHL First Team All-Star. As such, this article explicitly meets criteria #4 of WP:NHOCKEY which states that a "first team all-star ... in a major junior league" is presumed to be notable. In North America the major junior leagues include the WHL, OHL, QMJHL, and the USHL. Case closed. Dolovis (talk) 04:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Most would disagree in labeling the USHL as major junior, and that's the issue here. Simply, it's not. NCAA first team all-stars would fall under this. Here is a recent discussion of the issue. Grsz 11 04:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You failed to point out that your so-called recent discussion of the issue failed to reach a consensus. I suggest that you wait to see what "most" others might, or might not, agree with. Dolovis (talk) 05:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My proposal was to include the USHL. That's what wasn't accepted. Therefore, USHL is not included under #4. No reason to act that way, as I was for including USHL in the first place, others were not, and now this AfD is based on that consensus. Grsz 11 05:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, he was proposing to add it and did not have consensus, which would mean there was consensus that it did not count. -DJSasso (talk) 12:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the consensus that USHL first all star team members do not meet WP:NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 12:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'd suggest, for instance, that the popular perception of the USHL's skill level is fueled by the fact that many USHL players go on to play NCAA hockey. Ravenswing 15:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I suggest that the above comments on skill level demonstrate an anti-American bias. If notability were based on skill level then we should not have articles about all those minor league European players (DEL, ect.). The Fact is that the USHL is the highest level of Major Junior hockey in the United States, and only the very best player at his position is named to the 6 man all-star team each year. If USHL is excluded from the ranks of WP:NHOCKEY, then it would have been explicitly deleted, but it wasn't because their was no consensus reached to do so. Dolovis (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually my comment has nothing to do with skill, but is about press coverage. In terms of press coverage, the USHL winners receive little to no coverage. Big press coverage for amateur hockey in the united states goes to NCAA hockey. As such its the NCAA that is the equivalent to major-junior hockey, not the USHL. As for you labelling it a fact that the USHL is major-junior hockey, that is your opinion and you are welcome to have it. But as you saw in previous discussions, that isn't even remotely universally accepted. It didn't have to have consensus to be deleted because it was never added, because there was no consensus that it was major-junior. -DJSasso (talk) 15:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem. Perhaps you should drop in on my user page, which would tell you in what part of the world I live. That being said, however difficult the concept is to grasp, there are indeed many Wikipedians who base their stances on Wikipedia rules and guidelines, and who come to those conclusions without reference to biases or malice. Ravenswing 18:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I have never understood the reasoning why some refer to the USHL as the top level of amateur hockey in the United States. The USHL is quite literally on par with the Canadian Junior Hockey League and its 10 associated leagues, both in terms of skill and development path. The purpose of the USHL is to serve as a feeder league to the NCAA, much like how players in Canada play junior "A" hockey as opposed to major junior to keep their NCAA eligibility. Don't forget that nine of the sixty teams in the Canadian Hockey League are American, and it is well established that the CHL is meant to serve both Canadian and American players, although more often than not, American players tend to lean towards the NCAA route. So, two points. 1) The assertion above that the USHL is the top level of major junior hockey in the United States is incorrect. In reality the CHL is the highest level of major junior hockey in the United States, and this is doubly demonstrated by the CHL's inclusion of American teams, and the fact that each state's players—like each province's players—are restricted to one of the three leagues for their respective drafts. 2) The highest level of fully amateur hockey in the United States (as the CHL is not technically "amateur") is indeed the NCAA, quite literally the American equivalent of the CHL in terms of skill and development. Think of it this way: most NCAA rosters consist mainly of Americans with a few Canadian players while most CHL rosters consist mainly of Canadians with a few American players. So to answer the question this AfD poses, no the subject is not notable because his league is not included in WP:NHOCKEY and he has not otherwise achieved WP:GNG. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 18:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If he was a first-rounder, that would be enough for a keep. But a fourth-rounder? Not so much. Nothing in his college career as of yet indicates enough for an article. Blueboy 96 21:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Appears to pass WP:NHOCKEY as this reference supports that the USHL is a “major” junior league comparable to those of the Canadian Hockey League. That he passes WP:GNG is supported by [34], [35], and [36]. Kugao (talk) 19:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The "source" that you say shows that the USHL is a 'major' junior league is simply a listing of rated prospects, and is published by the USHL. It is hardly independent or convincing. Secondly, of the other three sources, the first two are trivial routine coverage, and the third is borderline. I don't see enough to pass WP:GNG. Ravendrop (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The USHL's own website, the local county weekly and Some Website count as "reliable, independent sources?" Ravenswing 23:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 02:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KCL Radio

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

Non-notable student radio club. No broadcast license, no transmitter, not even a closed circuit feed or an online broadcast. Currently producing podcasts only. Sources are largely connected to the subject. Hairhorn (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Also seems to be largely dominated by edits of User:Kungfujam (who even gave out his cell phone in an edit to call if there were issues – if his name is James, there are a couple of James with COIs to the subject) and User:Radiofran (from the article, a Francesca Allfrey was involved in its founding). Raymie (t • c) 04:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources to establish notability. Mattg82 (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to be a licensed over-the-air broadcaster originating some of its own programming, so fails the defacto standard for automatic keep in afds recently. A random student activity lacking significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources does not satisfy notability or WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 04:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Licencing for full online broadcast being accredited this week. Current PPL licence held under the name The Pod (currently being renewed). Member of the Student radio association. Live broadcast will available from March. King's College London is one of the top 25 Universities in the world according to the Times and it has not ever before had a radio station unlike most other universities, this is interesting information. What is the difference between the notability of King's College Radio notability and, say, Imperial College radio, CUR1350 (Cambridge radio) and UCL radio (RARE FM)? Should consider keeping in line with WikiProject London and WikiProject Radio Stations. Any suggestions of second hand sources KCL Radio could reference, or indeed any university club or society? Advice appreciated, don't want to waste your time. Kungfujam (talk) 23:27, 11 January (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.124.69 (talk)
Delete Virtually all of the article appears "advert", "News release", and "Peacock". Remove these and very little of it would remain or be notable. If its circumstance is to be elevated after March, perhaps consider reinstating it later in the year, without the blatant promotion of course.Acabashi (talk) 05:58, 13 January 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) 15:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blueverse

