Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 January 17

< 16 January	18 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WinHoldEm

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

Contested prod. Online game which appears on plenty of download sites but seems to have no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:RS andy (talk) 23:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage of this in notable WP:Reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete web content with no notability asserted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources. This poke bot has been mentioned in news stories, but has not got significant coverage. For example, this Sydney Herald article focuses on a poker playing program called Polaris, and simply mentions WinHoldEm as an example of a bot. -- Whpq (talk) 14:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not satisfy notability guidelines. - MrOllie (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails the multiple and significant coverage parts of WP:GNG. Mentioned in a (very) few articles, as Whpq notes, but nothing substantive has specifically been written about it other than the one Wired article, as far as I can tell. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For obvious reasons. This is/was the first commercially available pokerbot in the history of online poker. It was also used in the 2007 PBWC which was the first poker tournament where bots were contestans along side humans. --Riitoken (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Regarding the links you recently added; our WP:Notability policies requires multiple examples of non-trivial, significant coverage. The MSNBC article mentions WinHoldem once. The other article mentions it several times, but the coverage is still minimal. Press releases don't count towards notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Print The wired magazine article is an actual print article in the magazine Wired - look it up - has Jon Steward on the cover. "On the Internet Nobody knows you're a Bot" - Page 96. --Riitoken (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: yes, and as I have noted in my recommendation, that's one source. One does not equal the multiple needed for WP:GNG. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notable: open this page http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/ and search for 'Winholdem' all time. Then search their archive server which goes back before 2007. Then consider that there has been a user participation http://forum.winholdem.net site since 2004 which is the single largest repository for pokerbot related information on the entire internet (world). Winholdem is very notable in the poker world. --Riitoken (talk) 01:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you take the time to read WP:Reliable sources, you'll see that forums do not qualify, especially for establishing notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes which is why I'm noting that here instead of in the article. It goes to the overall issue of Notoriety which is well established in the Poker world. --Riitoken (talk) 02:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But well-established by what reliable sources? I think we're going in circles here. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Aside from the Wired article, I can find no significant coverage in reliable sources. The MSNBC and ThisIsMoney articles deal with the phenomenon of bots in general and give only trivial mentions to the article subject. PR is obviously unreliable. Google turns up a raft of first-party and download links, but nothing reliable. Google News turns up nothing significant. There also appear to be some COI/self-promotion issues. » scoops “5x5„ 02:43, 20 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. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 05:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Scientology officials

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

This duplicates part of List of Scientologists, because all officials are also scientologists. There is the danger that it will get less attention, and not be kept up properly. Somebody may update one article, and forget another. So, we'd never have anything unique in this list. Let's have one page, that will have more watchers checking it. Rob (talk) 23:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete and Redirect to List of Scientologists for the reasons stated above.~~Coffeepusher (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note, I added the afd tag to the article, which the nom had forgotten to do.--Scott Mac 01:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no problem with this list. A list of "clergy" is very different from a list of believers. Indeed, from a BLP perspective, this list is less problematic than the general one, because this list has good criteria. If someone has "held an office", then it is almost certainly true that Scientology is a significant fact about them, whereas where someone "once" was a member or an adherent, it may mean little more than saying of someone else they "once" went to a Christian Church.--Scott Mac 01:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: I'm not arguing in favor of the broad list. My main point is that I want a *single* page of Scientologists. That list should exclusively feature people who are signficant to Scientology and vice-versa. I dislike the notion of having every believer, including some people who happen to "try it out" along with a other faiths/beleifs. Although, there are some non-office-holder beleivers, such as Tom Cruise, who really do belong on a list. So, I suggest we delete this list, which is currently all redundant, and then, re-examine the scope of the original list. Ideally, a single list, would feature prominent advocates and apostates, but not people with a private and/or passing interaction. --Rob (talk) 03:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have no objections to merging this back into the other list, and maintaining the other list so as to include only officials, and other prominent Scientologists (that is people who are prominent AS Scientologists.).--Scott Mac 09:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
redirect Currently its an unnecessary WP:CFORK and is exact duplicate of material there. As the list is not long enough now but if starts it is taking up too much space then we can recreate this. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per logical comment by Scott MacDonald (talk · contribs), above. -- Cirt (talk) 14:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What happened to stepping back from Scientology?--Scott Mac 16:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I have, but I also created this page itself, so thought would be alright to comment here, thanks. :) -- Cirt (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Question Is there a policy that people who don't post on scientology pages should not post on the AfD pages either? Or am I reading too much into the above comments? Keith Henson (talk) 02:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Scott Mac (man I would never have thought I would have written this). If anything it is unnecessary to maintain a duplicate in the full List of Scientologists while we can just link this sub-list -going to do it now. --Cyclopia ^talk 15:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It seems that now List of Scientologists links List of Scientology officials. --Cyclopia^talk 18:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I find this version, where it's a link in the larger article, to be a bad idea. If anything, it's going in the wrong direction, and we should combine names into a larger table (one table for current members, one for ex-, with a field indicating position). There's now the likely-hood each of (what were) four tables will be spun-off into a separate article, which is an invitation to expansion. Sub-lists are a good way of managing a sprawling list of names, but stopping the sprawl is even better. Many people have List of Scientologists on their watchlist, but few have this sub-list on a watchlist. That problem will grow worse if somebody spins-off the two ex-member lists. Also, I think it looks odd, that we know have List of Scientologists that doesn't directly list L. Ron Hubbard as a member. --Rob (talk) 02:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not obvious that a cult founder is also a member. It's fairly obvious that LRH knew it was a scam. Keith Henson (talk) 04:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Are you seriously suggesting the founder shouldn't be listed as a Scientologist? Or, are you just trying to make a point, that has no relationship to this debate? Seriously, I have no idea what you expect anybody to do with your comment. Do you support keeping this article, merging it with the original, or doing something else? Please let us know. --Rob (talk) 05:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Respectfully and strongly disagree with Rob. Not all "Scientologists" are officials within the organization itself, and not all officials who have held positions within the organization were ever "Scientologists". Therefore, these entries should exist as separate lists. -- Cirt (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you give an example of a CoS official of signficance who has an article on Wikipedia (or warrants one), that is not a Scientologist. --Rob (talk) 16:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes. Sure. Volney Mathison, Norman Starkey, Joseph Augustus Winter, Monique Yingling, to name but a few. But that is irrelevant - the concept in my above comment is still exactly the same, regardless of whether or not one can wikilawyer that the venn diagrams do not match up. -- Cirt (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - So, if there is a *single* example, all you need to do, is add that name to List of Scientology officials and provide a citation to justify both the claim they were an official, and the claim they were not a Scientologist. You gave redlinks, except for Mathison, who's article doesn't say he was an official. Also, given your new theory can you please explain why you edited List of Scientologists so that it was a sublist of List of Scientology officials. When you did that, removed every single official from List of Scientologists, even people who are obviously Scientologists (Tommy Davis for example). So, you were treating this article as a sublist, not an alternate list, which is what you're now arguing. Also, while I acknowledge, there's a logical separation between being a Scientologist and an official, there's no need for separate lists, unless there's an actual verifiable example of it. If you're right (which is entirely possible) then this should have been made clear when the pages were separated, and I would never have AFD'd this page. --Rob (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Good point, I removed it as a sub-sect from List of Scientologists, as it is already present on that page in the more appropriate sect, the See also sect. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        So, are you now wanting to add the names of Scientologists who are officers to List of Scientologists? It seems odd, that currently people like Tommy Davis are no longer listed as Scientologists. List of Scientologists lists minor members, and ex-members, but fails to list the most famous of members. Rather odd. --Rob (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        An excellent subject of discussion, and quite appropriate to bring up with the community via a new subsection posting at Talk:List of Scientologists. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        The discussion belongs here. If there's no reliable information that anything belongs in this page (and not the main list), than this page should be deleted. I think the fact we now have a List of Scientologists without the most famous of all scientologists, proves how harmful this sub-list is. Ask the simple question: was the old situation with one complete list better, or worse, than the current situation of two lists, with the main one being substantially incomplete? --Rob (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Worse. It introduced potential and inherent WP:BLP problems for the future going forward, as it implied that all officials are considered "Scientologists", and that an individual's self-identification within their personal religion or faith or new religious movement or what have you, was somehow relevant to and belonged on the same page as duties performed as officials within the organization itself. -- Cirt (talk) 21:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Perhaps someone could remove Category:Lists of people by belief from the article, since it appears from this discussion that the list is unrelated to belief. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Done. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 01:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as discussed above, inclusion criteria for this list is completely separate from List of Scientologists and as such a separate article will be a good way to weigh the criteria for both.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 09:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 09:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 09:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 09:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 09:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 09:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 09:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 09:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 09:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 09:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would not be appropriate to list non-Scientologist lawyers and other professionals who have done work for the CoS as "Scientology officials". If memory serves, Monique Yingling, referred to above by Cirt, is one such case. If Cirt's intention is to list such people here, then I would oppose keeping this list and favour reintegration in List of Scientologists. (For J. A. Winter see A Doctor's Report on Dianetics; Winter was an early supporter of Hubbard who fell out with him well before Scientology was founded. Norman Starkey is widely described as a member of Scientology's Sea Org.) --JN 466 03:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, they would only be included on this page if a WP:RS secondary source identifies the individual as having a role within the organization. -- Cirt (talk) 02:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why has this article been sorted into 8-10 different categories, including some that make only tangential sense? Most AFDs only have one or two Purple backpack89 21:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can we move and discuss this comment on the talk page of this AFD, please? Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 02:07, 24 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) 00:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Fresh

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

Dubious notability. Sources are not significant or independent. Ei1sos (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are six independent sources. Do you care to read the articles that you nominate? Candy o32 - Happy New Year :) 23:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FIVE, and none of them WP:RS - do you care to follow the links you see on pages?--Kudpung (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sources, only dubious web sites and logs, no significant coverage, no coverage in mainstream press. Fails WP:BAND. Notability is not asserted.--Kudpung (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt: Frankly, I don't know what the previous closing admin was thinking; he closed as a "no consensus" based on two Keeps, one claiming that a song the subject wrote was on "Radio Disney"'s top 30 list, one claiming he passes the GNG. Let's see. Of the sources presented in the article, one is a broken link, one is from his high school's website, two are from his indie record label's website, one doesn't mention him at all, and the last is from a radio station's website. These are the selfsame sources on offer on the previous close. I can't imagine what in there anyone fancies comes within a mile of the GNG, myself, and would be interested in Candyo32 explaining what ones in there do. I recommend salting because of the huge number of anon IPs who've edited (and, often, vandalized) in the last year. Ravenswing 21:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. He's not completely unknown, but the sourcing currently does not establish notability. Pages from his record label are clearly not independent, and only serve to confirm basic facts, and do not establish notability. Hi school newspaper is not a reliable source. The broken link is something that was originally from Examiner.com which is not a reliable source. The only reliable source that contributes to notability is the short radio station profile. He is mentioned in quite a few places, but not with significant coverage. The most substantial that I could find was a short bit here. Perhaps when he has actually released an album, the situaton may change, but at this point, he does not meet the inclusion criteria for Wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 14:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear delete.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless better sources are presented. Not to sound like a broken record, but as of now, the article's sources include the artist's record label (twice), which is not independent of the subject; an Examiner page (which is broken and unreliable anyway); a high school newspaper (The Talon); and an All Access page that contains no information on the subject. None of these help the artist in terms of meeting WP:GNG. I believe his song "Spending All My Time" did receive some radio airplay, but I can not find an independent, reliable source to confirm. As for meeting criterion 1 of WP:MUSICBIO, I found the same story as Whpq, and it looks to come from Billboard, and the subject is mentioned in a paragraph near the end of the article. I also found some stuff from teen mags like J-14 and Twist. Anything else? Gongshow ^Talk 04:47, 24 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. JohnCD (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Estrella

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

Does not meet notability requirements of WP:PEOPLE - does not have coverage in reliable third-party sources. PK T(alk) 22:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - related to John Estrella, whose article I have also nominated for deletion.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —PK T(alk) 22:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Nomination Hello, I don't agree that deletion is necessary. The subject is an established professional in her field, as well as a author. Her contribution to the Scouts Canada is also significant, and can be proven with further references. Instead of deletion, I think an expanding of the references given is better suited. Thanks! Bogdan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bogdan247 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please carefully read WikiPedia's guidelines for notability. Find and reference reliable third-party publications where she has been profiled, and you might make your case. Unfortunately, I doubt such references exist. PK T(alk) 23:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information, PKT, I will collect some additional sources to support the notability of the article.Bogdan247 (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This appears to be a vanity entry, with no third-party references used as citations, that is newspapers, journals etc. Those sourced from organisations with which the individual is affiliated are not sufficient. Mind matrix 00:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of third-party RS sources. The Interior (Talk) 01:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out an independent source mentioning the subject: Shroff Publishers & Distributors Pvt. Ltd., a leading academic and information technology publisher in India distributes her popular software testing book along with books from O'Reilly & Associates, Packt Publishing, Mike Murach & Associates, Rampant TechPress, Pragmatic Bookshelf, IBM Redbooks, MC Press, Discovery Press, etc. http://www.shroffpublishers.com/detail.aspx?cat=0&title=2092 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bogdan247 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —PK T(alk) 13:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One of several related articles created by Bogdan247, one which has been PRODded and another up at AfD. Having authored a book does not count as a reliable source attesting to the subject's notability; if so, I'd qualify for an article myself. It is not enough to find items with her name on it; to qualify under the GNG, there must be reliable, third party, independent sources that describe the subject in "significant detail," such as articles in major newspapers or magazines. I can't find any, myself. [1] Ravenswing 21:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Her one book is out from Trafford, a vanity press. Fails WP:BK, WP:AUTHOR, and WP:SPS. Qworty (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. She is the co-author of a self-published book for which I can find not independent reliable critical review. -- Whpq (talk) 14:17, 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. The consensus is clear that, despite the article author's best efforts, notability to Wikipedia's standard has not been demonstrated. JohnCD (talk) 23:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Estrella

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

Doesn't appear to meet requirements of WP:PEOPLE - lacks independent coverage in reliable sources. PK T(alk) 22:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - related to Maria Estrella, whose article I have also nominated for deletion.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —PK T(alk) 22:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks reliable sources published in independent secondary publications. The Interior (Talk) 23:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Nomination Hello, I think that the affirmation that the article lacks reliable sources is exaggerated. The subject of the article is a well known professional in his field, and author of several books. CMC-Ontario is an independent international association of Certified Management Consultants (CMCs). The PMI Registry is also an independent body. Ryerson University is a very reputable university in Toronto. The Project Management Institute - Southern Ontario Chapter is one of the largest PMI chapters in the world with about 4,500 members. Scouts Canada has 100,000 youth and adult members in Canada. Quest Toronto is a major conference that is sponsored by QAI. All these third parties mention John Estrella, and the references are properly cited. In my opinion, the subject is notable and deletion is not necessary. I am open for suggestions for improving the article from those interested. Thank you! Bogdan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bogdan247 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being registered with notable organisations does not confer notability onto an individual. Having earned a PMP credit from PMI is trivial information. Being president of a company may be notable if that company is notable. I'm not sure if Agilitek Corporation, as it appears to be another vanity entry. The references requested above are those that are written by third parties, that is newspapers, journals etc. Those sourced from organisations with which the individual is affiliated are not sufficient. Mind matrix 00:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete

I've gathered a few more sources which mention John Estrella, and I will also produce newspaper articles on the subject soon:

I would like to point out Dr. Estrella’s affiliation with Ryerson University. That is an irrefutable fact from a credible institution that can easily be verified by someone who is local in the Toronto area either via the Internet or through a phone call to the university.

http://ce-online.ryerson.ca/ce_2010-2011/default.aspx?id=2525

Dr. Estrella is NOT affiliated with the Toronto Association of Systems & Software Quality (TASSQ). The third-party event below is being hosted by IBM in Markham.

http://tassq.org/upcoming-events-markham.php

Shroff Publishers & Distributors Pvt. Ltd., a leading academic and information technology publisher in India distributes his popular software testing book along with books from O'Reilly & Associates, Packt Publishing, Mike Murach & Associates, Rampant TechPress, Pragmatic Bookshelf, IBM Redbooks, MC Press, Discovery Press, etc. http://www.shroffpublishers.com/detail.aspx?cat=0&title=2092

Endeavour http://www.endeavourvolunteer.ca/wp/pro-bono-community/workshops/?menu=com http://www.endeavourvolunteer.ca/photos/album.php?id=5400428388627758561

Here is a YouTube video from the Toronto Stock Exchange http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiGl9WDtX7g

We cannot undermine Dr. Estrella’s involvement with the Project Management Institute (PMI) because his expertise is in project management. Yes, he is affiliated with a particular chapter, the Southern Ontario Chapter, but other PMI chapters in Canada, U.S., Australia and elsewhere have invited him to speak at their events over several years. This clearly demonstrates his expertise and notability in his field over an extended period of time.

