Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 January 21

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< 20 January 22 January >

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. Courcelles 22:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Randolph Lalonde

edit
Randolph Lalonde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable writer who fails to meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:BK. All of his manuscripts are self-published, as the article itself admits, and therefore cannot be used to demonstrate notability, per WP:SPS. No WP:RS sources exist to establish WP:N. Everything on Google appears to be self-generated by the writer himself. Also, there have been extensive WP:AUTO and WP:COI problems with the article almost from the beginning, and its problems with notability have long been discussed on the talk page without resolution. Qworty (talk) 23:26, 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. Since this has only been deleted once previously, I don't think the salt shaker is needed quite yet. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thiaoouba Prophecy

edit
AfDs for this article:
Thiaoouba Prophecy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously deleted as Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thiaoouba_Prophecy. Many of the sources cited do not mention book or author. Still no significant and independent coverage found to satisfy notability requirements. LuckyLouie (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:The sources provided either have nothing to do with the book, do not meet WP:RS, or both. No evidence of notability (either WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK) provided. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do understand the Wikipedia's policies and see what you mean. Unfortunately, at this moment, I couldn't find any reliable sources that could make this article notable from Wikipedia's point of view. But the book IS notable. Because if you read it carefully, you will see how important its message is for all of us. And I know it's all true that is written in the book, for I proved it to myself, if you will, on my own experience (learning to see auras; astral travel, telekinesis, telepathy, etc), including the existence of those people who entrusted Michel Desmarquet with writing of the book. I'm just writing it in a hope that those responsible administrators will at least read the book and, if not try to learn what I learned, maybe leave this article online having realized how important it is. For, yes, at this moment the book is not notable by the official sources, which is not a surprise, but hopefully people will start to open up their minds and then this book will become the assistant to our spiritual development. Steve 17:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20Bond09 (talk • contribs)
  • I've provided a couple of old newspapers as sources that mention the book. Steve 18:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20Bond09 (talk • contribs)
Note the article has been rec-created against policy, and creators state sharing "truth" is their goal. Recommend salt after delete. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:26, 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 delete. Courcelles 22:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Nicholls

edit
Lewis Nicholls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local radio presenter, at college, local coverage only, fails WP:BIO. Paste Let’s have a chat. 21:28, 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. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 08:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Utusan Borneo

edit
Utusan Borneo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn by proposer. Withdrawn by proposer; clear consensus to keep updated article Avi (talk) 07:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-missionary

edit
Counter-missionary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not really seem like a proper topic for an encyclopedia article. It starts out by saying "counter-missionary" (notice that it is not a noun as WP titles should be) is opposition to any missionary activity. Then it switches to efforts to convert Jews to Christianity. Other activities are not mentioned at all although there are many people who oppose missionary activities by, for instance, Christians to tribal groups in the Amazon, cults on college campuses, even Muslims in non-Muslim countries. To me it seems better to discuss Jewish anti-missionarism in the same article that discusses missionary activities targeting Jews, so that both sides are presented together for better neutrality Nomination withdrawn since there is a sincere effort to change the topic of the article.Borock (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I withdrew the nomination after changes. I never objected to the information in the article, only the format in which it was presented.Borock (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The context of the article was clearly Jewish groups that have been established for the express purposes of countering efforts by Christian missionaries. It should not be merged with Jews for Judaism since that would exclude other organizations with counter-missionary goals, such as Outreach Judaism and Aish HaTorah. Also, as a generic topic, it could be expanded to organizations established to counter missionary efforts to other religions and by other religions (such as Islamic evangelism to Hundus), if such exists. --DeknMike (talk) 19:56, 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. If users wish tomove and rename, fine; this is an editorial decision anyone can WP:BOLDly make, and not something for AfD Ironholds (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linburn