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

A well referenced article (hence a speedy decline) that doesn't suggest great notability for a social network site for people with disabilities. Step hen 02:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't agree that this is a "well referenced article". There are 21 "references", but the substantial majority of them are links to pages that don't even mention Blueverse, and the few that do mention it are not independent sources, or only briefly mention it, or both. Thus the article gives no evidence of notability. It also reads, to me at least, as promotional. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

I came across this article after being notified on BlueVerse. I am associated with the charity and am on the network. I wanted to contribute - and my apologies if I did not make it acceptably neutral. I've tried very hard to be even, though I know I'm enthusiastic.
I know Wikipedia is an essential resource for any internet user, and I think a wikipedia entry for the network is important because of how vulnerable people with disabilities can be on the net. I added and edited because I want fellow potential members who want to research to network to have an even place to do it - not just the charity's website.
I guess this means I have a vested interest in the article. I think we should make any neutral edits might be desired by Wikipedia. Again, my goal is a place where a potentail fellow BlueVerse member can do some research. I put some stuff about the reasoning behind the network because it's also important information, and often isn't circulated. It seems relevant to me.
The network just opened, so I'm sure the kind of coverage Wikipedia wants to further prove Notability will surface soon. With all of this said, I am asking, in Wiki-speak, not to demolish this house while it is still being built. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.153.41 (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete The article is not well referenced. Most of the reference links given simply ref that people with disabilities exist, which has nothing to do with the website. No notability established whatsoever. Travelbird (talk) 04:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep *I started this article because it is a notable topic for people with disabilities. As I am aware that some of you may not have the same frame of reference as people with disabilities. That is why I had made the community aware of the creation of the article so that we can get a neutral point of view on this social network and provide an encyclopedic outlook on the organization behind it, in order for people to learn more about what they are actually supporting. There has been a lot of changes to what I had originally posted, So I think this is a great thing. I invite anyone to help improve the article and make it more neutral and encyclopedic. I have added a few more reliable third party sources such as the NY Post, and the Villanovan that talk directly about the Organization and their Network which I believe is a good start and will continue to add more as I get more time to research. As you are all aware WP:TIND There is no finished version expected soon, and it is perfectly acceptable to let the editing process fashion an article up to the standards eventually. Also I commend whoever, wrote the Social Networking for people with Disabilities section, I think this is a great place to have that sort of information since there will most likely never be an independent article accepted and approved about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaminglegends (talk • contribs) 05:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reliable secondary sources whatsoever. Abductive (reasoning) 04:08, 18 January 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. Consensus that the improved article meets the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paulo Pires

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

I cannot find any more information regarding Mr. Pires. He doesn't appear to notable other then to have appeared in Portuguese shows reported on IMDB. Phearson (talk) 16:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yup... this actor does not seem at all notable in the United States. But in looking at possible sources, it seems he meets WP:GNG through coverage[37] and meets WP:ENT though numerous significant roles in multiple notable productions.[38] Being notable to Portugal is fine with en.Wikipeda. I request Portugese Wikipedians come forward with translated sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was the host of a television show on the SIC Portuguese TV channel, and appeared on several soap operas, the last one winning an award. Comte0 (talk) 22:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kinda Meaningless if nothing is on the article Itsself, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phearson (talk • contribs) 05:48, December 28, 2010
Then we sure might hope Portugese-reading Wikipedians can help. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, rather than just hope Portuguese-speaking Wikipedians stumble across this discussion before it's closed, I've specifically requested their attention at the Portuguese-speaking Wikipedians' notice board.[39] Thryduulf (talk) 00:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I read Portuguese, but there are so many "foreign" articles that Anglocentrism on Wikipedia is consigning to oblivion that I'm afraid I have to pass on this invitation. Wikipedia needs to work out what it wants to do about purging content from non-core contributor communities. For anyone capable of appreciating the potential merit of a wider selection of articles and contributors, reading through AfDs becomes an exercise in chasing down a conveyor belt. Opbeith (talk) 23:04, 2 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} 02:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Correct me if I'm wrong, but this sub-stub fails BLPPROD. No cited assertions. It doesn't give enough context to understatnd why he's important. Hasteur (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the improvement Schmidt has done I notice ~~the plethora~~amount of redlinks that ~~splatter~~are on the page. Most of these look like items that are not likely to have articles created for them. Article is now largely a info dump of what he's been in. If we strip away that all we're left with is a flowery description of what he's been in. Still not demonstrating notability for EN wikipedia. I'm plenty sure he's notable in the Portuguese version. I stand by my Delete assertion on this AFD. Hasteur (talk) 02:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plethora? Splatter? Dump? Unhelpful hyperbole. The improvement work is ongoing to address the nominator's concerns. Its not "done" yet... and more has been done since your comment and more remains to be done... by editors actually willing to work toward the article's improvement. That certain Portugese films and television series are current redlinks, is fine with en.Wikipedia, as redlinks are intended to encourage new content.. and though they can always be removed if no one wishes to create aricles of these notable Portugese films and programs, a film or program with a reseaonable presumption of notability, even if only in Portugal, is just fine with en.Wikipedia in others seeing that this individual's prolific work for some 20 years easily meets WP:ENT... even if no one were to make any effort to build these articles in helping to curb the unfortunate systemic bias inherent in en.Wikiedia. JJust the tip of the iceberg is found in this individual being in 251 episodes of the notable Deixa-me Amar (redlink or no), in 237 episodes of the notable Olhos nos Olhos (redlink or no), and 348 episodes of Meu Amor (Oops. We have an article for this one!) His winning a Portugese Golden Globe is simply icing on the cake. Finding sources for a Portugese notable might take some effort, but the need for a little work is no reason to delete an article that can be improved with regular editing. Stick with your delete if you wish, but I'm sure a closer will notice the ongoing improvements... and explain in his close that per both guideline AND policy, notability in Portugal is fine for en.Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:NOTDIR. From WP:REDLINK In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there exists no candidate article, or article section, under any name. From what I can tell, most of the shows the actor appeared in are Telenovelas which means they're only on for about a year maximum (except in the case where it gets expanded to soap opera qualities). The Variety reference is 2 passing mentions and not substantial to the article. Please read Wikipedia:References#Non-English_sources and see that he still is lacking substantial sources in the Engligh Project space. His notability is beyond question in the Portugese, Spanish, and possibly German projects (as his wife is from Austria if I read the translation page correctly). In response to your claim of systemic bias in EN wikipedia I would point you at Wikipedia:Systemic_bias#Biographies. This CSD has been relisted twice and been on the Portugal, Actors, and People related discussion lists (in some cases since the 26th of December). How much longer should we hold for a group of qualified users to step forward and agree that this article's Foreign Language references do qualify the subject for notability on EN wikipedia. I note that the spanish and portugese versions of the article appear to contain just the descriptive highlights portion of the article and not the info dump that could easily be handled by an external link to the actor's IMDB profile page. Hasteur (talk) 15:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would also invite you to strike your assumption of bad faith on my part. I will admit that I chose some of those words to put a specific view on the page. Hasteur (talk) 15:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've translated the article from Portuguese Wikipedia where he's identified as a Portuguese Golden Globe winner but I'm certainly not going to be bothered to waste time sourcing if this is going to be trashed anyway. Opbeith (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the notable Portugese Golden Globe Award is compelling of notability. Still needs more sources though, if Opbeith might assist. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Since the last comments of January 10, expansion and sourcing have begun... and continues. And while yes, English speakers/readers like myself are handicapped by most sources being in Portugese, progress IS being made. The 2-sentence stub that was first nominated is looking far better, even though incomplete. I hope the nominator will see that his concerns are being addressed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This Golden Globe: TEATRO: Personalidade do Ano: Paulo Pires. [40] seems to indicate an unambiguos keep. (Msrasnw (talk) 16:20, 17 January 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 Last Train to Paris. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 06:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Angels (Diddy-Dirty Money song)