PMI Durham Highlands Chapter, Ontario, Canada http://www.onepmi.info/PMIWeb02/EventDetails.aspx?ProductID=2253

PMI Lakeshore, Ontario, Canada http://www.pmi-lakeshore.org/archives/Operational_June_2010_Report_Region3Summit.pdf

PMI Mid-Missouri, USA http://www.pmi-lakeshore.org/archives/Operational_June_2010_Report_Region3Summit.pdf

PMI Canberra, Australia http://www.pmichapters-australia.org.au/canberra/events/chaptereventdetails.asp?evid=63

PMI Financial Services Special Interest Group (SIG) http://www.pmichapters-australia.org.au/canberra/Events/2007%20PMI%20FSSIG%20Webinar%20Program_final.pdf

PMI Project Education Article http://www.pmiteach.org/information_center/articles.aspx

Other References

Mosaic Australia http://www.mosaicprojects.com.au/Company_People.html

Preventing Project Failures http://blog.sealightllc.com/?tag=riskmanagement — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bogdan247 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —PK T(alk) 13:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see anything here that meets WP:AUTHOR or WP:BK. Of the four books listed in the article, one is published by his own company, one is published by the vanity service CreateSpace, and two are published by Trafford, which is a vanity press. Obviously, anybody can pay for publication and then come onto WP claiming to be a published author. His evidence for notability as an author fails WP:SPS. Qworty (talk) 18:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that his works were self published does not mean that he is not a notable authority in his field. I supplied numerous reference to show that.Bogdan247 (talk) 20:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One of several related articles created by Bogdan247, one which has been PRODded and another up at AfD. Having authored a book does not count as a reliable source attesting to the subject's notability; if so, I'd qualify for an article myself. Beyond that, the sources claiming that he is a noted motivational speaker are from his own company's website and the BSA, in which organization the article claims he is heavily involved; scarcely independent sources. It is not enough to find items with his name on it; to qualify under the GNG, there must be reliable, third party, independent sources that describe the subject in "significant detail," such as articles in major newspapers or magazines. None are to be found. [2] Ravenswing 21:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Qworty: Dr. Estrella was on the team of international project management practitioners who revised The Standard for Program Management, Second Edition (p. 297). This book is a global standard approved by the American National Standard (ANSI/PMI 08-002-2008). Using the publisher alone to judge the notability of an author is argumentum ad hominem.
Please note that several business or business-related books were originally self-published, and some of them still are, such as What Color is Your Parachute by Richard Nelson Bolles (22 editions, 6 million copies, 11 languages), In Search of Excellence by Tom Peters, The One-Minute Manager by Ken Blanchard and Spencer Johnson, Leadership Secrets of Attila the Hun by Wess Roberts and more.
Ravenswing: “Motivational speaker” was not mentioned anywhere in the Wikipedia article or on his website. He was a “speaker in project management” which is supported by several other websites (and not his company’s website as you noted). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bogdan247 (talk contribs) 06:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The business-related books and authors you cite have been international best sellers. Estrella's works aren't. They have been extensively reviewed in mainstream publications. Estrella's works haven't. The authors have had substantive coverage in mainstream media. Estrella hasn't. You keep attempting to argue how being on a project management team or having published one's own book makes one notable. This is not the case, and I strongly urge you to review the various links you've been sent so you can gain a better understanding on the applicable criteria. Ravenswing 17:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This a biography of a working professional. There is no coverage in indpendent reliable sources to establish notability. His books are all self-published, which is often indicative of non-notability, but the key for this is that there is no critical reviews from independent reliable sources about these books. -- Whpq (talk) 14:22, 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grassfield, Virginia

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

Non-notable neighborhood, similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camelot, Chesapeake, Virginia Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 22:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. —Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 22:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Dough 48 72 03:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Wickedjacob (talk) 03:52, 20 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Gardens, Virginia

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

Non-notable neighborhood similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camelot, Chesapeake, Virginia. Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 21:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. —Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 22:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Dough 48 72 16:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage seems possible. Wickedjacob (talk) 03:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Practically no sources outside of Wikipedia mirrors and real estate sites; there's not even a GNIS entry. Fails WP:GNG rather clearly. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 18:13, 24 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forest Lakes, Chesapeake, Virginia

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

Non-notable neighborhood that does not reference any sources of any kind. Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camelot, Chesapeake, Virginia. Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 21:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. —Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 21:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Dough 48 72 03:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Wickedjacob (talk) 03:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, as there are practically no sources aside from real estate sites which mention this neighborhood. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 18:17, 24 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, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Ferdinand Grychtolik

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

Non-notable biography as noted by a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First impression: rather bad translation of a German WP article. They typically come without sources, even Siegfried Palm (which I translated). If Grychtolik edited Bach's St Mark Passion and BWV 244a, he is notable enough, but the article needs work. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He is not notable merely for having edited some famous works; he is only notable if those editions have become notable in themselves. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 10:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I started looking into the matter, found his reconstructions performed, broadcast, published, himself announced as a player for concerts in 2011. I started adding refs, also two biographies (as external links) which support facts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gerda. He's notable, since he's been mentioned in multiple reliable sources. Graham87 12:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability requires significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, not just mention. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added one more Bio, and another broadcast. Is significance measured in numbers or importance? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Both. cmadler (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The relevant guidelines for this article are WP:CREATIVE as this person is, essentially, a creator of musical works (new editions of existing works), and WP:GNG, the general notability guidelines. To be considered for inclusion under WP:CREATIVE, Grychtolik would need to meet one of the following:
1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
  - Widely cited is not the same as performed. As Grychtolik appears to be the only editor to provide modern transcriptions of many of Bach's works, it is not significant that a particular group chooses to perform his transcription, or that he chooses to perform his own transcriptions.
2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
  - No evidence of this
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.
  - No evidence that Grychtolik's editions have become the subject of any independent reviews (this would be the criterion I would most likely expect to see passed for a person of Grychtolik's background)
4. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
  - No evidence of this.
The article's citations of sales catalogs, performance program notes and database listings do not constitute a single instance of significant coverage in independent sources. (I.e. fails WP:GNG)

Failing all of these criteria, there should not be an article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

English is not my first language, so this a lot of guideline readings. The person is not only a creator, but also an academic teacher and a performer. Most important: he doesn't "transcribe" Bach music, but reconstructs lost Bach music, which means makes it possible to perform it at all, large scale works like BWV 247 and BWV 244a, which later was used for the St Matthew Passion BWV 244. That seems of high importance to me, even internationally. I agree that program notes are no reliable sources, but the fact of a performance and its broadcast is, or not? At the Köthener Bachfest the Köthener Trauermusik BWV 244a was performed in the context of Bach's Mass in B minor (Collegium Vocale Gent, Philippe Herreweghe), a concert of the Thomanerchor and Georg Christoph Biller, and one of the English Baroque Soloists and John Eliot Gardiner. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply You state that Grychtolik's work "... seems of high importance to me". It may well be, but there are no independent sources indicating that the musical world at large feels that it is of high importance. If this work by Grychtolik is so significant, it should be verifiable by citations from publications that are writing about him. If none are, then the significance is not verifiable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the field of music, discussing and writing about a work is one thing, a performance another. The repeated production of the works mentioned above (and their broadcast) is an indicator of significance. (Some music never gets performed. Some gets performed but only once.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I don't believe that is the intent of the relevant Wikipedia guidelines, but I'll leave that to the admin who evaluates this discussion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gerda is right. I've spent a few hours working on this, reading about him and his work is very significant. Just the fact that he's been published by C.F. Peters is very big. Peters is a leading (if not the leading) publisher of classical music. What this guy has done is, as Gerda said, reconstruct lost works of music by Bach, thereby making it possible to perform them in concert again. The article is no longer just a list of performances that may mean nothing to the non-musical reader. It now explains more clearly and with references from magazines, newspapers, trade publications and other sources, that Grychtolik has made a name for himself and the significance of his contribution. Marrante (talk) 01:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable enough now. Thanks to the authors. These facts here guarantee signifcance. Nfu-peng (talk) 10:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Either I'm missing the point, or everyone else is. It is clear from the cited references that Grychtolik has done some work (perhaps even some groundbreaking work). But a person is not notable for having done work, they are notable for having some independent source notice their work. All of the citations in the article are to festival appearances and sales catalogues, etc. There is not a single instance of significant coverage. But I've shouted from this rooftop enough. I'll let the admins evaluate the various arguments. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NM, particularly WP:COMPOSER, and WP:PROF. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After mulling this over for a few days, I think that—based on the current sources—we have little choice but to delete this article. Aside from needing sources to establish his notability (meaning, in this case that reliable independant sources have taken note of him beyond the ordinary level), sources are also needed to give us information. If, as in this case, there are few or no reliable secondary sources that have written about him (which purposefully excludes schedules, sales catelogues, and the like) then anything we might write about him could only be original research. The only such source I see provided here is this short TLZ article, which certainly does not give us enough to hang an entire Wikipedia article on. So, unless additional suitable sources can be provided, I think this article must be deleted. But, I suggest that 1) one of the article contributors is welcome to userfy the article and continue to seek sources, and 2) if suitable sources can be found (which I think will happen eventually—gazing into my crystal ball, I predict that much more is likely to be written about Grychtolik in the years to come) I'd support the recreation of the article. cmadler (talk) 13:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep - The addition of sources, especially the Neue Musik Zeitung article has convinced me to change my opinion. cmadler (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, in agreement with Gerda Arendt and Michael Bednarek, though this is a close call. The large number of sources added in the last few days are a testimony to the diligence of Gerda and Marrante but, it has to be conceded, mostly do not contribute to establishing notability (too many notices of festival appearances and sales catalogues, as WikiDan61 notes). That said, it is not necessary that all cited sources be used for this purpose, and it appears to me that there is (marginally) a sufficient number now. The arguments here are clouded somewhat by disagreement about the nature of the subject, and in which of several areas he may or may not be regarded as notable ("co-creator", "performer", "musicologist", etc.). I do not see anything in the Wikipedia guidelines that notability need be established in all areas in the subject's life, and my take on Cmadler's crystal ball prediction is that teetering on the brink of acceptability now, with a strong likelihood of increased notability in the near future, it is better to keep than to delete and then recreate in a matter of weeks or months.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See Gerda Arendt and Michael Bednarek's comments. This is clearly material that WP readers interested in Bach and in early music would want to be able to read. Why serve them ill by deleting it? Opus33 (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- OK, I'm convinced. The addition of this review in the German NMZ site, and this review in recent days indicate the Grychtolik's work has been the subject of multiple independent reviews. Kudos to those editors who have worked hard to find actual significant sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As one of those hard-working editors, the two items you cite above were in the article when I posted for the first time last night. All you had to do was look. But because of your comment at 12:08 today, and Cmadler's at 13:08, I've just spent another three hours trying to find more articles. I did find one (on a tip from Gerda). I'm glad everyone is now satisfied. Marrante (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. My German is weak at best, so it was difficult for me to assess all of the references at first glance. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also apologize; I somehow missed the NMZ citation when I looked at first. I do still think this would benefit significantly from additional sources. cmadler (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies accepted, though it would be nice to have questions asked regarding language issues. I really did a lot of work on the article last night and was rather surprised that it seemed to make no difference. I felt that the sources I had included were good and I like to think I know what I'm doing here. There are still a few sources I could include, but I have been holding back and even deleted a few because I felt that "better" is preferable to simply "more". There's one source that mentions Grychtolik several times, but it's a blog. It seems to be a fairly good classical music blog, but after all the complaints here, I didn't use the site for refs, thinking I needed to stick to newspapers, etc. or risk making the article's subject look like a wannabe. There are a couple of other refs I've found, but have not evaluated them thoroughly because of the pressure I have felt to provide "significant" enough refs. Marrante (talk) 23:43, 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Winslett

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

Scholar who does not meet WP:PROF - the article states he is a "world leader...in Pre-Classical literature", yet he is not quoted or made reference to in any significant independent sources that I could find, nor does his name bring back any hits on Google Scholar. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 20:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Does not pass PROF or GNG. Drmies (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable enough. He appears to have only published once per his profile at the university website. --AerobicFox (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nowhere close to passing WP:PROF, and not a world leader in anything. Bearian (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. Edward321 (talk) 15:39, 23 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Wakanena

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

This article is about a British basketball player that does not meet notability. Coverage in reliable sources consists of routine sports coverage which is not enough to establish notability in general. With respect to basketball specific notability, he plays in the English Basketball League which is not a professional league. Whpq (talk) 20:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as an unreferenced BLP article. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 01:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Articles should not be speedied "as unreferenced BLP article[s]." Under the new guideline, they can be prodded, however. However, unreferenced BLPs that don't fit A7 criteria can be speedied. Just wanted to clarify. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 05:25, 24 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniele Giordano

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

Football player who has only represented Montrose, a semi-professional club in the bottom tier of the Scottish Football League. Player does not meet general or specific notability requirements. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 00:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 00:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Without significant coverage or fully pro appearances, he clearly fails WP:N and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as he fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --Carioca (talk) 21:17, 24 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Sloan

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

As far as I can confirm, this author has written a book--and that's all I can find. I gladly stand corrected, but considering his (claimed) position and publication record it seems to me WP:PROF is not met, and WP:GNG certainly is not. Drmies (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any RS that would fulfill WP:AUTHOR or WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One published academic review of one of his books (all I could find) is not enough for WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Also, there are no real citations to speak of to his work, nor is his position as head of a secondary school notable per se. Uncontroversial policy-based delete. Agricola44 (talk) 05:50, 22 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. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 05:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria (Western Australia)