edit
Linburn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be a minor part of Erskine, however good sources are hard to come by. Article doesn't have much context or content at the moment. The settlement is unlikely to be notable enough on its own, so the article should be redirected or deleted. Scotlandplaces.gov.uk says it consist of only one building. Travelbird (talk) 14:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that User:George Alfred Scott has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Quantpole (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that Groton Wood (talk · contribs), creator of this article, has been identified as a sock puppet of the same master, Crouch, Swale (talk · contribs). --Deskford (talk) 17:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting that British Listed Buildings treats Linburn Park as part of Kirknewton, while scotlandsplaces.gov treats it as part of Wilkieston. Since Kirknewton is a blue link and Wilkieston a red one, and considering that there seems to be virtually nothing to say about either Linburn Park or Wilkieston, I say redirect (or merge, if preferred) to Kirknewton. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That will be because Kirknewton is the post town for Wilkieston, e.g. the houses in the Linburn Park estate have the following address, "## Linburn Park, Wilkieston, KIRKNEWTON, EH27 8DU", and the Scottish War Blinded give the contact details for their Linburn Centre as, "The Linburn Centre, Scottish War Blinded, Linburn, Wilkieston, By Kirknewton, EH27 8DU". That doesn't mean that Wilkieston (or Linburn) are part of Kirknewton, just that they are within its postal area. Thryduulf (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 20:39, 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. Discussion of improving, merging, etc can be done on the article's talk page,(which I note has never been used) there is clearly not a consensus to delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regional differences in the Chinese language

edit
Regional differences in the Chinese language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sure what the point of this article is. We already have Chinese language, Varieties of Chinese which properly describes the different varieties, and articles on traditional and simplified characters for the written language. The table is confusing and misleading – there's not one was of using Chinese in China as it implies – with some very odd choices of entries, and should not be in all Chinese which really limits its readership. Without that there's almost nothing to the article. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 23:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename whether moved or not. This isn't about different regions but different countries; actual separate states. The title should be edited to reflect this. Also, Chinese is generally treated as separate languages. So how about International differences in Chinese? Munci (talk) 14:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. There exists many similar articles in the English Wikipedia, which draw comparison between different varieties of the same language. Take a look at Category:Language comparison and the following articles:
  • I don't see any justification for discriminating the Chinese language, which is the language with the largest number of native speakers in the world. If someone says that the article should not be "all in Chinese", we can find more Wikipedians to collaborate on adding romanisations (such as pinyin or jyutping) of the Chinese phrases to the article. I think this article is very helpful for people who are learning Chinese as a foreign language. (As an analogy, a person who is learning English as a foreign language might find it useful to know that "elevator" in American English is the same thing as "lift" in Commonwealth English.) - Alan (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem though is that Chinese is not one language in the same way that English or French is. So while it's possible to describe pretty comprehensively the differences between British and American English in an article it's impossible to do the same between Cantonese and Mandarin, for example. Such an article properly covering the subject would be a dictionary, something Wikipedia is not. And that is only two of a large number of varieties of Chinese.