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

You'll see from the article history that I've tried hard to expand this article but its been near impossible. The only thing which establishes the song as notable, is its two chart positions which can only be verified through billboard.biz subscription. It hardly seems worth having an independent article per WP:NSONGS. Suggest 'redirect to Last Train to Paris. Note that the article is unlikely to ever grow beyond a stub. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 01:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Close If the user suggested a "possible redirect" nominator does not want it deleted. Tbhotch^Talk and C. 00:12, 14 January 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 actual page has no reliable sources so the delete votes have the ascendency. The creation of a disambiguation page for notable toys that have a page is an editorial decision that has no bearing on this discussion Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Knock Out (Transformers)

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

Fictional character with no reliable sources claiming any notability, not to mention a non-free image violation. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The character itself may not be notable, but the toy of the character is, which would be valid content under this article. As far as I can tell the sites TFW2005 and Tformers are both reliable and independent, which means that the following articles are sufficient to pass WP:N: here, here, and here (among others). If I'm wrong about the reliability of the sites then let me know and I'll amend my vote accordingly. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Change to a disambig page - Since there are four characters there from different anime and comic book series, I think there should be a disambig page to each of the four series character lists. Mathewignash (talk) 10:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Change to a disambig page I agree with this. I am not sure the sources are RS (who writes them for example). Nor do they (to my mind) establish notability.Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly would this page disambig to? Tarc (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably something along the lines of "Knockout (Transformers) may refer to the following: A Mini-Con truck from Transformers: Energon who is the partner of Ultra Magnus, a Decepticon Motorcycle from the Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen toy line"... etc. With links to any relivant pages. 198.51.174.5 (talk) 15:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - what notability do any of these several different characters have? A toy, by itself, does not make for notability. And multiple non-notable characters do not add up to enough notability for their to be a page here. --Khajidha (talk) 20:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 02:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fangry

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

Fictional character with no reliable or non-primary sources claiming any notability. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The_Transformers_(Marvel_Comics)#Characters, since he mostly appeared in this comic book series. Mathewignash (talk) 10:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidance of outside notability.Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no third person sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 19:38, 16 January 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 Transformers: The Headmasters characters. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 06:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chromedome

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

Fictional character with no reliable sources claiming any notability. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Transformers: The Headmasters characters, as was done with the character from the Masterforce anime who were not notable enough for individual pages, the anime they were from has a character list page. Mathewignash (talk) 10:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its its not notable (and I can see no eividance it is) we should delete. Any wothwhile material can be incuded in otehr pages.Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That page would probably be List of Transformers: The Headmasters characters, the anime series that Chromedome was in. 198.51.174.5 (talk) 15:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mathewignash. Jclemens (talk) 02:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if merged, it should redirect to the disambiguatin page, since it is not even clear this should ever have been the primary topic. (The edit history should be moved to Chromedome (Transformers). 65.94.71.179 (talk) 05:35, 12 January 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. We can't merge content that is; at a generous best, very poorly sourced. Courcelles 02:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brainstorm (Transformers)

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

Fictional character with no reliable sources claiming any notability. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Transformers: The Headmasters characters, as was done with the character from the Masterforce anime who were not notable enough for individual pages, the anime they were from has a character list page. Mathewignash (talk) 10:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non - notable.Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mergeor Delete poor sources of a non notable character as usual. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:47, 12 January 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. We can't merge content that is; at a generous best, very poorly sourced. Courcelles 02:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apeface

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

Fictional character with no reliable sources claiming any notability. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Transformers: The Headmasters characters, as was done with the character from the Masterforce anime who were not notable enough for individual pages, the anime they were from has a character list page. Mathewignash (talk) 10:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable character.Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mergeor Delete a non notable article without decent sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:44, 12 January 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) 15:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sergio Gutiérrez-Ferrol

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

fails WP Notability for tennis players - no ATP Tour main draw matches played, no Challenger or junior grand slam titles, not a world top three ranked junior player Mayumashu (talk) 00:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 3 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, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 01:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NTENNIS.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is a weak consensus among editors that weighed in for keep, but the secondary sourcing is there, and there are clearly additional places for research of further WP:RS secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 15:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Ryan (reporter)

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

no sources or claims to notability Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Anchoring Good Day New York, hosting A Current Affair, anchoring the main morning WCBS-TV news show CBS 2 News This Morning are all not claims to notability? Not surprisingly it took only a few seconds to find several secondary sources giving significant coverage to this topic.[41] [42][43][44][45] WCBS-TV called him a "news icon" [46] No sources in an article of a notable topic is a reason to place a sources tag, not delete the article. --Oakshade (talk) 06:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The aforementioned shows are not claims to notability in an of themselves, unless you count WP:LOCAL. The Current Affair gives him a single passing mention, nigh an afterthought.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By "local" I suppose you mean the over 19 million population New York metropolitan area in which those television stations in which the topic was an anchor on serve, then I suppose you are correct. WP:LOCAL is not a notability guideline but an essay that explains how to write article of topics that are of local interest.--Oakshade (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well known personality. Sources support notability. Geofth (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This !vote is pretty much invalidated by the fact that there are, oh I dunno, no sources in the article. Tarc (talk) 14:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not yet have to be in the article. WP:NOTABILITY states very clearly:

"Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Notability requires only the existence of suitable reliable sources, not their immediate citation."