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

An entirely non-notable geographic feature. Mere inclusion on a list of geographic features does not make this "hill" notable in the absence of other reliable sources. The creation of this article appears to be linked to a move discussion at Talk:Victoria (Australia)#Requested move - Victoria (state). Mattinbgn (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 20:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't quite rate in comparison to the other "Mountains" in Category:Mountains of Western Australia, can't see what makes this hill notable. Calistemon (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nearby Mount Jackson, Western Australia in the Yilgarn was a minor goldfield centre in the 1890s. Gazetteer of Australia identifies both at similar locations [3] [4] and looking at the surrounding topography, I wonder if they are the same thing. ~~Rather than delete, suggest move and adjust coords slightly.~~ –ǝuʎpuooW 01:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Jackson, Western Australia is done. This article should be deleted per WP:GNG. I searched but can find nothing noteworthy of this landform other than it apparently exists. –Moondyne 14:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That I could support - it's on my list of articles to create. One question - is it "Mount Jackson" or "Jackson"? (". (per 8006/96)". Western Australia Government Gazette. 3 March 1897. p. 1897:418. says "Jackson", as does Map 35/300 at SRO (which is online but I can't figure out how to link.) Orderinchaos 02:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory named it Mount Jackson on 17 August 1846. Speakman and Hall found gold there in Jan 1894. –Moondyne 06:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah cool, I'll link Jackson to Mount Jackson when I finally do the relevant land district article then. Thanks :) Orderinchaos 04:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Support merge/move changed to Keep per Hesperian - Victoria hill (which it should have been titled http://www.ga.gov.au/bin/gazm01?placename=victoria+hill&placetype=0&state=WA+ - not just Victoria) ~~to Mount Jackson article per moondyne~~ Satu Suro 01:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All places with a gazetted name are inherently notable. The gazetted name of this place is in fact "Victoria Hill", and I have moved it accordingly. Hesperian 02:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That seems a bit of an extension from the convention re: populated place names and I am not sure I have seen it interpreted so widely. It does not seem like a great idea to me. Unlike populated places which by their nature will most likely be the subject of some reliable sources, I am not sure the same applies to every rise, waterhole or intermittent watercourse. I think it is very unlikely that every Deep Creek in Australia has enough sources to support an article. The creation of sub-stub articles based on nothing more that a link to the gazetted name should be discouraged in my opinion. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 03:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It has a gazetted name. That's one third-party reliable source. No doubt I could go down to my local map shop and buy a 1:100000 topographic map upon which it appears. That's two third-party reliable sources. It meets the notability criteria already. I'm very confident I could find a line or two on its geology and topography in the appropriate publication of the Geological Survey of Western Australia, which is, after all, extremely thorough in its coverage. The Vegetation Survey of Western Australia is somewhat more patchy, but there may well be a publication that covers it. Hesperian 04:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would argue that the map and the gazette only confirm the existence of a feature, but do not meet the "significant coverage" test to be considered as reliable sources for the purposes of WP:N. If all we can say about the feature is that it exists and this is its ___location, is this encyclopedic coverage. A blue link is a promise to a reader that when they follow the link they will find information of some value rather than a mere restatement of the name of the topic. This article does not meet that promise. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 07:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - From the gazette one obtains confirmation of its correct name (as I did here), and the precise ___location. From a map one learns of the spatial relationship it has with nearby features. In my view the promise of the blue link is satisfactorily fulfilled. I'm not sure there's any scope here for one of us to convince the other; de gustibus non est disputandum? Hesperian 08:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My rule of thumb is that if one other article (other than a list) links to it (or could feasably link to it) and its gazetted, its worth having. Verifiability doesn't mean article-worthy. –Moondyne 03:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be entirely non-notable. I can understand mountains being notable but hills are just too common. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Struggling to identify notability for this one - generally we don't have articles about things which sources confirm exist, but provide no other information. Orderinchaos 02:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (Disclosure: I created it). I think all species, all gazetted names should go into WP. Maybe someone can walk around and take a picture. Near by is Lake Barlee: On 25 March, Forrest climbed a hill in the area and saw the great extent of the lake. He then named it after Frederick Barlee, the Colonial Secretary of Western Australia. - That Forrest hill is unnamed in WP. But here we have one that has a name. Wouldn't it be interesting to know why this hill was named Victoria? By whom? Maybe one day one person can put a link from some other article linking to it as Moondyne suggested. Put a stub and let it grow. :-) TopoChecker (talk) 05:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Walk around and take a picture"? You do know where this is? It's not exactly down the end of Main Street to the left. I'm not sure that there's even drivable roads in that part of the country any more. (Edit: 118km from the nearest drivable road, just checked.) And how do we know "a hill" relates to *this* hill - seems WP:ORish to me (there are thousands of hills and that area isn't short of them). Orderinchaos 06:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice infos. You say lot of things I did not know about that region. I couldn't determine the shire, can you? I only found the region seems to be sparsely populated. Nearby are Shire of Yilgarn, Menzies, Sandstone. TopoChecker (talk) 06:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Lake Barlee wouldn't even be visible from the hill - it's also more than 100km away. The hill would be in the Shire of Yilgarn as it's near Mt Jackson which is well within. Orderinchaos 07:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment IMHO creation of locations and geographical features should really in the end be done by those who have knowledge of and working access to local sources from such as http://trove.nla.gov.au/ or http://henrietta.liswa.wa.gov.au/search~S2 - or as Hesperian has indicated paper versions of the material related to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetation_Survey_of_Western_Australia or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geological_Survey_of_Western_Australia in hand and a good understanding of how http://www.ga.gov.au/map/names/ works - or to have actually experienced the ___location and have the evidence - like a photo - the fact the creator has indicated literally no knowledge of the locale should be sufficient to encourage further such adventurers of the computer screen to take care in creating stubs from names alone - rather than experiential context - and having agreed with both Hesperian and Mattinbgn's sentiments above - I remain in comment mode rather than delete or keep of this item Satu Suro 07:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@SatuSuro - Agreed. @Orderinchaos - I added the shire to the article. The Lake Barlee story was only to show that hills may have little stories attached to them. TopoChecker (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Hesperian. Five Years 16:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Keeping this article sets a dangerous precedent. Aside from completely ignoring the "significant coverage" requirements of WP:GNG, it would pave the way for the creation of a massive number of stub articles, as happened when somebody went crazy not that long ago and started creating river stubs.[5] In Australia a hill is defined as "a small portion of the earth’s surface elevated above its surroundings, of lower altitude than a mountain. Generally its altitude is less than 300 metres above the surrounding country but this can change in areas of low relief." Geoscience Australia doesn't make it easy to calculate the number of hills in Australia, but the NSW Geographical Names Board says there are 4,217 in NSW. Extrapolating from this a figure of more than 40,000 is likely for the whole country. If "all places with a gazetted name are inherently notable" was indeed true, and I am yet to see evidence of this, we could be in for a lot of stub fixing, as happened with the rivers. Just a thought. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this view. Just from my work with the WA gazettes I can tell you not only that there'd be thousands in WA, but there's actually a few significant ones which either have some history or are used as key trigonometric points and hence have some real world significance. This one is clearly not one of them. I couldn't imagine an article on Waukolup Hill for example even though I could actually walk there (unlike this middle-of-nowhere example which seems to have been created to prove a point which it no longer even does successfully). Orderinchaos 17:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, one must not forget that this article seems to have been created in a misguided effort to justify moving an article.[6] --AussieLegend (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What is "dangerous" about creating stubs, whether this one in particular or a "massive number"? We're not running out of space for new articles, and there's no policy against stubs, which are the way that most articles start out. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is, of course, a difference between a legitimate stub that contains useful information and a sub-stub—like this article—that merely restates the title and the ___location. This article does not even give an elevation! Also, there is little likelihood that this sub-stub will ever be able to be expanded because of a lack of reliable sources containing significant coverage of the article. If we accept the principle that the creation of these sub-stubs is OK (or even should be encouraged) then we weaken the concept that encyclopaedic articles should actually contain encyclopaedic information. Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 33#River stubs is an earlier discussion about how these sort of articles detract from Wikipedia. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Sub-stub" is simply a version of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The term for a very short article is "stub". Phil Bridger (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If by WP:IDONTLIKEIT, you mean I think the article contains no encyclopedic information of any value and detracts from the project, then yes, I guess that definition of IDONTLIKEIT sums up my argument. The creation of articles of this nature is a blight on the project and does not aid the project in any way, shape or form. It doesn't meet GNG either (a map or gazettal do not meet the "significant coverage" test IMO) and has little or no prospect of doing so in the future. As I said above, a blue link is a promise to a reader and this article breaks that promise. It is a poor article, created for WP:POINTy reasons and is beyond redemption. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is dangerous is that by ignoring the requirements of WP:GNG, we are allowing the creation of articles about non-notable entities. If we do that, I could write an article about the mound of dirt in the paddock behind my house because technically, it fits the definition of a hill. --06:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I remember an AfD about an ~~islet~~ rock two metres in diameter twenty meters from the shore in Norway. The result was "it has a name" and was kept. ^walk victor falk^talk 17:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article respects WP:GNG: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. TopoChecker (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage is trivial - it points to its existence and ___location, and nothing more. On that basis even my street would be notable as it's printed in a street directory and listed in its index. Orderinchaos 05:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should read WP:GNG again. It says "sources", not source, and clarifies this by stating "Multiple sources are generally expected". It also says "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention" and mere mention of its ___location is trivial. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. No original research is needed to extract the coordinates from the Gazetteer. From other reliable sources, one may obtain the approximate elevation. Wikipedia use guidelines such as Wikipedia:Notability to keep from having to reinvent the wheel in every AfD.—Stepheng3 (talk) 06:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A map or a gazettal on its own cannot be considered "significant coverage" by any definition of the term "significant" that means anything at all. "From other reliable sources, one may obtain the approximate elevation" Where is it? A vague wave towards some unidentified source does not count as "significant coverage" either. A mere assertion that a source exists does not cut it. I agree, WP:N is designed to prevent having the same discussions time after time, and this article and topic do not meet WP:N. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 06:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elevation added, source cited. —Stepheng3 (talk) 07:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That source says it's an estimation though, so I'm not sure whether it's classed as reliable. A topo map I have here says that the height is 436m. Nearby Wayabeen Hill is 450m, Yeelah Hill is 466m, Curragibbin Hill is just over 500m and Yeeding Hill is 556m. All of these are AMSL, not above the sourrounding land which averages around 400m AMSL. What we have here is barely a hill at all, poking only 36m above the surrounding land. Doesn't seem notable does it? --AussieLegend (talk) 10:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability resides in the sources, not in the actual height of the feature in question.—Stepheng3 (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources provided are considered significant coverage for the purposes of GNG, then surely every street in Melbourne (the subject of several different street directories, both printed and online) now meets the same standard. To consider a map as a reliable source for the purpose of meeting GNG makes a mockery of the whole guideline. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage is trivial - it points to its existence and ___location, and nothing more. On that basis even my street would be notable as it's printed in a street directory and listed in its index. On consideration, there's actually *more* printed documentary material about my street, as there is some discussion about its construction in a file at the State Records Office. Victoria Hill is, as far as I can tell, not mentioned in a single SRO file (a search there turns up nothing, suggesting it wasn't used for a trig point or any other useful purpose). Orderinchaos 06:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question How does it meet the "significant coverage" requirement? Coverage is not simply listing of the details. If it were, you could justify writing an article on most houses that are for sale since they are usually listed in multiple sources. My business would become notable because it is listed in multiple sources, all of which are reliable. The answer to my question is, it doesn't. The subject is not notable. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a strawman argument. House listings are generally created (by sellers or their agents) for the purpose of selling the house and are therefore not independent of the subject.—Stepheng3 (talk) 07:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. In Australia, listings are created by the agent but are not restricted to listing by that agent. House sales are often listed by multiple agents, all independent of the source, especially online. That said, you response doesn't explain how this hill meets the "significant coverage" requirement. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The !policy that "all place are notable" says notability is met if a) it is a geographical place, ___location or feature b) that exists and c) this can be proven. This is the case for Victoria Hill. ^walk victor falk^talk 17:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which policy is that? --AussieLegend (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy, hence the "!". The de facto consensus is that all places are notable. A similar case is WP:SCHOOLS, where the de facto consensus is that "high schools are notable". ^walk victor falk^talk 22:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is the point that AL is trying to make - there is no policy, it is merely a common outcome. Your schools example is the major reason I am concerned about articles like this that rely on the notion of "inherent notability". The "all schools are notable" argument has grown from a statement that "most High Schools are found to be notable" to "all High Schools are notable" to now "All schools, be they High Schools, Elementary or Primary Schools, Special Schools etc. are notable". What was a common sense convention has been stretched beyond all recognition. This case is the same and the same argument could be used for the every little rise marked on a map. The "inherent notability" argument is circular - places are deemed as notable because they are kept at AfD discussions. Why are they kept at AfD discussions? Because they are deemed notable!! We should rely on WP:GNG - significant coverage in reliable sources - rather than subjective views of "inherent notability". -- Mattinbgn (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Matt's points above. Also worth noting WP:NOTINHERITED. "All X are notable" is a fallacious argument, we should be arguing on the merits of the individual feature. AussieLegend's identified some interesting points to this end in his arguments above - it's 36m above local landscape, so even if one staggered out the 112km along unformed tracks in a semi-desert area to take a photograph of this thing, one might actually have a little trouble finding it (and that's assuming one wasn't seeing mirages by that point). Orderinchaos 01:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This place is essentially not notable. I follow the arguments of Orderinchaos who knows WA well. It was also created to make a point. Incidentally if these locations are compared with Schools, the argument is not that all schools are notable; it is that all High Schools are notable. Primary and Middle Schools are, as far as I can see, still being deleted. If this hill is to be compared with schools, it is a child care centre. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not all gazetted places are notable.--Grahame (talk) 23:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Delete wherever the line goes, Victoria Hill is on the wrong side of it. ^walk victor falk^talk 21:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've got a bet each way :-) cygnis insignis 15:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is probably a significant population there, possibly more than one, but they are not considered in the discussion above. I have linked to many named locations in this region, hills and outcrops are especially notable in this state, beyond the political, economic or other anthropocentric views they turn out to be quite remarkable and this would be noted. That this 'island' is likely to be unique would not be unusual in WA, it would be notable if it wasn't, and reference to named features of the landscape can be of crucial importance. My links often relate to nearby ___location, 'nearby' being within 100 km! The article is functioning and ready to be built upon when needed. cygnis insignis 15:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A significant population of what? Kangaroos? It's a 36m hill at the bottom of some larger, but still non-notable hills. There's no population at the hill, although Google Earth shows a group of burnt out and abandoned structures 1.5km to the south-west. The "hill" itself doesn't even show up on Google Earth and the topo maps don't even show contours. It's just a spot height. Why would it or any other similar place be WP:N-notable? --AussieLegend (talk) 16:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails the significant coverage requirements of the general notability guideline. Jenks24 (talk) 08:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In my view, inherent notability for gazetted hills, as opposed to say, populated places, is taking it too far. As for the GNG, the subject isn't really covered at all in reliable sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:02, 24 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eugeny Zhilinski

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

This is likely an autobiography based on the user name of the article creator. There is an assertion of exhibiting at juried events, but with no specifics. I can find no coverage about this artist in reliable sources to establish notability in general, and given the lack of any specific information about the artist's works, there is no meaningful way to determine if notability for artists is met. Whpq (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too minor even for User:Leningradartist to cover! Johnbod (talk) 16:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete due to lack of coverage. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 01:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails Wikipedia guidelines on notability. Edward321 (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Was hoping that anglicizing the name (Eugeny->Eugene) might turn up something, but no. Yakushima (talk) 15:55, 23 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 delete as clear hoax.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ius credutio dominus

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

A clear hoax; see this search. IP removed CSD tag (without explanation); I bring it here, hoping for snow. Drmies (talk) 19:34, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 05:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Howes (actor)