      This article ignores all this, instead focussing on a small (and unusual) selection of words. The grouping is not by variety but by territory and says nothing about the pronunciation of the words (useful as it often gives a clue why different characters are used), even which variety is used where, or which territories use which of simplified or traditional characters. Nor is it indicated which entries are vernacular Chinese. As such this article is of little use to anyone learning Chinese. There is already an article on written Cantonese which covers most of the written differences between Mandarin and Cantonese, in a much more encyclopaedic way, including some of these words, which would perhaps be a better place for this.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 14:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am a native Cantonese speaker from Hong Kong. Perhaps I can help make clear some of the confusions over the Chinese language.
    • The articles Varieties of Chinese and Spoken Chinese deal with the different branches of spoken Chinese, such as the Cantonese branch, the Mandarin branch, the Min branch, the Wu branch etc. Those articles focus on the how the same Chinese character is pronounced differently in the different branches.
    • However, the article Regional differences in the Chinese language is intended to focus on the differences in the vocabularies, i.e. what words/phrases each territory use to convey the same meaning. (If the title of the article is not descriptive enough, we could rename it.) Here we are not comparing the differences between Traditional Chinese characters and Simplified Chinese characters, nor are we comparing the pronunciation differences between Cantonese and Mandarin. Instead, we are comparing the use of "巴士" in Hong Kong to the use of "公車" in Taiwan (just like how we make the contrast between "lift" in Britain and "elevator" in America in the article American and British English differences). Note that the difference between "巴士" and "公車" is not the difference between Cantonese and Mandarin. It is just that the two territories adopt different words for the same object.
    • There are similar comparison tables in the articles Hong Kong Cantonese, Taiwanese Mandarin and Singaporean Mandarin. But the Taiwanese Mandarin article only compares Taiwanese Mandarin to Standard Mandarin, but not to Singaporean Mandarin. It would be nice to have one table that summarises the differences between all those different kinds of Chinese.
  • Perhaps we should all work together on expanding the introductory paragraph, to explain/address all those questions that John brought up. -Alan (talk) 15:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anything but keep I see a good faith attempt to write an article here and I understand the potential utility of having this article, but I don't think it belongs on Wikipedia in it's current incarnation. There is a single reference but the article also appears to contain a lot of WP:OR. Since this is only about the written form and intends to encompass a wide perspective, a new subsection with some sourced examples may be appropriately merged to Chinese character, which already has a variants section. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
    • I don't see where the article intends to cover more than just the written form. and if I am wrong, I don't think it should do that; we already have articles on the various dialect groups. And a merge into a large article like Chinese character would make that article burst at its reams. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 17:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename. E.g. to Regional differences in the use of characters in the Chinese language, something that makes clear the article is about different characters, like in English different words (elevator VS lift) and not about pronounciation. TopoChecker (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)This user has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That still doesn't address the fact that Chinese is not a single language, but several. And that the difference between China and Singapore is not one of 'region' but of 'state'. Munci (talk) 10:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve - better to explain the differences of Chinese language terms among different regions, rather than just describe. SoHome Jacaranda Lilau (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename prefereably to "unofficial regional differences etc". Because these are not official. Taiwan and mainland attempted something like a renewal Zhonghua Da Zidian (last year I believe) to match words between regions. Those are more official than what's on this page. Benjwong (talk) 04:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 20:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another awful discussion where anything but the sourcing is discussed. The issue is OR and N so please can those interested comment on the sources. Expand and improve is not a valid argument - not having sources if so if this is to survive the keep side need to demonstrate reliable sources that discuss regional differences in the Chinese language. Spartaz Humbug! 20:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The suggestions for keep don't address any of it's flaws. First it's not about one "Chinese" language: there are two languages represented in the table, Mandarin Chinese and Cantonese. I know the WP policy is to be deliberately vague over whether they are languages or dialects but fact is they are mutually unintelligible varieties with mostly different words, far more than can be contained in an article. At the same time it is completely ignoring other Chinese languages. Second there is no single "China" vocabulary as the first column suggests; Cantonese, Mandarin and other Chinese languages are spoken and used in China. Third as per WP:MOS#Foreign terms "Foreign words should be used sparingly". An article that consists largely of a table of Chinese characters clearly does not satisfy this: even with phonetic translations there would be far too much Chinese text. See also MOS:CHINA which says "do not use characters or romanized forms excessively, such as for common words, making this a kind of English–Chinese bilingual edition". And lastly WP:NOT#DICT.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 21:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. If a subject is potentially encyclopedic, flaws are never a reason to delete, but to fix. Our rule on avoiding Chinese characters when not needed for identification obviously does not apply when we are actually discussing the Chinese language! (just as an article on the German language will be useless unless it contains a good deal of German!) DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Semantic Mediated Analysis of Responses and Teaching

edit
Semantic Mediated Analysis of Responses and Teaching (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. This (and its related articles) look like components of a PR blitz on behalf of Northam Psychotechnologies. LuckyLouie (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • What I'm seeing, though, is that the term in question has no traction in GScholar. Shevrin himself appears to enjoy some notability and could probably support an article, but the connection of the paper in question to the article at hand is tenuous. Mangoe (talk) 15:59, 26 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. Spartaz Humbug! 03:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Daniel

edit
Chris Daniel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Autobiographical articles are strongly discouraged but that is what this appears to be: it was written by User:Harris DC about the Harris County District Clerk. Whilst I commend the author for removing the most peacocky of the content within the article when advised to do so, this still remains an entirely flattering and one-sided profile of a subject whose political career depends on a positive public perception and appears to fall foul of WP:SOAP. Then there is the question of notability: WP:POLITICIAN notes that elected politicians at state level or greater are generally notable, but this is a county post. Not all the refs mention the subject and those that do are doubtful in terms of meeting WP:GNG. I have strong reservations about the article's neurality and there does not appear to be sufficient notability to justify its inclusion. I42 (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The office he was elected to is nowhere near high enough for him to meet our notability guidelines for politicians. Article can be recreated if he moves up to a higher office. No other persuasive claim to notability is made. Cullen328 (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I originally deleted it per {{db-g11}} as spam and restored it (reluctantly) per author Harris DC's complaint on my talk page. After restoration, Harris DC removed speedy deletion tags and Collinsbarry showed up for a single edit to do the same. I agree completely with the nominator's deletion rationale and with Cullen 348. – Athaenara ✉ 23:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those contributing to the page are new to wikipedia. Athaenara is right in that the guidelines on rules where not initially followed, but that has since ceased after being put on notice by same.