Clearly sources exist that establish notability as indicated above. --Oakshade (talk) 19:57, 10 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, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major market news anchor. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since "being a news anchor isn't a criteria of the WP:GNG, would you care to point out which criteria of WP:CREATIVE (IMO the closest sub-notability guideline) this person meets? Tarc (talk) 14:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notability made in the article, could have easily been a speedy. Tarc (talk) 14:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anchoring a popular nation television program and two newscasts in the largest media market in North America is an assertion of notability. If this was speedy deleted, it would've easily been overturned in DRV.--Oakshade (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? So this person satisfies all the criteria of WP:ANCHORMAN ? Oh, wait...it doesn't exist, so we go by what does exist, which is WP:CREATIVE, where he fails 1 thru 5. Being a news anchor of a city (not national) news show is not an automatic notability qualifier. Neither is the brief stint at a Current Affair. I'm sorry if you were a fan or something, but the guy just doesn't make the cut. Tarc (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice straw man. I was responding to your rationale that there was no assertion of notability and that this could've been a speedy deletion. You didn't say anything about passing any of our notability guidelines, fictional or otherwise. Now that you've changed your argument for deletion, this easily passes WP:N and its WP:GNG for receiving significant coverage from reliable sources.--Oakshade (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - supporting such people makes a mockery of the project - there will never be a decent article about his life, he just has a job in media but he's not noteworthy for a encyclopedic bio at all, as the lack of sources show. Off2riorob (talk) 04:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oakshade. Satisfies WP:N and WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 04:46, 11 January 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 Newmark Civil Engineering Laboratory#M. T. Geoffrey Yeh Student Center . Clear consensus after the relisting DGG ( talk ) 16:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

M. T. Geoffrey Yeh Student Center

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

Not notable. It's a building on a university campus. The stuff about LEED compliance was so non-notable I almost fell asleep. —Tom Morris 03:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Newmark Civil Engineering Laboratory#M. T. Geoffrey Yeh Student Center if that target will still exist, otherwise Delete. See essay Wikipedia:Places of local interest. This isn't even a building itself; it's just the uncompleted northeast corner of a possibly-uncompleted building, Newmark Civil Engineering Laboratory, which even as a whole does not seem notable to me. I don't think I've ever seen an article about a fraction of a building before, let alone an unfinished one. --Closeapple (talk) 00:01, 5 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, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DIRECTORY and WP:NOTABLE. Notability is all about "reliable, independent secondary sources". I can find no reliable third-party sources that are not related to the University of Illinois. The University, while reliable, is hardly independent from the subject of the article. DubiousIrony ^yell 07:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Closeapple, or as a second choice delete per nom. None of the sources that actually mention this student center are independent of the university. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Closeapple. I've not seen one, either. Peridon (talk) 14:21, 10 January 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. Sandstein 07:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stacy Lande

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

Click on the Google links: not a notable artist. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Three references have been added citing two books with content available on google books, and another reference citing the official website for a Los Angeles gallery La Luz de Jesus. More references are available, including Juxtapoz magazine which has profiled Stacy Lande. TBliss (talk) 03:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 3 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) 00:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, secondary sources exist on this "lowbrow" artist. Abductive (reasoning) 04:11, 18 January 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) 15:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Flock

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

fails WP:Notability for tennis players - no ATP Tour main draw matches played in, no ATP Challenger titles, not a world top three junior, and not junior grand slam event titles Mayumashu (talk) 03:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Seems notable.Hillcountries (talk) 10:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Under which of the criterion? Mayumashu (talk) 01:48, 6 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) 00:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 01:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NTENNIS. Being a runner up in a minor tournament does not make you notable. Ravendrop (talk) 00:28, 11 January 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) 15:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dentons Green

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

Dentons Green lies within the boundary of Windle, St Helens and is little other than a suburb within a town, of no notability. Article was established in 2007, and has not established notability in that time, content can be moved to Windle article or main St Helens article (however little of the content is of any value. Koncorde (talk) 11:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a village, but just an unofficial neighborhood, and therefore not presumptively notable. Nothing in the neighborhood mentioned in the article even bears the neighborhood name. DGG ( talk ) 17:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a parish, a ward or a separate village, but St Helens Council recognises it as a neighbourhood[47] and the Royal Mail includes it in some addresses for the area. I oppose deletion, as merging (or redirecting) should be considered instead. Peter E. James (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a neighbourhood of Windle Ward, Parish and historical Township, and a Suburb of St Helens, Merseyside. Its claim to notability are non-existent. Most of the content claimed as "Dentons Green" is historically associated with Windle. Redirecting to the Windle, St Helens article would suffice in terms of at least centralising the subject within an area with established notability. Koncorde (talk) 21:33, 4 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) 00:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The content has now been transferred, well the parts that are of any merit anyway. So deletion or redirect. Whichever is cleanest and/or seen as merited.Koncorde (talk) 00:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 01:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as content has been merged. Thryduulf (talk) 11:16, 12 January 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. Any content worth merging can be pulled form the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tan Kok Liang

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

I've just declined the speedy A7 on this, as there's enough there for CSD. However, not sure about GNG however, hence bringing here. Ged UK 11:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a nominator