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

non notable actor, his lack of notability remains unchanged since the last AfD WuhWuzDat 19:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is this the exact same article that had consensus for deletion about a month ago? ~~( Even if not the sources seem to reflect why it was brought to AFD in the first place before) Maybe a speedy g4 would have been a better avenue?Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)~~ Scratch that seems to have been declined before based on a dr. Will input later Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Due to being a sufficiently prominent actor (thanks to his role in a very prominent series (Downton Abbey - viewing figures for UK Oct -2010 around 10 million). With sufficient sources and references listed appropriately. This article is back thanks to a Deletion Review (which is here: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 January 5). (Msrasnw (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Weak keep: goes on tour routinely with prestigious theatre groups, and has consistently appeared in the theatre as well as some parts in other media. --AerobicFox (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Msrasnw (talk) 12:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Consensus at DRV was overturn speedy deletion, article has been substantially improved. This is a procedural AFD that looks pointless, all of those sources are reputable - the BBC, IMDB and respected UK newspapers. Szzuk (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'd say this was a rather pointless AFD procedure. The entire Wikipedia has been hit by delete-frenzy mode.Vin99 (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the new and properly sourced stub. My agreeing with a delete at the first AFD was based upon the original article being only a single six-word sentence and not a proper BLP. But as the then sourced stub article was nominated for deletion only 7 minutes after its creation, I stated I was willing to reverse my decision if the article improved. When it was not improved during the time constraints of the AFD, the one sentence was deleted. When a far different and far better sourced version was created 2 weeks later, it was erroneously speedied as as WP:CSD G4... but as the deletion was properly overturned due to the new article having significantly different content so as to not be G4 speediable, and as the new article IS significantly improved over its predecessor, this new version can be allowed to grow over time and with regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tried to be as objective as i could here given the history. I see that his theatre involvment is of notable troups, and hes regarded enough in the media as being a notable actor cast in a role. The sources look good, he satisfies WP:gng in my regards, and elements of WP:Ent. No probs with keeping this in the main space. Ottawa4ever (talk) 13:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Steady Keep - proved to be a actor. notable one too.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficiently notable and now playing a recurring role in a major series.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:54, 23 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. JohnCD (talk) 23:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Giorgos Nikoltsis

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

Fails notability for association football players (see WP:NFOOTBALL) as he has not played in a professional league match. Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 19:18, 17 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...} 19:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Without any first team appearances for AEK and without significant coverage, he fails all relevant notability criteria. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 00:38, 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TemplateMonster

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

Completing AFD nomination by User:Saqib Qayyum. On the merits, I am Neutral. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please clarify what's the exact reason for a AFD nomination is? The article does have references from the news; while scholar, books and images do not have sufficient data to be a reference for this article. Flowmaster.85 (talk) 13:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear. The editor added a WP:PROD template, but then switched it to a raw AFD template - which put it on the broken AFD list and drew my attention. Usually, I'd format the debate and they would come in and provide a rationale. Lacking a rationale, this would be a slam-dunk Keep. If I had to guess, I'd say that the raw timeline, and the fact that it takes up most of the article, could seem promotional. Some of the sources also appear to be primary (from TemplateMonster itself) or promotional (as with several press releases). When you remove those sources, notability seems quite thin. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. --Saqib Qayyum (talk) 08:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ParseIT

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

Non-notable software product. Name is too generic to perform a useful Google search for sources, so sources (if any are available) will need to be supplied by the author or other editors familiar with this product. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 11 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) 18:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article doesn't even try to claim notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:34, 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 keep. JohnCD (talk) 23:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mike McKenna

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

Poorly sourced Vanispamcruftisement article about a non-notable musician. Fails WP:CREATIVE Dolovis (talk) 05:29, 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]
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]

Keep - He has been a member of the Downchild Blues Band [7], as well as other outfits such as McKenna Mendelson Mainline [8], and Luke and the Apostles [9] which are all documented in the Canadian Pop Encyclopedia. Although behind a paywall, this article in the Toronto Star clearly has him as the primary subject, as well as this Kitchener-Waterloo record article. This article from The Age discusses McKenna Mendelson Mainline which helps establish that he has been a member of 2 or more notable groups (WP:MUSIC point 7) in addition to meeting notability based on coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 20:52, 12 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) 18:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete notability appears to be entirely by association (see WP:NOTINHERITED), for example being part of a band that was asked to open for a notable band once some 40+ years ago. Sourcing is shockingly paltry for someone supposedly active in music for so long. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A member of multiple notable bands (wp:music#6) who has recieved coverage independent of those bands (Kitchener-Waterloo record and a section in "Remembering our pop pioneers Canadian rock stars of the past look back in wonder - or anger" by Greg Quill The Toronto Star, 11 April 1998. Toronto Star link above is mostly him taking about him.) duffbeerforme (talk) 08:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I have added valid in-line references to this page per WP:V and WP:INCITE. There is a lot more to be added per WP:HASPOT. He is a Canadian guitarist/sound engineer in his own right looking at his allmusic credits here [10] and his discography list here [11]. Argolin (talk) 02:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the Toronto Star refers to him as "Legendary Toronto blues guitarist Mike McKenna" (Greg Quill, "Critic's choice", Toronto Star, April 23, 2009, p. E2). Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Argolin. -DJSasso (talk) 02:24, 24 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. Nomination withdrawn. No delete votes (non-admin closure) Goodvac (talk) 07:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frederik Andersen

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

Non-notable minor league hockey player who has not yet established himself to meet notability requirements per WP:NHOCKEY. Plays in a low level European league that cannot be considered fully proffesional, and I am unable to verify that this player has played in any IIHF event. Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball. Dolovis (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Dolovis (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the references on the page already shows he was selected to his national team for the World Championships in 2009. Wasn't all that hard to verify. It also mentions he was selected to the national team for Olympic Qualification. Any player who plays on a senior national team meets WP:NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Are you serious!? This is getting downright ridiculous, Dolovis. Not only does this player play at the highest level of Danish ice hockey (showing he meets NHOCKEY #1—and if you disagree with that just look at the conversation going on at WT:HOCKEY that you are taking part in where consensus is building to clarify that—you could have at least waited until that was over), BUT he also has played in both the 2009 AND 2010 IIHF World Championships which is the highest level of international ice hockey!! "I am unable to verify that this player has played in any IIHF event"!? How far did you look? At the article? Because anywhere else shows he has. Check "what links here" and you'll see his inclusion in the 2009 and 2010 roster pages. Or hey, Google "Frederik Andersen IIHF" and guess what comes up. A crapload of sources showing all the events he has played in. Quit trying to make a POINT, you're wasting everyone's time and you damn well know it. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 19:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —DJSasso (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It needs to be added to the article body, but yes, Andersen has played in the World Championships: [12]. Reso lute 20:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, regardless of any clubs he has played for the fact that he has played two games in the 2010 World Cup shows he easily meets NHOCKEY, [13]. Salavat (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Another nom contrary to consensus and without a WP:BEFORE. Grsz 11 21:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that he has competed in the World Cup fails WP:V. I searched though the IIHF Media Guide and Record Book 2011, which is the Official IIHF publication that lists the complete A-Z register for every player, coach and official (men and women) who have participated in any top level IIHF tournament - and his name is not listed. Dolovis (talk) 00:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you miss the link above to the official stats sheet on the IIHF website here? And heck lets throw in the official roster sheet as well. It's completely verified. Perhaps you missed it in the book. Hopefully you are done with your WP:POINT nominations by now. They are wasting alot of peoples time. -DJSasso (talk) 01:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And even better I can give you game summary #1 and game summary #2. All these links were very easily found with a simple google search. -DJSasso (talk) 01:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dolovis, just because you are being ignorant in your "search" of this guy's playing history, doesn't make his participation fail WP:V. Especially when this AfD has linked ample evidence of it. I would suggest you back off your POINT before one of us actually decides to take a mediation route or something that would almost certainly result in a block. Your edits are becoming increasingly disruptive and do not help the Wiki. Obviously you are taking full advantage of being bold, but there is such thing as common sense, especially when you purposely ignore evidence others provide. It really doesn't help your cause if you are trying to establish any legitimacy here, and certainly makes it hard for many of us to assume good faith when it comes to your edits. For the record, here are some more verifiable sources regarding his participation (one even has a picture of him participating!! visual proof!) [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], etc etc.– Nurmsook! ^talk... 02:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try to assume Good Faith. I am not making any POINT here. Djsasso removed the PROD stating that he had played in KHL (which was false) and that he was on a "World Championship Team" (also false). I searched through my on-line sources and was unable to verify the stated claims to notability. I then searched through my copy of the newly published "Official IIHF Guide" in which he is not listed. I have double checked this Guide, and he is not listed. Since I am looking at the "Official" IIHF source, there are only two possibilities: One, he played in the World Championships but was somehow omitted from the Official IIHF Guide; or Two, he did not play in any IIHF top level tournaments. The on-line sources cited are not "Official" sources, and so the information gained from them is suspect. When I am confronted with conflicting sources, I will always defer to the Official source. Dolovis (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1) DJ's reason for removing the Prod was that he "Meets NHOCKEY plays in top danish league", which is correct. No mention of the KHL. And 2), how can you possibly discount the OFFICIAL game sheets, rosters, and statistics of the tournament FROM the IIHF? The very same author of your book. Explain to me how IIHF game sheets are not official. And in that explanation, please describe who you think provides the official game sheets of these tournaments. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 02:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? The online sources ARE THE IIHF. Explain to me how the IIHF is not an official source please. And I never said anything about the KHL. What you are doing is trying to make a point arguments, and you make them over and over so many times it becomes pretty much impossible to assume any good faith. Frankly I don't even believe you have looked in that book. Seeing as how the player also played in several World Junior championships and the book you quote also includes world juniors players. -DJSasso (talk) 02:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination: As I have said, it is important to assume good faith as much as possible, or, minimally to assume incompetence instead of malice. I am offering my sincere apology to all who were inconvenienced by my failure to notice that the IIHF Guide has 8 pages for "current goaltenders" (359-366) placed in the middle of the 600 page guide. When the PROD was contested, false reason were given, but I did overlooked the player's listing when searching the Guide. I have now found our goaltender's listing, and the IIHF Guide does confirm that he played a total of 2 games in the 2010 World Championships (but he did not play in 2009), and he did play 4 games in the 2008 World Juniors (but not in several). It was my honest mistake, and I hereby withdraw my nomination for deletion. Dolovis (talk) 02:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, because I hate to see such a well respected user here face claims that false reasons were given for removing the PROD, claim 1) was that the subject "Meets NHOCKEY plays in top danish league" which not even you can deny (he plays in the AL-Bank Ligaen, the top Danish league), and claim 2) was that "and was on a world championship national team...." which you have now admitted that he was on the Danish team that played at the world championships. So to say that false reasons were given in the removal of the PROD is total BS. I think you need to listen to yourself and exhibit some good faith here. You run around arguing against everything that each of these reliable and experienced users say. Most of us (that I know of anyways) do not have personal vendetta's. We follow policy. So when we make a claim, and especially when that claim is backed by multiple users, there's a good chance it's true. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 02:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflicted)Since it doesn't matter at this point so I won't throw up more links....but he played in three U-20 World Juniors, two of them were in Div 1 and the one you mention in the championship division. He also played in two U-18 World Juniors. He was also on the roster of the 2009 team at the world championships but did not get any ice time. As well no false reason was given for its removal, I said he played in the top level danish league which he does, and I said he was on the world championship which he was. Please stop trying to spread false information. -DJSasso (talk) 02:32, 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. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 05:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Champions Classic

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

Article is about a future first-time sporting event. Event has not yet occurred. Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball. Article can be recreated if occurs and if it demonstrates itself to be an notable event. Dolovis (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia may not be a crystal ball, but it can report upcoming, anticipated events, and if this does happen then it will definitely meet the criteria of notability. The event is being sponsored by the NCAA, so it can be expected to occur. There should be improved sourcing of the hype this event is generating, but that is a sourcing issue and not a notability or crystal ball issue. --AerobicFox (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is going to be a notable event. BUC (talk) 10:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments. Would also like to add that these are four of the most premier men's college basketball programs in the country annually, and this event is guaranteed to garner tons of press coverage. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Dolovis (talk) 16:20, 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Juice Jam

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

A google search doesn't return many relevant results. I can't find anything to reassure me to that this article passes WP:EVENT. Specifically I have concerns over WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:PERSISTENCE, and WP:DIVERSE. nn123645 (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- nn123645 (talk) 17:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough significant coverage. — Timneu22 · talk 22:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only thing covering this university event is the university's student paper. -- Whpq (talk) 14:38, 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional swords

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

3rd nomination, first had a procedural close due to improper form, second was closed as no consensus. Previous arguments for deletion are paraphrased here.

Fictional swords cannot be easily researched because the only source is the primary one of the fiction in which they are embedded. Fictional swords rarely have notability independent of the fiction of which they are part. After nearly two years there's still no independent sources discussing fictional swords. Allowing any fictional instance of a sword is an overly-broad criterion and will produce an unmanageably large and indiscriminate list; the entries have nothing in common aside from being swords in fiction, which makes it a list of trivia. Reducing the list to notable instances produces a list that is uselessly small.

The list is somewhat redundant with the Category:Fictional swords. There is a lack of sources unifying swords from different works of fiction, leading to this article being an aggregation of plot summaries which Wikipedia is not. Individual fictional swords are not often notable by themselves, and sources that merely list the existence of a fictional sword in passing are not in-depth coverage such as critical commentary or discussion. While a discussion of the symbolic role of swords in fiction would be a verifiable encyclopedia topic, this list is not that discussion.

Over the last two years the editing history of the article has been a cyclic pruning back entries to notable swords, then a bunch of excited contributions in the "SEE!!! LOOKIE!!! LOOKIE!!! THERE WAS A SWORD IN THERE SO I CAN PUT IT ON THIS LIST " mode, then more weary pruning. Swords in mythology get schlarly attention; swords in random modern fiction, video games and films of the last couple of years are not going to have reliable sources about them. There is an overlap between this list and other lists such as List of magical weapons or List of mythological objects#Swords. Wtshymanski (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Counter-arguments: (1) notable ficswords are quite well discussed in critique texts. If you cannot find such discussion, i.e., nobody discussed it, then it is not notable outside the particular ficworld. (2) Liat is better than category, has a brief description. (3) I am sure that people who add new swords are newbie teenagers eager to say something. Educating them without mockery (such as LOOKIE!!! above) will serve for better of wikipedia, although it seems kinda nuisance. 17:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loggerjack (talk • contribs)

Weak delete, but... consider me officially surprised. I would have expected an article entitled "List of fictional swords" to be a horrible crapdump with every single video game and webcomic shoehorned in there somehow. Shockingly, this is a tight little list and actually has sources. Less shockingly, it actually was terrible until a recent cleanup flushed out the worst parts. It's still an overly broad and unmaintainable list, BUT I think a Swords in myth and culture (non-list) article would be excellent, and this could be a starting point toward that if anyone feels up to the task. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can see what the edit history is; the video game swords come and go. We have Swords in mythology but it's just a redirect to a list and no-one has yet expressed enough interest to start a real article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are List of mythological swords (should it be merged with List of fictional swords?) and Magic sword, so there is some interest in this subject. The question is whether there there is any research in fictional and mythological swords, to base a wikipedia article upon. Loggerjack (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a counterpart to category:Fictional swords per WP:CLN. Closer please to disregard any arguments based on the article's current or historical content, and attend only to arguments based on its potential.—S Marshall T/C 18:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: list can be maintained and prevented from becoming unmanageable(like the current version). It's hard to maintain is no more of a reason to delete it than deleting "Criticism of X" articles from becoming similar dumping grounds for every drive-by critique of a subject in history. We hold on to Criticism articles because it is possible to make them NPOV and to remove extraneous criticism even though no one does, so holding to this standard I'm maintaining we keep this article since it can be managed as well. --AerobicFox (talk) 23:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep again, and trim any cruft as desired. While this user's nomination is clearly in good faith, we've been here before, and the consensus was that a trimmed list of notable swords is indeed appropriate. I don't see that having changed. Jclemens (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As said above it's a good counterpart for the category about fictional swords, and it's a well enough written and sourced article to stand on it's own. Mathewignash (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator There was no holy consensus on the last two AfDs. I think my biggest problem with the article is not its subject matter, but it's list-ness. An article "Swords in fiction" would be plausible and support most of the functions of this list. But if the list stands, it'll be a perpetual cruft magnet, as are all "List of fictional X" articles. Is a list the best way to convey this information? Lists tell you nothing about the significance of the entries. (I think of lists as only being directories to related WIkipedia articles.) Is it instead time to write a real article, that would properly survey the literature and give the reader the symoblic and practical effects of swords in fiction, instead of a catalog of video game props? We do love listcruft on Wikipedia as apparent from the discussion to this point. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should have checked Google Scholar before - when I search "swords in fiction" I have yet to find an overview of the general role of swords in fiction. Surely Google Scholar would have turned up one or a few theses, but sampling the first dozen pages shows lots of discussion about individual works with swords in them, but no unifying discussion of the role of the sword in fiction overall.If no-one is writing about this, is it a notable concept? If we unify disparate fictional works here, is this WP:OR? --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm sort of neutral on this one, as it's one of the few "List of fictional x" articles that both seems to have a case for notability and has been trimmed to essentially notable entries. Nothing like abominations such as List of fictional toxins, List of fictional medicines and drugs or List of fictional cats...--70.80.234.196 (talk) 23:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Jclemens. Edward321 (talk) 17:03, 23 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shanghai Harajuku Electrical Appliance Company