The office answers to 4.3 million tax payers. The office holder was voted in by over half a million voters in the 2010 election (with over 1.2 million people total voting in this race alone). The county is the largest in TX. The DA (district attorney Pat Lykos has her own page, yet without the district clerk to manage the Sheriff and DA's criminal intake PLUS the 74 countywide courts and staff and paperwork/ filings that go withit, she cannot do her job and prosecute any criminals.

It is a farce to say that this position is not notable when the office controls 500 employees and 26.6 million dollars in budget. It is a farce when the district clerk of the largest county in Texas gets elected with more votes than candidate for US senate or Governor in other states like Delaware. I understand that the username was in conflict, but i just picked a name. My goal is to flesh out the existing Harris County website with a note on each of its office holders.

Not sure the editors are aware, but Houston is only one third the size in population of Harris County (and resides almost entirely inside the county). More people voted for District Clerk then for Mayor Annise Parker.--Harris DC (talk) 14:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added three more on point (about--not mentions) mainstream articles and Electoral Summary to show orders of magnitude.--Harris DC (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Houston is currently the forth largest city in the US (residing almost entirely inside Harris County), and yet is only one third of Harris County's entire population. The County-wide office holders clearly merit articles.--Harris DC (talk) 04:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As stated above, in terms of WP:POLITICIAN, county-wide or city-wide position in a large municipalty is sometimes kept, and sometimes not. However, in this case, the latter seems appropriate. Regardless of one's position on whether one of the biographical subguidelines is met, given that this is a WP:BLP article, WP:GNG still needs to be met, and the substantive coverage from WP:RS does not exist here. Some weak election coverage and information about the office itself do not indicate non-trivial information actually about the person. --Kinu t/c 21:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a position that will make someone notable for the purposes of a general encyclopedia, even in a large metropolitan area. Some county positions are: the county sherriff or DA would be notable. DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Good arguments have been madeas to why this an exception to the local government rule. Additionally, although sources are currently lacking, they surely can be found and most likely will be added with time. The vanity issue has been addressed and begun to be remedied. I don't love the article in its current state, but deletion is not the answer, since it has the full potential to meet verifiability and notability.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 21:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:RS,WP:POLITICIAN, and WP:AUTO. It's basically just self-promotion. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:26, 28 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. Spartaz Humbug! 03:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They Fall to Pieces

edit
They Fall to Pieces (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet notability guidelines for bands and there is no indication that there is significant coverage in reliable sources (fails WP:GNG as well). Danger (talk) 19:36, 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. notability comes from sources not from mentions or working in the media so the delete arguments appear the ones based on policy Spartaz Humbug! 03:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Mills (journalist)

edit
Heather Mills (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clearly her name is notable. But 2 of 3 sources mentioning her, are really not concerned with her, but with the more famous name holder. Then, there's an interview, which really doesn't count in showing notability. There seems to be no 3rd party reliable source that provides substantive biographical details about this Heather Mills, and not the other. Rob (talk) 19:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's a bit more serious than sometimes getting mixed up, McCartney's ex-wife has made serious attempts to impersonate her, and this implies that she has some significant standing as a journalist to make her identity worth stealing. PatGallacher (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see that implication, Pat. If she was impersonated, it's because the name is the same, according to the sources, not for any other reason. Per BLPIE, that can be mentioned in the Heather Mills article, but it's not reason enough to create a stand-alone BLP. Bottom line is there are no sources on this Heather Mills that we can use to create a bio, except to tell us that she's been impersonated. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:34, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of moths of Israel (Microlepidoptera)

edit
List of moths of Israel (Microlepidoptera) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod declined rather rudely. Anyway, overspecific list. Parent list List of moths of Israel doesn't exist, so why should it have an even more specific subpage? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question Is this kind of list normal? I can't imagine that there is any species of moth found in Israel that is not also found in at least one of its neighbors. Should we have lists for every nation in the world (not to mention US states, etc.) for every family of animals? If so keep this one. Borock (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm no moth expert but lists like this are generally useful for identifying what can be found in Israel as opposed to a list that highlights exclusivity of populations. If that makes sense... TomPointTwo (talk) 20:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec) Yes, maybe, and yes. Fauna lists by country (and even by state or other subdivision) are a significant topic in popular and scientific literature, regardless of whether those species are endemic to that country. People are interested in not only where species X can be found (as a distribution map would illustrate in that species' article), but in what can be found in ___location Y, so it makes sense to present the information for both purposes. postdlf (talk) 20:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Biogeography of the Lepidoptera is not my speciality, but a list of moths of the Eastern Mediterranean, or a list of Microlepidoptera of the Eastern Mediterranean, would seem more sensible to me. Israel is a small country and not an island, while nearly all of the other lists in Category:Regional moth lists are for either vast countries or islands. Qwfp (talk) 20:37, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide of Nicola Raphael