S$49,599 fraud is a very typical crime in a huge market like Singapore. (And no reference for that amount)
We can see his name mentioned only 1,470 times in the entire word wide web. (even so, it doesn't necessary mean all results are belong to the intended person)
If we closely look at the date of the references, we can see all the references are over 25 years old published paper newspaper.Extremely unlikely to verify. Soewinhan (talk) 12:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well referenced article --- old references are fine unless you have evidence that they are incorrect --- assume good faith please. This was a big case in Singapore, and it is often cited in law journals (search for Tan Kok Liang, in Google Books). There is no reason to delete this at all. Francis Bond (talk) 15:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think "well referenced" doesn't make an article notable. Google Books 47, scholar 10 (Please note that there is also a reputable doctor named Tan Kok Liang). He is notable for a crime only. Technically, he shouldn't have an article himself, but need to be mentioned in his crime article. But, the problem is how notable is his crime? Is there any policy change? Or international reactions? Is that shaken the market? Clearly not. More simply it doesn't even have any lasting effects. He was sentenced only 9 months in jail. If that be minimum requisite, there are thousands more criminals in Singapore who had committed more serious crimes. (the entire world?) Soewinhan (talk) 18:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the market was shaken according to the Asian bulletin, which clearly states "The Pan-Electric fiasco caused the collapse of the stock exchange of Malaysia and Singapore" which seems to suggest a certain notability. [48] Francis Bond (talk) 07:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article which has what appears to be a non notable petty criminal as a subject. As noted above, the crime did not rise to a level of notability. Further; most hits are for a "same-name" subject. --Stormbay (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -well referenced article.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:57, 6 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) 00:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 01:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- A determination whether this article is well referenced or not should decide the keep or delete of this article. We have opinions at both ends of the spectrum. Re-listing may bring a fresh view as to importance but please look at the references. --Stormbay (talk) 05:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat: this was a big case in Singapore, as is clear when you read some of the citations. For example:

Here is a snippet about him in the Asian bulletin, which states "the Pan-Electric fiasco caused the collapse of the stock exchange of Malaysia and Singapore" [49]
Here is something about him in Asia 1987 year book. [50]

Francis Bond (talk) 07:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I see you are saying Collapse of Pan-Electric Industries which is a notable case, involving many business entrepreneurs like Tan Koon Swan, Peter Tham, Tan Kok Liang and many others. WP:1E suggests that the rule is to cover the event. Not the pompous biographies of everyone involved in that case.

I suggest we should copy some materials to Pan-Electric Industries and delete or redirect this article like we did in Suu Kyi trespasser incidents. I'll take all Pan-Electric related cases of these three persons and put them in the company's article. Soewinhan (talk) 07:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would be OK with that, so long as we keep all the relevant information. Consider me persuaded. Francis Bond (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soewinhan's plan sounds like an excellent solution. --Stormbay (talk) 19:00, 11 January 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. -- Cirt (talk) 15:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Janusz Majer

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

Does not appear to be a notable mountain-climber. There are some news stories mentioning him, but they don't seem to go into depth. Having a Polish speaker look over this would be helpful. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based not just on his considerable mountaineering achievments, but also as an expedition leader, explorer, mountaineering businessman, and author of articles in mountaineering "journals of record" in the UK, USA and Japan. I express my opinion as an editor who has written 12 biographies of mountaineers, two of which were featured in Did you know? on the main page. He's notable. Cullen328 (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 6 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) 00:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 01:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Discussed in numerous third-party sources (Google Books). I agree that a Polish speaker might offer additional insight, that being said in my opinion the subject is notable enough. DubiousIrony ^yell 03:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable mountaineer. Frustratingly, the problem with sources is a lot in Google Books only have snippet view which make it difficult to ascertain context. I've added one fully available source - and there are many sources quoted in the article. The problems with sourcing don't seem sufficient to warrant deletion. - ManicSpider (talk) 09:00, 10 January 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) 15:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uruguay Football League

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

Seems to be at best an amateur American Football league, and I can't any references to establish notability. Angryapathy (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete DANG while it's cool to know that there is such a thing, it surely doesn't belong in this encyclopedia. Maybe inclusion in something on American football outside the United States or the like...--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:58, 6 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) 23:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is obviously not an official football league. The article was written (most likely) by one of the four people who started the league of five teams. Either way it doesn't mean WP:GNG. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 02:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTABLE. No mention of the UFL in Google News/Books or even Search, really. DubiousIrony ^yell 03:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only source provided is a broken link. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

fyi, archives of that broken link can be found at archive.org here [51]--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 21:19, 10 January 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. Sandstein 06:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Rose and a Prayer

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

No coverage in reliable sources. None of the cited sources meet RS criteria for notability, and Google News/Books doesn't bring anything up. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. —Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources seem fine for establishing notability and google news brings up plenty of hits. I'll work on moving over more sources from google news into the article. - Haymaker (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC) (Note: user Haymaker is the author of the article under discussion.)[reply]

As you do, please keep in mind WP:ORG, and remember that coverage must be significant in order to establish notability. It would be great if you could find some significant coverage. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant coverage by independent reliable sources. I could find no coverage at all at Google News archive, and only partisan/non-independent links at Google. --MelanieN (talk) 01:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try http://news.google.com/archivesearch?&as_src=-newswire+-wire+-presswire+-PR+-release+-wikipedia&q=%22A+Rose+and+a+Prayer%22. - Haymaker (talk) 03:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I started with, but unless one of the paywalled articles is a hidden gold mine of significant coverage or otherwise indicates that the group is important, I don't think that cuts it. "Someone from ARAAP commented on this event" doesn't satisfy WP:ORG. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They do, here are a few of the free google abstracts;

"The removal of some of the bad provisions from the bill is credited to a newly created grassroots pro-life group called A Rose and a Prayer. ..." - January 19, 2006

"One opposition group, A Rose and a Prayer, which fought SB 80, will likely see its elation dissipate. Rep. Deborah Hudson, the bill's sponsor, ..." - January 21, 2006

"A Rose and a Prayer organizers are not deterred. "Maybe if there's an organization on the other side, we can come together and debate this issue," said ... " - March 5, 2007

"Members of Stem Cell Go are expected to testify on both bills, as are supporters of A Rose and a Prayer, which opposes embryonic stem cell research and ..." - March 21, 2007

"Representatives of A Rose and a Prayer have argued that they are not necessarily against the in vitro process per se (all the while creating legislation ..." - March 29, 2007

"But Thursday's debate featured no dramatic touches, such as the roses that the group A Rose and a Prayer delivered to House members last year in their quest ..." - March 30, 2007

"DOVER -- It worked before and members of A Rose and a Prayer are hoping that 2500 roses will help turn away a bill that would regulate embryonic stem cell ..." - April 25, 2007

I'll look into finding a way to gain free access to these articles for all readers. - Haymaker (talk) 04:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, like I said, passing mentions that don't satisfy WP:ORG. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those are explicit statements in RS's of that organization's ability to influence legislation and state-wide politics over several years. If you really think that explicit statements in reliable sources aren't enough bring it to RS/N. - Haymaker (talk) 05:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my time is a bit freed up now that I'm done researching naval battles, so I went hunting for the sources you referred to.