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

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

Unreferenced promotion of a business Loggerjack (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. cab (call) 00:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. cab (call) 00:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no GNews hits in any language. Regular Google hits in Chinese or Japanese consist of job recruitment websites, directory listings, and the like, not reliable sources which would establish notability. cab (call) 00:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. --DAJF (talk) 01:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. I couldn't find RS. BTW, "Harajuku" in the company name is not that famous Harajuku, but ja:原宿 (横浜市). Oda Mari (talk) 15:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cristiano Bilanzola

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

Unsourced BLP, prod was declined. I cannot find any evidence that the notability guidelines set out at WP:N or WP:MUSIC are met. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 16:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —sparkl_!sm ^hey! 16:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. He has been in a series of non-notable bands, and has worked on some TV productions with no evidence of awards or other significant recognition for that work. -- Whpq (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very questionable sources. No evidence of notability aside from his small but devoted legion of fans. =) - TheMightyQuill (talk) 16:28, 22 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 delete. WP:CSD#G12 copyvio from icarly.wikia.com JohnCD (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of parodies in iCarly

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

Non-notable list of parodies in a children's TV show. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 16:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd call this original research, but that's really giving it too much credit. This appears to be mostly a list of fake product names used on the show to avoid using real trademarks, and thus aren't even actually parodies by definition. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced fancruft. If any of these are notable reoccurring gags, they can go on the main iCarly page. Otherwise, this is just a bunch of fake brands. I bet there's an iCarly wiki out there somewhere, wait, yep there is that this can go on. Perhaps the author would like to submit it there? Zachlipton (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COPYVIO http://icarly.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_Parodies Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:13, 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Boroff

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

While the article is now sourced, the person isn't N enough to meet WP:POLITICIAN. Ref 2 doesn't back up the statement that it is supposed to reference and would be considered trivial coverage. Putting his name into google news brings back one hit that is also trivial. Guerillero | My Talk 15:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Falls pretty far short on WP:POLITICIAN. Yakushima (talk) 16:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Mayors of small cities have not been considered notable enough for us in the past. When and if he gets elected to the state legislature, then he will notable enough. Bearian (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The town is too small for its mayor to be notable. Qworty (talk) 02:06, 22 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 of this debate is clear: despite his best endeavours, the article author has not demonstrated that Ms Asariah meets the notability standard for athletes, or is notable for any other reason. JohnCD (talk) 22:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Khrystenn Asariah

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

She placed a mere fourth in a state championship. Other bio statements are either unsubstantiated and not likely ever to be substantioned from RS (e.g., that she's currently looking for a partner), substantiated only in campus publications, or supported only in non-RS material. Yakushima (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ATHLETE. 4th in a state championship? Not even close. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: best wishes at becoming notable though. --AerobicFox (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. Current athletic achievements fall short of what is needed for inclusion as an athlete. --- Whpq (talk) 14:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable in several areas. Not just an athlete, needs further development. Had several other placements in other championships. US figure skating records are not easily accessible prior to certain dates. No reason to delete this page- shes got enough data out there on the web that supports and identifies her as notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JPelligrino (talk • contribs) 23:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC) — JPelligrino (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment "Not just an athlete, needs further development"? By which you mean to concede that Khrystenn doesn't meet the notability requiresments for figure skaters (in [19])? Then would you care to provide verification of her notability "in several other areas"? Mere college student activity, no matter how brisk, doesn't count. Mere mention in a publication of some kind doesn't count -- you need an article that's largely about the person, in a reliable source (by Wikipedia standards) to even start meeting the general notability guideline WP:GNG. And, needless to say, if the article claims "[s]he was co-hostess on the TV-series Urban Living TV.[14]", but a search [20] of the source cited [21], reveals she's not even mentioned on the site, then this claimed accomplishment can't possibly count toward Khrystenn's notability -- after all, she wasn't even noted in the source cited. Finally, one does not meet notability requirements on Wikipedia merely by being associated with somebody who does meet them (as claimed several times in this article, without substantiation in some cases). If that were the case, I could have my own bio up there, simply by being the son of a certain decidedly notable skater whose Wikipedia bio is somehow, um, significantly shorter than Khrystenn's? Yakushima (talk) 04:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I'm the old yeller that helped create this article. After doing a little more research on wiki policy, I've been trying to update some former skaters and contribute more on the competitive scene. As a former U.S. figure skating judge, I had the pleasure of watching/judging Ms. Asariah on several occasions. She formerly was a singles skater (skated under a different name) and had quite the lustrous streak. The problem here is that U.S figure skating was slow to get on board with online results and figure skating has not always made it in big with the press (especally post Tonya/Nancy when interest began to dwindle). Prior to Ms.Asariah's competitive history dates are primarily on paper and archived back in the big ole books and I happen to have many copies the results pages myself. This page is noted as a stub and it needs to be improved through regular editing. This little lady has made quite the comeback and stride in skating and I look forward to watching her progress in ice dancing. Even more notably alongside her athletic successes are her athletic, theatrical, and musical achievements. -Jed JPelligrino (talk) — JPelligrino (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment - You have removed other editor's comments. That is not appropriate, and I have restored the comments. You have also !voted twice. You only need to state "Keep" in bold once. I stricken the duplicated keep. As to notability, you make assertions of notability, but provide no specifics. Her athletic achievements as stated in the article do not rise to the level needed to meet the inclusion criteria. Her career in the entertainment industry has not been covered in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 11:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am not sure if this is the right format for doing this. I did remove two comments as I was reading on the deletion policy page about comments that are not relevant or appropriate and get personal. I am now curious where does it state athletic achievment requirements for skaters? I have seen several skaters on here with similar, if not less, athletic achievements in skating. In the skating world, Ms.Asariah's accomplishments are considered huge, and gained her quite the level of notability in her hey day. Skating is different from most other sports, and it is hard to know unless you have familiarity with that. Some of the invitations she received to national and international events are quite the big deal. As I stated earlier, the information needs further development assistance from others, which, over time will be added as I will continue to dig for more. These are simply 'highlights' of her overall career as a skater and not all inlcusive. I am also wondering, is she not miscategorized? -Jed — Preceding unsigned comment added by JPelligrino (talk • contribs) 17:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC) — JPelligrino (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  - Comment Jed, you say the reason you removed two delete votes was that they were "not relevant or appropriate" and got "personal." One of those comments wished her luck in her career. Under Assume Good Faith WP:AGF, you are supposed to assume that the comment was sincere. The other comment said that placing fourth in a state competition was "not even close" to meeting the requirements for notability (implicitly, as a figure skater on Wikipedia). Well, objectively (and that's what counts here), 4th in a state comp really is not even close -- see WP:ATHLETE. Finally, in neither your edit summary nor any subsequent discussion here, until your deletion of votes was pointed out, was there any indication from you of why you did this - and if you had a problem with the comments of others, you should have pointed it out. Yakushima (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I also noticed in the policy that there is no official "voting" and that deletions are not based on this, and I simply made an attempt to further my comments. Thank you for the note. -Jed — Preceding unsigned comment added by JPelligrino (talk • contribs) 17:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC) — JPelligrino (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  - Comment You did not "simply make an attempt to further" your comments. You deleted other people's comments. Yakushima (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment And if you found where AfD policy says that it's not strictly done by vote, you seemed to have missed what it says immediately afterward: "When making your case or responding to others, explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy." [22] Your comments so far amount to what that policy discussion earlier characterizes as "a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines", which can be deemed "disruptive" if the pattern continues after the groundlessness, the mere assertions, and the content guidelines have been duly pointed out by more experienced editors. Yakushima (talk) 07:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Jed, you claim you've been actively updating skater articles. But aside from Khrystenn's article, you've only added [23] a mention of Khystenn to one article, and something that's hardly more than a mention of Khrystenn to another [24]. All that leaves is your edits to her bio, and edits with the purpose of saving it from deletion -- i.e., you're running (so far) a Single Purpose Account (WP:SPA) as JPelligrino. Yakushima (talk) 05:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment JP: "I have seen several skaters on here with similar, if not less, athletic achievements in skating." See WP:OTHERSTUFF -- that makes no difference. In the case of skater bios, it's a problem I might be more aware of than most. Around May of last year, word came down that there were too many unreferenced bios on Wikipedia. In the course of saving maybe a few dozen skater bios from deletion by providing WP:RS sourcing[25], I ran across some skater bios that shouldn't have existed in the first place under WP:ATHLETE or WP:GNG. But my priority at the time was to save the bios of notable skaters, not to delete the bios of non-notable ones. Name these skaters with "similar, if not less, athletic achievements", and I'll nominate those for deletion too, unless they happen to meet WP:GNG on other grounds. Yakushima (talk) 06:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment As I understood it, the posts seemed to take a personal jab. If I wanted to be severe, I would have deleted all of the posts...Overall, I simply was making an attempt to update the information by adding to it. I have worked on several other bios (Trenary's, Lenko's, Belbin's). Not every sentence on wikipedia in a bio is supported by a citation. Several of the sources on the page have now been wrongly deleted, as Ms. Asariah used to go under a different name. As I stated earlier, perhaps Ms. Asariah is under the wrong category. When creating this article, I attempted to round out what I knew and also what I gathered from the WWW. I placed the "Stub" mention at the end, with the hopes of others assisting in expanding the article. I apologize if I have upset anyone with my lack of "wiki" knowledge or made any errors, and hope that we can continue to work on this together and other articles in the future. -Jed — Preceding unsigned comment added by JPelligrino (talk • contribs) 16:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC) — JPelligrino (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    - Reply - You have twice stated she went under a different name, but have not provided it. And you added false information to the article asserting she placed 5th in the Junior Grand Prix. Assuming good faith only goes so far. Please provide this mysterious other name that she went by along with some proof of the change in names, along with an explanation for the introduction factual error into the biography. -- Whpq (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply JP, you claim you "have worked on several other bios (Trenary's, Lenko's, Belbin's)". I don't see those articles listed in your contributions. contribs You say not every sentence in a bio has a citation. True, but every purported fact in a WP:BLP must have reliable sourcing under WP:RS. You say "perhaps Ms. Asariah is under the wrong category" (twice now), but you don't suggest one. I can tell you right now: she doesn't make the cut as a recording artist, nowhere near. Music teacher? I don't think so. There are standards for skating coaches, but again, she's nowhere near. And as far as I know, there's no category like "Past Presidents of Political Science Clubs at Universities." Yakushima (talk) 09:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Jed Pelligrino (— JPelligrino (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ) solicits work on the article, I've just done some: I went through every statement made and determined whether it needed to be cited under WP:BLP, leaving fact-tags where there was no citation, or where the source cited didn't support the statement made. In several cases, the source cited didn't even mention Khrystenn Asariah. In one case, someone with the middle name "Khrystenn" was given as outgoing president of a campus political science club. In a couple of other cases, the sources cited mentioned Khrystenn in a way that supported some kind of fact, and in those cases I added or changed sentences. Disturbingly, however, the claim that she competed in state and regional championships [26] is supported only by a citation [27] to a USFS page about coach continuing education compliance, mentioning nothing about her own record as a skater; and where the claim is made that's she's going for gold medals to rise to the top 2% of U.S. skaters, the source cited is recent tests showing that she recently performed Novice Moves in the Field (for which, see USFSA videos here [28] -- not absolute beginner moves, exactly, but hardly kissing top 2% of competition skating, I think.) I have not been able to verify anything in the Competitive Highlights table. Yakushima (talk) 10:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in a recent edit by Jed Pelligrino [29], after the AfD had been opened and WP:ATHLETE mentioned, we suddenly find Khrystenn on the world stage, with a 5th place finish in the ISU Junior Grand Prix. The table had hitherto listed only state and regional competitions. As the originator of this article, Jed seemed to know a lot about Khrystenn that can't be derived from readily available sources on the web. Jed also claims personal acquaintance with Khrystenn. And yet, somehow this placement didn't come to mind when he created the article. Khrystenn herself, on her own website, on the page devoted to her competitive history,[30] does not list the Junior Grand Prix, a significant one with cash awards for a 5th place finalist. It's academic here, I suppose, since, for WP:ATHLETE notability, a skater has to have entered the Grand Prix, not the Junior Grand Prix; so Khrysten still falls short by Wikipedia standards for skaters even with this new pinnacle apparently revealed. Still, I wonder if Jed could provide us with the document and the page number, given that this 5th place finish is not listed on the web anywhere, not even on Khrystenn's own website, where she's hardly shy about listing her accomplishments. I can ask around among the skaters I know (some of them coaches); maybe one of them will be able to verify against their own copy. Yakushima (talk) 15:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If that was the overall Junior Grand Prix, then the assertion that Asriah finished 5th is absolute baloney. As can be seen from the ISU Results for Junior Grand Prix of Figure Skating 2001 / 2002 for Junior Ladies, 5th place was taken by Tatiana Basova. -- Whpq (talk) 16:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Further note: - The 2001 season for the Juunior Grand Prix consistef of the Sofia Cup, Czech Skate, JGP Gdansk, JGP The Haghue, Salchow Trophy, Trofeo Rita Trapanese, SBC Cup, and ISU Junior Grand Prix Final. Khrystenn Asariah is not even a competitor in these competitions much less a 5th place finisher. -- Whpq (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - And yet another note: - There is an assertion by JPelligrino early in this AFD that "She formerly was a singles skater (skated under a different name)" without providing us with that name. But in any case, none of the 5th place finishers at 2001-2 ISU JGP for Ladies Singles was an American. I smell the additon of false information to the article in attemtp to manufacture notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment*** I realize I made an error when trying to add more competitive history. I made some edits and added a source or two. I also deleted some sentences that may be misleading or show bias. Has anyone checked on different categories or merging? I am fruitless and about to give up here, last time for an oldie like me to try and look smart! -Jed — Preceding unsigned comment added by JPelligrino (talk • contribs) 19:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC) — JPelligrino (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    - Reply - oh, it's hardly your last chance, JP. (Unless you get banned for tampering with an AfD discussion.) You could, for example, start the article Richard Dwyer -- a skater who still doesn't have Wikipedia bio despite easily vaulting over the barriers of not just WP:ATHLETE but WP:GNG as well. Certainly, if we have any single priority here, it should be something like "most notable first", should it not? At least, it would be if you're actually here to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia of figure skating. But when you claim you've edited other skater bios like Trenary's, while your available editing history shows you're basically just a WP:SPA for Khrystenn Asariah, you're making it very difficult indeed for any of the rest of us to maintain an Assumption of Good Faith WP:AGF. Yakushima (talk) 11:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment -“oh, it’s hardly your last chance JP unless you get banned” –What is that supposed to imply? All I said was that I was “fruitless and about to give up”. I have stated several times that I am new to all of this editing and all I did was ask for help and ask a question that a more experienced edito may have the answer to.. .but I guess it is “hardly my last chance.” Well thank you, that is encouraging. Listen, I’m 74, retired, and have no vested interest and I am really frowning upon your last few comments. I believe that you have been particularly cruel to me, shown through your sarcastic tone and approach. I have acknowledged the fact that you are more experienced than I, and that I do not have all the know-how. However, I have had this account for years, and even if I did in fact have a single purpose, I am sure I would have done it quite some while ago. I did make other edits, and I cannot even begin to tell you why it did not show up (perhaps I forgot to sign in?) I have been very kind, and understanding, and other than mistakenly deleting two comments that I thought to have gone against policy (which I apologized for) and I have made the best attempts to honestly edit this the best way possible, all the while trying to answer questions/comments. As previously stated, I am not an expert, I am just learning. I feel you have been harsh, at best, and I have done the best I am able to make this work. I do not need to be attacked, criticized or made assumptions against. Lastly, I believe some of the comments you have made have delegitimized Ms. Asariah’s work and efforts (if others happen to read some of the things you have said directly about Ms. Asariah-and not the Wiki biography-would they leave on a positive note?). I truly believe that this back-and-forth has gone a little too far. I was here to discuss the biography, not nitpick Ms. Asariah’s lesser accomplishments. With that said and done, I want to make one last attempt to work to improve this biography. A couple of things that I could used some assistance with as a novice editor: I have compared several other biographies on here, and a citation is not there for each particular sentence, or mention of something, why is this? In addition, it seems some good sources have been swiped from the biography that have held to the standards. On another note, I have tried using the “Wiki help” sections, and I did not suggest another category, or redirection etc, since I have not located this medium myself? I appreciate any help. This is all I am going to say from here on out with this, my hands are up in the air, and as I previously stated, I am voting to Keep this article, pending further development, review, citation, etc. If this is miscategorized, lets fix it together. Thanks.–Jed See, I am already learning (I know how to sign my name now) JPelligrino (talk) 16:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply is available on JPelligrino's talk page. Yakushima (talk) 04:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am writing to see about saving this article from deletion. Aside from my own errors as a novice Wiki editor (deleting 2 comments without commenting that this happened, accidentally "voting" twice), I believe this article to be sufficient to standards. As far as the competitive history goes, I beleive we need more time to look into this. Some of the sources that were deleted were done wrongly, perhaps with the name change confusions, however, Ms. Asariah is found on legitimate and credentialed sites all over the WWW and has gained quite the following as it seems, on social networking sites and the like.(Even Ms. Asariah's own web address states that the competitive history is a "partial listing"). I find that this article should be kept, however, I do agree that this needs improvments, more verifiability, etc. Should this be redirected? Should it be re-categorized? Should this have a different lable (stub, orphan, etc.)? Should this be placed in another category until more information is discovered? It is quite obvious that Ms.Asariah has the credibility have the biography, just lacking necessary sources and possible confusions with the last name change. -Jed JPelligrino (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - The inclusion in Wikipedia is guided by what is called "notability". This is a specific concept covering guidelines for keeping articles on wikipedia that is distinct from any dictionary definition of the word. For inclusion in general, see Wikipedia:Notability. The essence of that is that the subject of the article has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. For athletes, there is some more specific guidance at Wikipedia:Notability (sports). There isn't a specific guideline for figure skaters but the essence of the general guideline for sports figures is that they must have competed at the highest level of their sport. With respect to Khrystenn Asariah, she has not received significant coverage in reliable sources to meet the general inclusion guidelines. With respect the guidelines for athletes, she has not competed at the highest level of her sport which would require her to have been in international competitions such as Grand Prix events. That is the reason this article has been nominated for deletion, and why other editors are recommending its deletion. There has been no evidence put forward that she meets the above stated guidelines. And unless such evidence is put forward, the article is likely to be deleted. -- Whpq (talk) 18:12, 24 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. No prejudice to the creation of a redirect to an appropriate article. Mkativerata (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Khalid Rashid Ali Al-Murri