1. LifeNews. Good luck getting that classified as a reliable source.

2. Couldn't find.

3. Found here. Mentions the roses as part of what defeated the bill, but it's by no means clear that the bill's defeat is to be attributed to ARAAP, and very little of the article is about ARAAP.

4. Couldn't find.

5. Found here. Opinion piece that mentions the group in passing.

6. Same link. Mentions the group only in passing, doesn't indicate that they ever achieved anything.

7. Found here. In spite of the opener, it's really just a short piece on the bill.

So much for "ability to influence legislation and state-wide politics over several years." They don't, in fact, appear to have influenced much of anything at all. You'll want to try a little harder there, partner. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try to avoid using sarcasm, it will build character. My fault on the first go, that was from lifesite, all of the rest are from the free abstracts of newspaper articles (mostly the News Journal) that google news offered, you can find them all there. While I was poking around I found this from Celia Cohen, a Delaware political writer who has written at least 1 book devoted entirely to Delaware politics and who is used as a source in many articles on the politics of Delaware writing about them. While the RSs covering them are finite there are more and we passed the mark as far as WP:ORG is concerned a while ago. - Haymaker (talk) 06:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another trivial mention that doesn't tell us anything about the group except that they are Opposed To All This Dammit. That's helpful.

"we passed the mark as far as WP:ORG is concerned a while ago" - don't you mean that we passed the mark as far as you are concerned? Because it's hard to establish notability for these little nothing provincial organizations even if there is significant local coverage, and you haven't even demonstrated that anyone in their own state cares about them. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roscelese, I'd also like to ask you to please try to maintain a more civil and/or neutral tone in this discussion. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 00:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I suppose. Frequenting AfD does tend to make one tired of seeing "it exists, therefore it needs to have an article" and other ridiculous notability claims, though. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those are pretty much the same citations I found. My analysis was that either they were not "independent reliable sources" (being things like News-Journal op-ed pieces or POV websites) or else they did not provide "significant coverage" (being a passing mention of the group rather than an article giving significant information about the group). Significant coverage by independent reliable sources is required to demonstrate notability at Wikipedia. --MelanieN (talk) 19:34, 9 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) 23:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite to NPOV. Organization is active in local politics. I'll take a stab at the rewrite.Wkharrisjr (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you found any sources that satisfy the aforementioned notability requirements? The POV of the article is a problem too, but I wouldn't bother unless notability can be attested. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of coverage in The News-Journal. Just because it is not online does not discount its coverage. I'll cite some specific issues, anyone with access to a decent library should be able to obtain microfilm of the articles in question. A few references by the Catholic News Agency- although their editorial content might be pro-life, I think their credentials as a legitimate news service is adequate.Wkharrisjr (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course its not being online doesn't discount its coverage - offline sources can be very useful. It's just helpful to have it online so other editors can check what kind of coverage it is. References like the ones Haymaker provided above don't satisfy notability requirements, because they are passing mentions - if the News-Journal has done a profile on the group or something, that's great. What I found in their web archives doesn't appear to qualify, but who knows, they may not archive everything. (Though, "a decent library"? Maybe a decent library in Delaware, but not every library archives non-local newspapers short of the Times and that sort of thing - I have access to a number of "decent libraries," which don't archive the News-Journal.) On your work on the article: the Catholic.org seems like a trivial mention to me (all we know is that they're opposed to the bill and founded by Jenkins, then the article moves on to other stuff). The Catholic News Agency story is what I would consider on the low end of significant coverage - can you find more like that, or better? (The CWFA and NewsZap links are broken - I know you didn't add them, but if you're going to keep working on the article, it's worth knowing.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Celia Cohen wrote a great article on them. She seems to be a pretty big deal in her state and it used as a source on many other article. - Haymaker (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned Celia Cohen, but you didn't link the article. (Or if the one you linked above is Cohen's "article on them," it's not so much on them.) Is Cohen's article on them online? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My bad this was the one. - Haymaker (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might have the wrong link again - that one also only mentions ARAAP in passing, and the "it worked" seems to be a comment on the "moral argument" as a whole (including the diocese's work) rather than on the rose schtick. Those are the only two articles mentioning ARAAP on the Grapevine site - could it be hosted elsewhere? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how I read it. - Haymaker (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, do you actually have any significant stories on this group, or not? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the newspaper articles and the newswire services, I think the Cohen article represents significant coverage. - Haymaker (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then please reread WP:ORG so that you might understand "significant." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have read WP:ORG, I am familiar with what is meant as "significant", I believe this qualifies. - Haymaker (talk) 01:00, 11 January 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. No consensus leaning towards a weak keep, due to recognition within her field and the industry, and coverage in some secondary sourcing. -- Cirt (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Capelli

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

Fails to meet any of the four WP:PORNBIO criteria. NW (Talk) 22:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 05:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You´re a funny guy, can you see the international wikis? Keep is the only possible result. She is really famous in the business. --Hixteilchen (talk) 14:22, 8 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) 23:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 01:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO and the GNG, no nontrivial GNews hits. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Viewed 11,000+ times in December 2010[52], 11 interwiki links, 2 AVN nominations, 5+ year old article, + existence of at least some sourcing that can be easily found suggests we should keep this one.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:05, 12 January 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) 15:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Cassidy

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

Fails to meet any of the four WP:PORNBIO criteria, as she has not won a well-known award; has not received nominations for well-known awards in multiple years; has not made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre; and has not been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media. NW (Talk) 22:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 05:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, well-known in the industry. --Hixteilchen (talk) 14:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a valid criteria to retain an article in the Wikipedia. Please provide a valid rationale so your !vote will not be discounted entirely. Tarc (talk) 14:43, 10 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) 23:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 01:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Single AVN interview does not pass the WP:GNG. Being a co-producer of one film does not pass WP:CREATIVE. A single nomination does not pass WP:PORNBIO. Fails notability standards by any reasonable, non-biased assessment of the subject matter. Tarc (talk) 14:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO and the GNG, all nontrivial GNews hits apparently refer to different people, including one other sex worker using the same pseudonym. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:02, 11 January 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. -- Cirt (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allysin Chaynes

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails to meet any of the four WP:PORNBIO criteria, as she has not won a well-known award; has not received nominations for well-known awards in multiple years; has not made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre; and has not been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media. NW (Talk) 22:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She passes PORNBIO. If you don't think her XRCO Award is not well known enough despite the last AfD, she has received AVN Award nominations in multiple years.[53][54] Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 05:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Morbidthoughts. Multiple awards over different years, and notable to the genre, meet inclusion criteria. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 11:24, 5 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) 23:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Morbidthoughts. The XRCO Award win is significant enough for WP:PORNBIO. She also has AVN nominations in multiple years. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Morbidthoughts. Only weighing in on these porn bio AfDs that seem most notable.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:08, 12 January 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) 15:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Dark

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

Fails to meet any of the four WP:PORNBIO criteria, as she has not won a well-known award; has not received nominations for well-known awards in multiple years; has not made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre; and has not been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media. NW (Talk) 22:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 05:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well-known in the industry. Just look at the international wikis. --Hixteilchen (talk) 14:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other wikipedia projects cannot be used to establish notability, as they do not pass the reliable source guideline. This keep is without merit. Tarc (talk) 14:45, 10 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) 23:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, such a small article is most certainly not required. No reliable coverage from 3rd party sources. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 02:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Should have been eligible for a "no assertion of notability speedy IMO. Otherwise it is just a run-of-the-mill WP:GNG failure, and obviously WP:PORNBIO. Tarc (talk) 14:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "No assertion of notability" is not grounds for speedy deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:47, 10 January 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) 15:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy Taxi (iPhone Application)

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

I'm not sure this is notable enough to merit an article. There isn't really policy for the notability of games (There is a draft for one), so I thought I'd ask here. Tim 1357 ^talk 23:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would be inclined to Keep. The article has no major issues and appears to be well formatted and written. I understand the concerns regarding notability, but unless we have hard and fast guidelines it's diffcult to say just how notable the subject needs to be. Since the artcle has no major problems, I would rather keep than delete in this case. Wexcan Talk 02:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: We do have a hard and fast guideline concerning notability: the GNG. Are there multiple, reliable sources discussing this subject in significant, non-trivial detail? Plenty of blog posts, of course, but news articles? Just not there. Ravenswing 16:29, 4 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) 17:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete – I found [55], which provides some significant coverage and looks like passes for reliability, but that's it. Would need 1 or 2 more independent sources before I am comfortable keeping it. –MuZemike 22:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was expecting to "vote" delete before checking out the article. But the game on iPhone seems to be distinct from other versions and there is at least some kind of sourcing. WP could have stricter standards about not being a consumers' guide, or else the standards could be better understood and followed. However this article is of fairly good quality and the info is useful to people interested in the topic. Wolfview (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USEFUL is not a valid reason to retain an article. Tarc (talk) 14:47, 10 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) 23:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, there's no coverage from reliable/notable third party sources. The coverage which it has received appear to be from mediocre sources. Not sure what the notability guidelines are here. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 02:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable 3rd-party coverage. Existence of article is essentially for promotional purposes. Tarc (talk) 14:47, 10 January 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) 15:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Shakespeare

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

Several issues here. This guy's career is quite impressive, but the majority of it is unverifiable, and after 40 Google searches I still can't find any evidence of significant coverage. Only source at present is IMDb, which isn't enough to base a BLP on. Alzarian16 (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A big fat goose egg on Google News; the only scraps of coverage I can find are interviews including him (and not him alone) discussing Bionicle. If he has no notability apart from Bionicle, that's not enough to sustain an article. Ravenswing 16:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tarry thee not herein. Unit director of The Tigger Movie and co-director of the Bionicle films doesn't quite make it. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though weak on WP:GNG (not the sole determining criteria), this individual seems to sneak up on notability through his DVD Exclusive Awards nomination as Best Director in 2003 for Bionicle: Mask of Light and through having created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work... in noting his major particpation in the multi-award winning Bionicle 3: Web of Shadows,[56] Bionicle 2: Legends of Metru Nui,[57] Bionicle: Mask of Light .[58] Verifying the awards and nominations for himself and his projects should be do-able. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:34, 7 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) 23:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A bunch of non-notable contributions does not add up to notability. WP:ANYBIO is getting to be quite used & abused lately to prop up the most insignificant twaddle imaginable. Tarc (talk) 14:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notable awards are notable awards... and involvement in the creation of notable productions is involvement in the creation of notable productions... until such time as WP:ANYBIO and WP:CREATIVE are re-written. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notable awards are indeed notable awards. Notable awards for the acting profession have been held to be of the level of Academy Awards, Golden Globe awards, Emmys, BAFTA and the like. Are you asserting that being nominated for a "DVD Exclusive Award" (a nomination, as to that, for which I'm not seeing any citation) is remotely of that caliber? Ravenswing 14:01, 12 January 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 Affirmative action. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 06:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mismatching

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

Delete or merge to affirmative action. No evidence this single study created a notable theory. Rd232 ^talk 12:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong merge to Affirmative action. This information should be presented there in context. By itself it is given undue weight as one side of a controversy. Jaque Hammer (talk) 12:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 2 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) 23:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. per nominator comments, and other merge commentary. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 02:24, 10 January 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) 15:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kamran Talatoff

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. nothing in gnews. 8 hits in gscholar and gbooks merely confirms he translated some books. [59]. LibStar (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it is possible that this person's name has been spelt incorrectly. His CV here [60] has his name as Kamran Talattof whereas here is Kamran Talatoff. He also seems well published. (Msrasnw (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Try this spelling :(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) (Msrasnw (talk) 01:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Question: Should the page be moved now or after the Afd (If we don't lose the article)? (Msrasnw (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Delete. Thanks for the hint above. GS cites are 17, 11, 6, 5, 3, ..Nowhere near sufficient for WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. I am not an expert in Persian literature/Iranian Studies but via the CV and then googling for the first of his books I came accross 7 full reviews in academic journals of his (2000) The Politics of Writing in Iran (Syracuse University Press) book. I have added the refs of these to the article. I have not looked for his other books or the new one ((2011) Modernity, sexuality, and ideology in iran : the life and legacy of popular iranian female artists) These reviews, together with his other work and full professorship at Univ of Arizona would seem indicative of sufficient notability. I have also added a note of his contribution to the the Encyclopædia Iranica (but I could not find the biography of Susan (Golandam Taherkhani), the Popular Singer (1940–2004)). Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 15:36, 3 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) 23:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per the nominator, I'm not convinced notability has been established. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 02:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia Dramatica