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

Fails WP:BIO, no multiple reliable independent sources who give indepth information about this person. The OARDEC dcouments and other givernments are primary sources, and other sources just mention him as one of a list of detainees. Problems tagged for over a year. Looking for different versions of his name didn't return more results. Fram (talk) 15:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Falls far short of WP:BIO due to the lack of coverage in secondary sources, and any secondary sourcing that may be found will not establish anything more then a WP:BLP1E.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The wikignome in me is impressed: the article is so well-documented that it hurts to vote for deletion. And this person certainly belongs on any Wikipedia list of GITMO detainees. Finally, it's definitely a notable tragedy that a number of people of no real consequence were detained for so long. But it's not Wikipedia's job as a repository of biographies of notable people to have a bio of GITMO detainee who was determined by some process of law to be not notable at all, much less notable for being a terrorist. Maybe it would be best to userfy this article and recycle its excellent citations into some relevant article. Yakushima (talk) 15:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The subject is not notable. Being a Detaines in GTMO is not enough. No reliable independent sources for this subject, as indicated above.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 22:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Anotherclown (talk) 06:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - relies mainly on primary documents and lacks "significant independent coverage". Therefore it is non-notable per WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 06:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Brewcrewer's reasoning. I think it would be okay to include the name on a list of detainees, but it is probably excessive for a biography in this case. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:49, 21 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) 00:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frequency range

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

This is a near-tautological dictionary definition, and a synthesis of original research unifying the concept "frequency range" from a grab bag of fields. Wtshymanski (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If you like this one, you'll love Temperature range. Simply adding "range" after some physical dimension doesn't make it notable topic. Yakushima (talk) 15:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated that one, too. Thanks. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This has much-used alternate titles which redirect to it such as waveband. This concept is notable, especially in dividing up the electromagnetic spectrum, as here. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - like above - Skysmith (talk) 13:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator. Not every adjective-noun pair is a fit subject for an encyclopedia article; "freqeuncy range" has nothing meaningful to say apart from the context of *which* freqeuncies you're talking about. And the moment you talk about two unrelated fields, you slip into WP:OR by synthesizing observations on the usage of the conept unsupported by sources. --Wtshymanski (talk)
- If that is the problem, it would be possible to split the sections about those unrelated fields to separate articles. An article would still be useful, as there are some things common to all of these, which would not be suitable for a disambiguation page. Peter E. James (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep many readers would want to be able to compare the likes of UHF to VHF that appear on some TV bandwiths. Nergaal (talk) 05:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But what does that mean? And that comparison doesn't appear in this article anyway, and VHF and UHF television have the same bandwidth although they use different...frequency ranges...there, I said it. Can you tell me what this article is supposed to be about? --Wtshymanski (talk) 05:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Frequency range has a technical meaning, referring to the frequencies a device can operate on, without any quality statement. Irrespectively, I think there is a lot to say about frequency ranges, be it electronic elements or equipment, acoustic devices including the human ear, etc. @Nergaal: What you are looking for is frequency bandwidth, which has a precise technical definition (the cut-off points are at half of the nominal/maximum power), and is much better summarized in Radio spectrum. Nageh (talk) 15:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For example? What would you say about "frequency range" that isn't just a dictionary definition, if you take out the usages of the phrase that are specific? The phrase has a meaning, but that doesn't make it a topic. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pass the question back. Where (in which article) do you think the technical meaning should be mentioned? Nageh (talk) 16:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But I don't want this article to exist. I don't know what a free-standing article "frequency range" would talk about aside from specific examples of "frequency range of musical instruments, frequency range of menstrual cycles, frequency range of World War I radio direction finding, frequency range of catastrophic flooding events in the Nelson River basin,", etc. - it's a bit like having an article called Length range (Jimbo help us, I wonder if that turns blue...) What do you mean by a "technical meaning" ? --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! You have catastrophically failed in convincing me, and I was already on the brink! (I have posted the technical meaning above. Many electronic components are advertised with their frequency range, but that doesn't express anything about their usefulness for the range of frequencies they can operate on; for that, there is the definition of bandwidth or 3db point.) Nageh (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish. You offer a (bad) dictionary definition, how does this make an article? --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:58, 24 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) 00:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

StorageFront

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

Though there are plenty of sources, the few that aren't obvious press releases smell like press releases. As such, fails to meet WP:CORP OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It might bear mention in some list of specialized search engines, but otherwise it reads like Press Release Digest, supported by citations to Press Release Digest. Yakushima (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable website promotion.Teapotgeorge^Talk 17:13, 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} 05:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Food craving

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

Dangerous unsourced article about dubious medical concepts. Damiens.rf 14:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep As the google scholar and google book searches show, this is a highly notable concept, even if it's definitely a crap wikipedia article at the moment. I think it's just that nobody wants to do the work. (Maybe because it always makes potential improvers think of something they'd rather be eating, instead? I know I could go for some pizza right now.) Yakushima (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:LAZY says nothing about deleting an article due to not feeling like working on it.AerobicFox (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a classic stub article (for now). It is a topic worthy of expansion.Novangelis (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A good stub that merits expansion. Plenty of source material, clearly a basic encyclopedic topic. I'm surprised we didn't have an article until now. Steven Walling 22:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable topic. I was wondering why bulimia was not mentioned. Nageh (talk) 22:38, 23 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} 05:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spread Eagle (band)

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

There are references in the article, but all of them are passing mentions of the band. Not one is a review or interview or otherwise something that indicates significant coverage. Maybe this article passes A7, but that's all. I don't think it is WP:GNG. — Timneu22 · talk 11:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have my doubts Timneu22 has ever read anything. I have an explanation a about notability on the discussion page of the article, I posted a longer one Timneu22s user page, basically PROVING notability from the guidelines for notability.

As far as I remember I have interviews with three band members in the references, and all references are ABOUT the band and not passing mentions.

And I miss the contributions that Timneu22 allegedly made, I can't find any of them, he awarded himself with a lot of Barnstars just for fun, I'm not sure if he's the right one to judge this.

Moonslide (talk) 23:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Two albums on MCA Records passes WP:BAND criterion 5. The band is covered in The Great Metal Discography (bio and discography), Allmusic (bio and review), in the book Raise Your Voice by Jaime J. Vendera, in The Encyclopedia of heavy metal music by William Phillips & Brian Cogan, and in The encyclopedia of popular music by Colin Larkin, thereby also passing criterion 1.--Michig (talk) 07:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Having two albums being released via MCA Records does aid in notability of this band, and they do appear to have enbough notability and coverage to have their own wikipedia article as a band. Some of the formatting is a bit awry (bold person names, for instance), and the sentence sourced by the second reference appears to be unencyclopedic by stating that it's called a "classic" by an unidentified party, but that can be worked on. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 22:40, 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. Mkativerata (talk) 19:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

J.R. Rain

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

Self-published author, claimed to be a bestselling author on Kindle. amazon shows his books actually rank rather lower than tht : BodyDeparted, Dance, the best-selling of them on Kindle , is #3,106 vampire Moon, the next, is #10,791 in Kindle. essentially no copies of any in libraries. No visible published reviews. DGG ( talk ) 11:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with DGG Johnclean184 (talk) 13:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteAerobicFox (talk) 23:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any sources suggesting notability of the author. However, I believe the "bestselling" descriptor probably has its origins here - ManicSpider (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that basic notability criteria are satisfied here. --DAJF (talk) 01:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, and WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 18:17, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MotionX

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

A software brand creating applications for the Apple iPhone and iPad. One editor though this spam. It was re-submitted via AfC where another editor thought it OK. The text remains rather spammy. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly redirect to the parent company Fullpower Technologies, but that itself looks to be questionably notable at best. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although one must admire the persistence with which this article comes back to life after two deletions. There seems to be a special life force that wants to make sure all Wikipedia readers know about this product's specifications for the benefit of all mankind. This is not an encyclopedia article, but a product specification page. All it does is "list the features of a product" that is about to launch and can do with good publicity. Not that it costs me anything for this to be here, but it seems a straightforward case of "piggybacking on Wikipedia" for the sake of commercial promotion. The people who donate to Wikipedia do so to have an encyclopedia, not to support a repository for product pages that should be on the web server of the advertising agency, or the manufacturer, not within an encyclopedia. The door should close on Wikipedia being a web server for product sheets and promotions. And of course, the item is not notable in any case. History2007 (talk) 21:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. History2007 (talk) 04:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. drew attention for the realistic dice applications that simulated the rolling of three dimensional dice with high precision. Hey! I've got the power of a Commodore 64 in my pocket! No showing of historical, technical, or cultural significance - therefore, not an encyclopedia subject. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help Re-Write. Whoever wrote this was a marketing person. The reality is that MotionX seems to be an important technology platform tied to Smartphone innovation. That's how the article should be written. Google MotionX and there is plenty there. 225,000 results....I've taken a first pass, haven't been active in a while so maybe someone else can help. I;d hate to see something getting over 200,000 instant hits on Google for recent activity and innovation absent. Else we'd end-up with Microsoft, Google, Apple and Nokia offerings. Not what the doctor ordered I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HuskyMoon (talk • contribs) 09:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Swag (slang)

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

Contested PROD. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The 2 sources give nothing beyond the definition & entymology of the word. The claims of it being used as a slang term in hip-hop are unsourced, and it would be difficult to show that mere use of a (fairly common) word in a few songs makes that word notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Since we are not a dictionary, our articles are about things, not about words. IllaZilla (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete slang dicdef. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Killa IllaZilla, though Starblind's kinda vanilla. Drmies (talk) 04:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dicdef. As an aside, the etymology as given in the article is a bit misleading - the "Scandinavian" (actually dialectal Norwegian) word svagga is believed to have been borrowed into Middle English which means that we would have quite a gap between the borrowing and the emergence of the slang term in the 2010s - hardly a useful etymology! And in addition, historical linguists are not certain that the words svagga and sway are in fact cognates - the source sounds very certain about it, but most experts in the field (of whom I'm not one) are not quite as certain. The article also says that the word "originally implied looting" which sounds very doubtful indeed to me (and can't be inferred from what the source says). --bonadea contributions talk 17:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To add to the aside, I mentioned earlier it being a fairly common term. I've heard it used (and used it) since the mid-'90s in reference to loot/merchandise ie. the merchandise one buys/collects at Warped Tour or Comic-Con. In fact these events often hand out what are commonly referred to as "swag bags" for attendees to carry around all their loot. So it's certainly not a 2010s slang term, its use as slang has been around long before, and according to the source its use in reference to "cheap and tawdry prizes" may date all the way back to the late-19th century. But again, this is all dicdef/entymology & belongs in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:15, 20 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} 05:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