This is a horribly-written article for a site that seems notable only around here only because of the vileness of their attacks. There has never been an article about ED in any major news source annd no one out side of a few internet communities who have been attacked by them knlow who they are. Orthodoxbush (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Hmm, seems to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This article has survived deletion debates before, and passes WP:GNG. That's about all there is to say, really.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It only seems notable because of the Wikipedia connections. Otherwise I doubt there would be an article about it here. And, as I said above, the article is written horribly. It seems like you want to create an article about ED using every "source" imaginable but that is all the page is, links to sources and no real content. Orthodoxbush (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is the fifth nomination, most of this has been said before. However, like 4chan and Anonymous, ED is an important part of Internet culture. There is enough reliably sourced material to make an article on ED worthwhile, please read through the article again.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4chan and Anonymous are far more notable than ED. They are just less directly related to Wikipedia. Orthodoxbush (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ED only looks like Wikipedia because it uses MediaWiki software. There is an element of parody of Wikipedia in ED, but the site is nothing to do with Wikipedia. Articles here are banned from linking to most pages on ED because of the potential for controversy.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~The nomination is flawed by failure to link to previous AFDs.~~ The 7 day period for discussion should only begin when the previous AFDs are linked here, so that discussants can see what has been said in previous noms. I note that the four earlier AFDs are also not linked from the article's discussion page. Found one from July 19, 2008 at [61] which lists the earlier ones and copied and pasted it here. Edison (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would you consider withdrawing this nomination? Realistically it is only going to lead to the same "keep" result after going through the same arguments as previous AFDs.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me any fourth or fifth nomination carried through to a conclusion is an attempt to do by attrition what cannot be done by clear consensus. I assume the lister was unaware of the prior debates, but nothing has changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.47.55 (talk) 23:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reason it has been kept in past debates is because of trolls spamming them. Orthodoxbush (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the lulz. SixthAtom (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable and well-referenced. how many times do we need to go through this? sigh. Kaini (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and speedy close, easily meets WP:GNG. Why would we not want to give our readers useful information about something frequently mentioned in news stories? betsythedevine (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "frequently mentioned in news stories". Orthodoxbush (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a few Google News mentions (63); perhaps I was wrong to describe that as "frequently mentioned". In retrospect, I probably should just have linked to the GoogleGraph instead of arm-waving. betsythedevine (talk) 01:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT SPEEDY CLOSE this should be left up for at least a week if we wish to establish consensus. Orthodoxbush (talk) 00:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and SNOW close. Why are we here again? - Alison ^❤ 01:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As if I expect an ED admin to vote in an unbiased manner. Orthodoxbush (talk) 02:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF, please. Kaini (talk) 02:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's ex-ED admin, actually. But whatev - Alison ^❤ 03:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; like it or not, it meets our notability guideline, as well as the all-important verifiability. They're for real and an important part of internet culture -- and they're positively cultured compared to 4chan. (Yeah, I admit it, I get a laugh there now and then myself, even if their subliterate repetition of "gay" "lulz" "faggot" as well as certain other once-shocking words is tedious to the point it makes a literate visitor want to slit his wrists.) Antandrus (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You had this to say about it three years ago. What changed? Orthodoxbush (talk) 02:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

lawl u guys so gay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.6.137 (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, whether one likes the views represented by the article or not, and whether one agrees with the subject of the article or not it passed WP:GNG. It has received quite a bit of independent coverage so I do not see a reason for deletion. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 02:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and troutslap- stop wasting afd's time with nominations like this. The article clearly shows notability beyond any reasonable doubt. Not liking it is still not a valid deletion rationale. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Could we consider this a bad-faith nom? --みんな空の下 (トーク | I wanna chAngE!) 02:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I predicted long ago, it's inevitable that whenever an ED article exists, there will be people trying to get it deleted, and whenever it doesn't exist there will be people trying to get it recreated. It's one of those eternal struggles. But it's a notable part of Internet culture, and the recreation of a few years ago in the wake of earlier deletions was upheld on account of the existence of external sources. *Dan T.* (talk) 04:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as a matter of interest, the non is now blocked as a Confirmed sock of User:Meredith McCasley. Same 'Zionist cabal' / white supremacist nonsense - Alison ^❤ 04:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 02:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robb Alvey

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Blatant vanity/spam--how did it last this long (it's been on here since 2009)? Blueboy 96 02:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant use of page for self-promotion. Individual does not have influence outside of his own interests.

Keep - it may be vanity, but based on the reliable sources, such as Allbusiness and the News-press, he passes the general notability guidelines. His interests and business - roller coasters and video gaming - are big deals. There are many other possible sources that could have been found easily at Google. Bearian (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, violates WP:BIO and does not meet WP:GNG.

First, subject does not satisfy the 'significant coverage' requirement. While there are articles that discuss him, many do so tangentially or in context of the video game companies he's working for. His notability as an employee/spokesperson of a notable company fails my interpretation of WP:BIO#Invalid Criteria.
Second, one or two sentence mentions do little to convince me that "sources address the subject directly in detail".
Finally, several of the listed sources are forums or personal pages and violate WP:RS. Unlike Bearian, I fail to see any reliable and third-party sources in the Google search he linked. All of them either are not reliable, or not independent of the subject. Most are both. DubiousIrony ^yell 00:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete He is no more notable than any other self-promoting person, articles on whom which have been deleted in their masses from Wikipedia. He is not a notable figure as per Wikipedia guidlines and I suspect the article has been self-promoted or even self-created. Tom Green (talk) 16:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, All reasons cited above. Looking at the edit history and doing some investigation, many of the editors are coaster-related, many of which are of similar usernames found on his Theme Park Review website. --Maqattaq (talk) 23:29, 16 January 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.