G. B. Singh

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

Notability not established per WP:BIO. Non-notable Sikh extremist in comparison to more notable ones like Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale or Inderjit Singh Reyat. This particular Singh's only claim to fame is a polemical book attacking Mohandas Gandhi, a book that has largely been dismissed as partisan junk by the academic mainstream. All of the sources "cited" in this article are from religious extremist websites and some defense blog somewhere. The wiki article on a topic related to this subject, William Francis Doherty, (an engineer who Singh claims was murdered by Gandhians and then the incident covered up by Gandhi) has been deleted on lack of notability/reliability grounds. Meanstheatre (talk) 09:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Meanstheatre (talk) 09:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His books meet WP:BK and he himself meets WP:AUTHOR. His entry and the entries about his books appear to have become, from time to time, battlegrounds for POV warring. I am not completely familiar with the arguments used in the edit warring, and will only note that he and his books are notable and that edit warring has no place in the project. Qworty (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:AUTHOR. TheMike •^{Wassup doc?} 20:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I cleaned the article up a bit and removed some puffery and unsourced bit. It appears that he's known for his book, which generally received poor reviews, and that he was grandfathered after a change in US Army policy and allowed to retain his articles of faith. In regard to the latter, the sources appear to all go back to http://www.sikhnn.com. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I am sorta on the fence with this one which leads me to say keep. --Kumioko (talk) 22:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The first book is definitely notable (arguments that it's partisan junk notwithstanding), the second more borderline but plausibly notable. And there are enough different things here to prevent this from being a case of WP:BIO1E. So I think he squeaks through on WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:03, 21 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) 00:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Irving Quant

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

Appears to fail Wikipedia:Notability (people). Google news archives show only the local paper article already referenced. If the claim "In 2008 he was featured on the cover of local news papers, television, radio, and on national news for accurately predicting the scores " can be backed perhaps he passes, but the source cited is a student newspaper which doesn't back that claim (although it backs the prediction bit). Dougweller (talk) 06:55, 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]

The article was updated with the reference necessary to support the claim. Please see the current reference page attached to the sentence.-- -- ABGreer(talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WPN --Anna O'Leary (talk) 09:50, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 05:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandr Shlepyanov

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

A previous G12 failed because the SPA that created the article took out the tag. There seem to have been some changes, but the article is nothing short of a promotional disaster. User:Sosnmash is the main editor, along with his IP, the original speedy, and someone adding the Living people category. Raymie (t • c) 04:26, 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]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The nomination statement leaves me very unsure of what reason is being proposed for deletion. Is it as a copyright violation? For being promotional? Because of who wrote it? Phil Bridger (talk) 14:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the article's promotional nature. Raymie (t • c) 03:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - We do not have expectations that new editors spring out of the womb knowing how to write articles. When an article's perceived tone appears to be an addressable issue it does not automatically mean it must be deleted simply for being poorly written. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:13, 15 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) 07:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a screenplay writer, he appears to be notable; as a collector he is probably notable as well. We'd need some help from a Russian-speaking editor to clean up the article, but this seems to satisfy notability requirements. freshacconci talktalk 13:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His work is notable, he playing a key role in notable productions as the writer. Dead Season (film) and The Queen of Spades (1982 film)] are two of his films which have articles on the English speaking Wikipedia already, and other language Wikipedias have articles about his other films. Dream Focus 07:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But the grammar needs effort, and there are several opportunities to add links, and the tone is too flattering. I tagged it for copyedit. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:03, 22 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) 00:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan and the apartheid analogy

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

This article is full of mainly unsourced sweeping assertions. The few citations I have checked did not bear out the interpretation placed on them in the article. None of the sources used mentions the word "apartheid". The article was created by a single purpose account, which has not made any edits since, possibly as a pointy rejoinder to Israel and the apartheid analogy. RolandR (talk) 12:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Rename There should be an article on Ahmadiyya Muslims in Pakistan, if the information presented here is true, which covers all aspects in a neutral way. What's not needed is articles on arguments and analogies, whatever the country.Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There already is a section on Pakistan in the main article on Ahmadiyya. This includes much of the material in this article, better sourced and written in a much less POV tone. This could be expanded, and any useful material in this article could be included. RolandR (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename & Keep While the title is synthesis and inappropriate, the topic that it is presenting is notable. Mar4d (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - this needs a major re-write per WP:UGLY. It's filled with NPOV statements and high-context statements. It's interesting, to be sure, but it also violates WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, and WP:POINT. I'm not an expert on the issues involved, so don't look to me to rescue this horror. Bearian (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename the artlce does have notable details which can be expanded to suit the article Ahmadiyya in PakistanPeaceworld111 (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename the plight of Ahmaddiyas in Pakistan is notable.--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV stuff, bad title (essay-like), synthesis, et cetera. There is, of course, a place for what some might consider^{[weasel words]} to be part of what this article might want to treat: Ahmadiyya. Drmies (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As the nominator points out, the sources do not even mention "apartheid", making the whole content original research and the article a WP:COATRACK for the topic "Ahmaddiya Muslims in Pakistan". That is a notable topic, but is already better covered at Ahmadiyya#Pakistan at substantially the same level of detail. A subarticle should only be created if there is more to say about this topic. Sandstein 07:17, 17 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} 07:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable secondary source makes the apartheid analogy: examples of discrimination are just strung together by the author of the Wikipedia article, without even an attempt to compare it directly to South African apartheid. And so this article isn't even original research yet, which would still be unacceptable. Deletion is best option, because the content is not quality, organized, or plentiful enough for a rename. Quigley (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Why on earth was this extended? The 3 calls for keeping were insipid "it's notable! with no no substance whatsoever. This is a poorly cobbled-together, pointy attempt to counterbalance the hated-in-certain-POV-circles Israel and the apartheid analogy article; the problem is, you can't simply stitch a few disparate events together and call it "Pakistani apartheid". The last time this stunt was pulled, it led to ArbCom, a row of AfDs, and the blocking or departure of a number of the perpetrators. Tarc (talk) 15:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This may be the first time in my whole life that I've ever completely agreed with Tarc, but so help me, I do.—S Marshall T/C 18:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You had me at "hello". Tarc (talk) 19:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Israel and the apartheid analogy" exists because people have compared Israel's actions to apartheid. This is not the case here. Words mean things. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:41, 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 speedy delete. Obvious hoax. Dougweller (talk) 08:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Crouching Tiger

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

Hoax; see this search. I am also bringing the creator to ANI's attention because his userpage and talkpage suggest that he isn't going to be a very constructive contributor. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, this appears to be completely fabricated. — fcsuper^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )}— 06:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - its a hoax guys and the editor who created it should probably be blocked. The sooner the better. --Descartes1979 (talk) 07:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was unable to find any mention of this supposed military operation anywhere in even generally unreliable internet sources, which suggests that it's been made up by the article creator. — Gavia immer (talk) 07:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Performance art. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 08:02, 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huron County Library

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

Not notable. Doesn't pass the general notability guideline for such articles written about libraries, nor does it go beyond any other run-of-the-mill libraries scattered around, and also called "Huron County Library". There is some information about the librarian "Miss A. Rose Aitken", but that would warrant an article about her, not the library itself. :| TelCoNaSp Ve :| 06:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as this is utterly unnotable. 06:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcsuper (talk • contribs)
Delete not notable --Guerillero | My Talk 15:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep there is no clear guideline for libraries. I'm relatively exclusionist on local institutions, and I've often !voted delete on local libraries. I think a reasonable consensus would be that individual branches are certainly not notable, but county systems are, at least in larger counties, (this one is 60,000) on the same principle that school districts are. DGG ( talk ) 16:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would also say a weak keep on this. I personally think articles on county libraries are certainly no less notable than articles we have on local schools on wikipedia and more notable in my view... Google books does reveal 147 different sources mention this so adding sources is possible. I agree with DGG though that there really ought to be guidelines on this. Providing this article is expanded and sourced decently i'm content to keep it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary, some of them might be about a different "Huron County Library". Like I said above, what distinguishes this Ontario, Canada one from the others? :| TelCoNaSp Ve :| 00:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the user above. I think library systems being handled similar to school systems is a fair way to treat their notability. There are probably local sources describing their funding, and may be some controversies arising on a local level, or programs that they offer, that could help to to their notability.(only place to vote for elections, or maybe doubles as an important meeting place for many local instutions, etc).--AerobicFox (talk) 23:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But the problem is there are no significant meeting places or votes for elections etc. held here that I could find. It is this specific institution that I'm referring to, not any other library. :| TelCoNaSp Ve :| 00:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just saying that library systems should most definitely not be handled like school systems. The idea that all school systems are "inherently notable" is a fallacy that we should work on overcoming. The last thing we need is a declaration that all county libraries (and other local buildings) are de-facto notable. Them From Space 23:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that would be a headache--Guerillero | My Talk 00:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem, unless we are suddenly running out of server space. Edison (talk) 03:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see an analogy to schools. Library systems are not generally notable—funding is a tiny fraction of funding for education, and the impact on a municipality or county is relatively insignificant. The notion that everything that is goes through a public funding debate is somehow notable doesn't stand up—are we to have an article on the West Podunk Phase II Auxiliary Sewage Treatment Facility? ^Bongo_matic 02:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or Redirect or Merge to Huron County, Ontario. After all, the library system is part of the county government. Abductive (reasoning) 03:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not just a library, but an entire library system that in itself should be worth of inclusion. --Oakshade (talk) 04:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there were any notability to this building at all, the article would consist of more than hours of operation and ___location. Not really an article, it's a phone book listing. Agent 86 (talk) 00:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not just an article about a building. In a county of 60,000, it is likely that multiple reliable and independent sources, even if local or regional, have had significant coverage, justifying a presumption of notability. A county library system article is a useful collective article to list the (presumably) nonnotable local libraries. Similarly, county school districts have gained "Keep" results in all recent AFDs, and serve as collective articles for all the (presumably) nonnotable elementary schools. Edison (talk) 03:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any secondary sources? No. Abductive (reasoning) 04:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Sounds like it should probably be notable, but the sources don't seem to show it. One local news piece, one possibly non-independent bulletin... sorry, but have to go delete unless someone can find a bit more. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge as I said before.. Could merge into Huron County, Ontario...♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete No indication of notability, insufficient sources available to meet WP:GNG. This article fails WP:NOT as it reads like a directory listing. Including a list of the libraries into Huron County, Ontario and including the image there would be appropriate but there is no need to list details such as street addresses or opening hours.Polyamorph (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Several snippet view results from Google Book Search, but it is impossible from the snippets to see how extensive each hit is: [31], [32], :"There are twenty libraries belonging to the Huron County Library Association. Until this past fall our work has been only ... Librarian, Huron County Library Association, Gode- rich, Ontario, Canada. Our organization differs from most ...", "..The Huron County Library Distribution Truck. Each three months, this truck brings a fresh selection of books- to libraries in small communities throughout the county. The truck is arranged with shelves, holding 1.000 books. ...", "..Recorded development is confined mainly to the work of the Huron County Library, which operates an exhibition van, the first of its kind in the province, whose work has received great publicity through the showing of a film called 'The books drive on..'". Also, note that several classes of comparable subjects get kept automatically without providing multiple reliable and independent secondary sources with significant coverage, such as every school district. Edison (talk) 17:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those but I don't personally see how the snippets demonstrate notability. I also personally don't think we should have articles on every school district, unless they can themselves also demonstrate notability. Just because wikipedia policy on the inclusion of articles on schools is messed up is no reason to keep a directory listing on very un-noteworthy local libraries.Polyamorph (talk) 17:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Arguments pointing at de-facto notability do not fly with me-- every topic that has a stand alone article should have received at least some attention in the past. Our current practice of retaining articles about local buildings and organizations is too lax for my taste. If the library building itself can be shown to be historically notable, or if the library system can be shown to have had an historical impact on the community then I would be in favor of keeping the article. But "it exists" is not a reason to retain this. Them From Space 17:29, 25 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Alborna Soler

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

Even if sources are found, I do not think being the first chiropractor in spain is a sufficient claim to notability. I notice there is no article on him in the Spanish WP. DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is almost completely WP:OR about an unnotable person. — fcsuper^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )}— 06:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Without RS demonstrating notability, even being "the first" doesn't qualify one for inclusion here. Besides, an article about yourself is nothing to be proud of. Becoming a chiropractor isn't normally a notable event. Right now it's OR and promotion. If references can be found, then clean it up and keep it. Otherwise "the door's thataway ---->". -- Brangifer (talk) 08:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I very much doubt that the subject wrote this article about himself at the age of 120. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely unverified and unsourced. Could not find anything on a search (granting that it would be hard to find anything considering the barriers of language and time). However I think calling it "promotion" is unwarranted, since he is certainly no longer practicing and most likely no longer alive (he graduated in 1917). --MelanieN (talk) 16:31, 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 that the minor chart positions mentioned are not enough to save this. JohnCD (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mind in the Gutter

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

Only charted very low on major charts. Says that the song received "mixed to positive reviews from critics" but the only hit on Gnews is just a reprint of the lyrics. I find no proof that any reputable music critic gave this song any review. All other claims are egregious OR and not a single source exists to qualify any of the info at all. Redirect will most likely be undone by a fanboy. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No ELs at all. Nada. If you assert notability, as in "the song is notable for making heavy use of auto-tune", that should be backed by something. Way back when we wrote the policy on no original research, this was the article of which we were thinking. Does not belong in this encyclopedia. Krakatoa Katie 05:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, on balance a reading of WP:NSONGS would suggest we don't, at present, need this article. Yes, the minimal chart presence might qualify it, but this article makes a number of assertions about the song without laying out even one source for them. When we have that, we can have an article. Daniel Case (talk) 05:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like a mass of unsupported OR without a single reference. I can find no Google hits to support any notability of this song. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor charting should not be considered the magic bullet to notability. No coverage from reliable sources. There was a "version" of this article that did have sources: [33]. But to consider that reliably sourced would be a tragedy. Rehevkor ✉ 17:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Yes the song did chart, according to the article, but where is the proof??? The article is well-written (kind of), but their is no references detailing the page! I am more towards a delete. Unless the article can provide correct references for everything in the article. Especially the charting, which could seal the article here. Theuhohreo (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note According to WP:NSONGS, as long as the song charted, it stays! It doesn't matter at all how good or bad, or how unpopular the chart is! See Patron Tequila or I Ain't Thru. Reff these charts and this article is basically good. Theuhohreo (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts. Note that the chart must be significant, not just existing. Plus there are no sources to verify the claim of having ranked. Corvus cornix_talk 21:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the source, supposedly, can be found in this book, as well as in one of the Billboard magazine issues released after August 28, 2008 - I've checked some, but couldn't find the song there. --Ezhuks (talk) 13:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Shame, because it's a well written article. Totally unreferenced, and this statement seems to seal its fate: 'The single, as predicted, failed to make an impact on any charts.' We don't (yet) have articles about subjects that are notable for not being notable. Kudpung (talk) 05:28, 21 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) 00:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ken-Shin-Kan

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

Another non notable martial art without reliable sources Dwanyewest (talk) 04:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Janggeom (talk) 14:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Currently, this article consists of two lines about the school and three sizeable paragraphs about its founder. If the article remains, it should be renamed as Seiichi Akamine. He appears to have been notable as a pioneering master of a major Karate style, responsible for introducing Goju-ryu Karate to South America. Janggeom (talk) 16:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename as I have suggested above. Following a search for sources, I believe the subject to be notable. I have revised the article and added references, but have not proceeded with a renaming, since that would be premature. So far, I have only searched for information using the name "Seiichi Akamine," but it has come to my attention that the subject was also known as "Shikan Akamine" and "Yoshitaka Akamine." It is possible that searches using those names might locate more references, but I have not had time to do so today. Most of the references now in the article are primary sources, so I do not necessarily claim that notability has been demonstrated reliably. Nonetheless, the subject seems notable in my opinion. Janggeom (talk) 13:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename per user above. The person seems to clearly fit the criteria for notability as the first to introduce Gōjū-ryū Karate to South America and the most influential of it there. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by AerobicFox (talk • contribs) 23:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you haee any reliable sources for that claim? I'm having trouble finding independent sources that show he's notable. Astudent0 (talk) 17:43, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kombatan

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

A non notable martial art without third person sources stating why its notable. Dwanyewest (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominator continues to make AfDs without indicating in the edit summary of the article that that has happened. This makes it all too easy for editors to scan the recent changes and not be aware that an article has been nominated. This is inappropriate. JJL (talk) 14:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Janggeom (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Someone just added a bunch of sources, some of which appear to be independent. Unless someone shows these seemingly independent articles are not independent or don't contain sufficient coverage, than this art appears to pass the notability criteria. Astudent0 (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The new references make this article worth saving, at least for the time being. I hope whoever added the references will link them to specific claims in the article. Papaursa (talk) 18:12, 22 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) 00:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taekwondo Association of Great Britain

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

A non notable martial art organisation without third person sources stating why its notable. Dwanyewest (talk) 03:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article does not contain any reputable references stating notability. Johnclean184 (talk) 13:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Janggeom (talk) 14:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The revision history of this article shows that the nomination for deletion was marked as a minor edit, with no edit summary attached. Please do not do this; it violates AfD procedure on two points that help other contributors notice the nomination. Thank you. Janggeom (talk) 16:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article may not contain any sources, but there are sources to be found. According to a random sample of these sources, this is an association that has 10,000 members (another source says 20,000) and is the largest taekwondo association in the UK. It is endorsed by the world all style combat champion. It is the sole subject of a book, and publishes books in its own right. There are over 400 clubs associated with it.
Keep, and closer please to disregard those who can't be bothered to search for sources, except perhaps to administer a clue level adjustment per WP:BEFORE.—S Marshall T/C 23:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These sources aren't as impressive as you imply. Several of the size estimates (members and clubs) come from web sites of unkown reliablity while one is from a member club saying they're part of the UK's largest organzation, the "endorsement" merely says she joined the organization, the book about it is one of many that publisher puts out based on Wikipedia articles, and the books it publishes seem to be basically student manuals/handbooks. The organization may be notable, I'm not sure, but none of the sources you mentioned seem to qualify as significant coverage from a reliable source. Papaursa (talk) 01:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I don't find significant coverage in independent sources and I don't think that being the largest (even if it's true) TKD organization in Britain is sufficient for notability if that's the sole claim to fame. Astudent0 (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I was not able to find significant independent coverage of this organization. Its notability claim seems to be that it's the largest martial arts organization in Europe, but no reliable source is given. Claims of organization sizes are prone to great variation and exaggeration. I don't see any reliably supported notability claims. Papaursa (talk) 19:35, 23 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. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 22:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ToTs (rapper)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts may be tagged using: {{subst:spa|username}}

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

Non-notable musician. The potato thing is a nice gimmick, maybe, but the article lacks reliable sources that establish notability. I had trimmed some of it, hoping to improve the article, but discovered that it was all blogs, basically, and various Google searches (for ToTs and including such terms as "Heagerty" and "potato") produced no reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the definition of non-notable? The artist is accepted by the iTunes store and has received coverage from three separate national sources. Granted, I was the original writer of the article, but I thought coverage of ToTs from a USA Today source, an ABC News outlet and the Universal Record Database merited an entry. He has received plenty of local (Syracuse, NY area) attention since starting out but it was the attention from these reputable, national outlets that put ToTs over the top in my mind as a valuable entry. NzMattis 18:36, 10 January 2011 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.119.251.6 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first of 16,900 results in google for Heagerty rapper potato is the USA Today article, http://content.usatoday.com/communities/popcandy/post/2010/06/guest-blogger-have-you-met-the-worlds-only-potato-rapper/1. He was also featured by the Village Voice blogs among other non-local sites. Yes, the potato thing is a gimmick, but so is most of what Gaga or most other pop musicians do. Just because he has a gimmick should not disqualify him from having a page. The key is, his gimmick has brought him a reasonable level of fame and recognition beyond his home city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.48.219 (talk) 04:20, 11 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, Courcelles 02:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Creative? Yes. Notable? Not yet, I'm afraid. I couldn't find much significant coverage for him either. In addition, simply having music available on iTunes does not automatically pass WP:MUSICBIO (much like having a book available on Amazon doesn't automatically pass WP:AUTHOR). Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NzMattis here again. After looking at the WP:MUSICBIO guidelines, I still believe you can make a case for ToTs being a justified addition. Under the general criteria for musicians/songwriters, ToTs fits particularly with numbers one (being the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself) and seven (becoming one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city). His coverage in USA Today, The Village Voice, ABC News and the Universal Record Database in addition to local Syracuse press establishes the need for "multiple, non-trivial" works from "reliable" and "independent" sources. In regards to standard seven, his genre is entirely unique and it's pushed him to become one of, if not the most, well-known local act currently in Syracuse.

Elsewhere in those guidelines I believe there is an additional supporting case for ToTs. Under "other" for non-traditional mass media entities, it notes under section one that someone can be notable if they are "cited in reliable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching in a particular music genre." Under section three, there is a slight variation for an entity's work with genre where being noteworthy is defined as "established a tradition or school in a particular genre." ToTs is based largely on defining his own sub-genre of rap or hip-hop based solely on potatoes and coverage of him describes him as the creator of this approach. NzMattis (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. None of the references with one exception provide significant coverage about ToTs. The one exception is the blog article by Mattise but this is a guest reader on a blog so is not a reliable source. Nothing in the external links is significant coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- canvasing. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I outlined what I believed were the independent, reliable sources asked for by duffbeerforme above. As for my particular article, I consider myself to be a journalist as many of the posters during that week were. Guest posters on USA Today's Pop Candy are selected via a pitch process like any major editorial outlet and other posters included reliable sources such as the president of the American Mustache Institute, a background actor from major motion films, author Meg Cabot and musician Angelique Kidjo. I struggle in defining that, as an individual source, as unreliable. Arguing a lack in quantity of sources is different in my eyes (though I think there is enough there too).

I question the claims of lacking neutrality just because I am a local journalist writing an article that includes a reference to a piece I wrote for a local figure. However, for the "canvasing," I apologize if it's not allowed to promote the discussion page (although promoting the article itself leads folks here to begin with). Again, based on the comments this talk page has, I'd say that informed discourse has gone on and not mere fan-promotion for the act. This is certainly a learning process for me as a Wiki editor that I did not get to experience in other entries I created such as Phantogram_(band) and Dinner With The Band, so I hope the discourse continues until a conclusion is reached.

Finally, I again struggle to say that this article lacks in quantity based on some of the other band pages I've seen (for instance, try a page like The Rollo Treadway within the same New York musician sub-genre). Is there a specific number of sources an article needs to hit that deems it as qualified? The WP:MUSICBIO guidelines that I've read did not indicate such a standard. NzMattis (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No disrespect is intended by calling your blog post an "unreliable" source. WP:RS details what is considered a reliable source. The relevant info I partly based my comment on is in WP:BLOGS. The original blogger is part of a well respected source and may be considered a pop culture "expert" but her "expertise" is not inherited by her guest bloggers. You're reposting by a blogger on holiday does not impart the same relevance as her own blog posts do.

On the other sources: ABC news is about the program he is working with, not about ToTs, Whitney Matheson's blog post is not significant coverage of ToTs, i'ts just pointing out the news item about the program he is involved with. The village voice peice is a trivial mention of a joke world record. URB references are a social media website dedicated to documenting trivial "world records".

Your referance to other articles, as bad as they may be (feel free to improve or nominate for deletion other articles that lacks in quality) matters not to this article (WP:OTHERSTUFF).

Whats the specific number of sources an article needs depends on the amount of their coverage of the subject, their relative reliabity and the scope of their coverage. two can be enough. a dozen can fall short. duffbeerforme (talk) 16:53, 25 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) 00:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WAVE Trust

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

The article has nothing to establish notability. I posted three Google News hits on the talk page, but I don't think they are enough. John of Reading (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 11 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, Courcelles 02:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WAVE Trust is highly notable in the family and parenting sector, involved in research into reducing poverty, worked with Centre for Excellence and Outcomes in Children and Young People's services on a report on early intervention * [34] Also research into the Nurse Family Partnership * [35] --RVictoria (talk) 17:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC) — RVictoria (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KeepThere are at least two instances of Government referring to the WAVE Trust report in 2010:

1. The Liberal Democrats 2010 manifesto includes, on page 50, a committment to "Support the objective of at least a 70 per cent reducation in child maltreatment by 2030, promoted by the WAVE trust".

2. A Scottish Parliament Finance Committee meeting in November 2010 relied heavily on WAVE Trust's evidence. --Velcro velcro (talk) 17:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC) — Velcro velcro (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. Wave Trust is researching and promoting early intervention across the UK. It has provided a wide ranging analysis of how the root causes of adult violence lie in the pre-verbal experiences of infancy, and this has been a resource for both individuals and other organisations to draw upon. The lines of communication that the WAVE Trust has created between evidence based clinical practice, research on many aspects of early development and a range of decision makers has greatly contributed to the thinking about prevention of maltreatment in the first few years of life. — Robin 4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 19:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Keep, despite questionable users above. Some subjects just aren't searched, reported widely in the news, or talked about (given 'Bad News' bias). That doesn't exactly make them not notable. I found another source from the World Health Organization. --Obsidi♠n^Soul 06:06, 24 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) 00:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chantel Kohl

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

Non-notable reality show contestant, no sources other than WP:ROUTINE news coverage Delete Ibluffsocall (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 11 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, Courcelles 02:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the series she was on, American Juniors. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:17, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Green Cliff

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

Nothing to suggest that the Zen centre, nor the anthology after which it is is named, is notable. Step hen 02:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. --Bobbyd2011 (talk) 19:35, 22 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Luke & The Apostles

(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:BAND Dolovis (talk) 05:25, 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]

Weak Keep - Has an entry in the Canadian Pop Encyclopedia, and I suspect there's coverage not available online. -- Whpq (talk) 21:11, 12 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, Courcelles 02:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Compare the "Canadian Pop Encyclopedia's criteria to WP:Band: "Acceptance is not based on any given criteria except one: a commercially released vinyl album, single or CD at any point between 1950 and present that was available for SALE at retail outlets in Canada and generated some type of media response (whether it be local in your community or national)." [[36]] That is a much lower bar. Wickedjacob (talk) 07:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Their bar does not matter. It does not matter why they were written about. The important things are recieving coverage (wp:n) and how that coverage was created (wp:rs). And note the last half, "generated some type of media response", which says they have recieved other coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added valid in-line references to this page per WP:V and WP:INCITE. Their allmusic bio [[37]] states they had a popular song. The The Canadian Pop Encyclopedia [38] states it was "Been Burnt". Rewrote opening per WP:N. There is a lot more to be added per WP:HASPOT. The band satisfies WP:BAND 2 and 6. Argolin (talk) 04:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Argolin. -DJSasso (talk) 02:20, 24 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} 05:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The MRQ

(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:BAND Dolovis (talk) 05:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - They have an entry int he Canadian Pop Encyclopedia. Because it is behind a paywall, it is unclear how substantial this NY Times article is. I suspect that due to era in which the band played, articles will tend to be in offline sources. -- Whpq (talk) 21:17, 12 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, Courcelles 02:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:BAND 6. The band is related to McKenna Mendelson Mainline and Luke & The Apostles and Mike McKenna. Argolin (talk) 04:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Argolin. -DJSasso (talk) 02:23, 24 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} 05:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

McKenna Mendelson Mainline

(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:BAND Dolovis (talk) 05:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This group has an entry in the Canadian Pop Encyclopedia; written about in The Age, described as an "influential Canadian blues band" in this article; covered in this book; this Leader-Post article. -- Whpq (talk) 21:04, 12 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, Courcelles 02:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this book (mostly autobiographical) says they had a top ten single. Billboard said "McKenna Mendelson Mainline scheduled for early August appearances in Detroit and Windsor. Their new Liberty album, "Stink," rising on the charts." This book suggests coverage in Nicholas Jennings - Before the Gold Rush - Viking - 1997. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. and as above. I've added one inline citation from the Canadian Pop Encyclopedia page per WP:V and WP:INCITE. There is a lot more to be added per WP:HASPOT. Added a small amount in the opening to help WP:NM. The article had two references. Are the two noted not acceptable as sources? There are more on-line sources to be had. I like this one: [39] Library and Archives Canada. Unfortunately, it is down at the moment. The article needs WP:IFY. I added the band's two albums to a new discography section. The article satisfies criteria per WP:BAND 5. Keeping this article is an automatic keep on the other two per WP:BAND 6. Argolin (talk) 09:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC). Added Wikipedia guidelines.Argolin (talk) 23:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd like to point out that this listing for luke and the apostles, along with mckenna mendelson mainline and mike mckenna have been up and active on Wikipedia for quite sometime without any "out of the blue" flagging for possible deletion notices. mckenna gibson band listing has been revamped to be less "promotional". I personlly did not post the original pages for the apostle or mainline material although i did add to the mckenna mendelson mainline page. If the pages need citations then i will have to dig around and update them accordingl but this will take some time. I would like to suggest that not one, but all three of these listings coincide with some "personal issues" on the part of an individual once "involved" so i would be interested to learn if one individual brought all these listings to an administrators notice.User:eastleaf Also Im not sure if i have psoted my thoughts here correctly, so would appreicate knowing the correct protocol. —Preceding undated comment added 13:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC).

Keep per Argolin. -DJSasso (talk) 02:26, 24 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 move to Article Incubator. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 05:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Freeze Time

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

Move to WP:INCUBATE. This album is not yet notable per WP:NALBUMS but if the February 11 release date holds true that might change in the near future but as of now notability does not exist. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 02:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 11 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, Courcelles 02:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support move, agree that this is not yet notable, and with a little mote than a month before it's scheduled release, an Incubate of the article is justified. — Gabe 19 ^(talk ^contribs) 02:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support incubation. I agree with Lil_℧niquℇ №1—there is quite a lack of coverage, and if the album is to see release in a month, it should be out of the incubator soon. :) Yves (talk) 23:49, 20 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No Surrender (book)

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

Book has never been published in print (seems to only be at Lulu). Author does not have Wikipedia article, and author created this article (as acknowledged on talk page). Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —ManicSpider (talk) 09:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any reliable, independent sources, and there is no appearance (or even assertion) of notability. - ManicSpider (talk) 09:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any sources for this anywhere. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:56, 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 speedy deleted twice (G2 and A7) by Anthony Bradbury. Non-admin closure --Pgallert (talk) 08:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KOBATA

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

A text book case of Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Sailsbystars (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found this very interesting and N --Anna O'Leary (talk) 09:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC) — Anna O'Leary (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

~~Speedy~~ Strong delete - entirely non-notable broker/banker speak. ukexpat (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there's not a speedy deletion category that this neatly fits into, otherwise I would have tagged it. Perhaps a category should be added for neoglisms/jargon..... Sailsbystars (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the list of what is explicitly not a criterion for speedy deletion, it says: "[Neologism|Neologisms]]. New specialized terms should have a wider hearing." -- Bk314159 (Talk to me and find out what I've done) 19:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better? I am all in favour of a neologism speedy category and IMHO there would be a good WP:IAR justification for deleting this one rather than waste everyone's time discussing at at Afd... – ukexpat (talk) 20:28, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff Yer Face

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

Non notable board game that is wholly unreferenced. Was a contested prod, with contester using a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument to keep it. Ravendrop (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no non-trivial coverage found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 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) 00:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The PhoenixGroup

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

An article about an organization that seems to be part of a series of similar unnotable articles. — fcsuper^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )}— 00:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article is spammy, but more importantly, I can find no coverage of the group in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. bd2412 T 18:35, 23 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.