edit
AfDs for this article:
Suicide of Nicola Raphael (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was deleted at its first AfD on the grounds that though a tragic event there was no evidence of the lasting effects required by WP:EVENT. It has now been reposted with an additional paragraph saying that the school and the local authority have said that they will review their anti-bullying policies. Announcement of a review is the normal reaction of any organisation to fend off criticism, and it does not seem to me that this addition is significant enough to overcome the reasons given for deletion at the AfD. The new version was tagged WP:CSD#G4 and in my view it qualifies, but I am sure that a G4 deletion would be challenged at DRV, which would probably say that the article should be relisted, so to save time I bring it straight back here. JohnCD (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also new info that the documentary about her story/organ donation got a peabody award after being shown pretty widely including bbc america —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.204.253 (talk) 00:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article linked to at [3] says "Last year as part of a BBC documentary, the family met Rona, the mother of Jack's donor, 16-year-old Nicola Raphael, who committed suicide after being bullied by classmates." Dream Focus 06:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's "What's in a name" article doesn't really say more about the article subject than that Raphael's death is "the latest in a long line of high-profile children's suicides attributed to bullying". I'm not sure how that's sign of a long last effect.
Also, a drive by Google News search isn't terribly indicative of anything in particular. WikiuserNI (talk) 20:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
She is getting news coverage in articles years later. If her case didn't have lasting effect, they wouldn't keep bringing it up all the time. Dream Focus 06:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is it significant coverage? She's name dropped along with many other unfortunate people. Mention might certainly be made in an article on any anti-bullying efforts. WikiuserNI (talk) 18:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
your origan reasoning was: "Delete boarders on resentism. Utterly unencyclopaedic. Mootros (talk) 23:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)" the article was altered after that to have more neutral wording and given balance/positive outlook from the organ donation campaigning etc. the alterations were done after your first statement but before the first article deletion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.163.193 (talk)
Yes,thank you! Plus still : Delete borders on resentism. Utterly unencyclopaedic. Mootros (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As well as wide coverage of the events themselves this article over a year later http://www.pluggedin.com/familyroom/articles/2002/bullyinghitshome.aspx in an american based website (which at that point was also a printed publication) shoes that the the story has gained enough significance/influence to be used as one of many sources/references in an article on linked issues.RR1953 (talk) 18:57, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 03:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The X Factor (Indonesia)

edit
The X Factor (Indonesia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced, and Google appears to give no results relating to an actual Indonesian version of the show. Possible hoax. AnemoneProjectors 17:51, 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. Keep arguments based on german wikipedia notability carry no weight here and the issue is sourcing. There appears to be a consensus that the person doesn't pass BIO and it should be noted that reliaty show participants are not considered inherantly notable here even if they garner some press as BLP1E kicks in. Spartaz Humbug! 03:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Knappik

edit
Sarah Knappik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO. Nobody knows this person. She isn't famous. She hasn't achieved anything. She has only lost in game shows. Captain Chandana (talk) 17:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She is relevant on the german wikipedia. So why not on this one? The only difference between german and english wikipedia is the language, not the relevance of people. --Newsflash (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, The user account User:Captain Chandana just has contributed at the deletion of this article. Is he even eligible to add a deletion request? I seriously doubt it. --Newsflash (talk) 18:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Knappik meets all 3 criterias on WP:ENT --Newsflash (talk) 18:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two deletion requests in the german wikipedia failed, so what is the controversial part about that? btw, another german IP. --Newsflash (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of people explained in the deletion discussion that the article should be deleted after the jungle show in which she participates is over. So the article at the German Wikipedia will probably be deleted when the show is over. Another people demanded an immediate cancellation of the article at the German Wikipedia. --91.20.103.5 (talk) 18:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As one of four german sysops who were of the opinion that the article about Mrs. Knappik is not to be deleted, I just wanted to ask for a favour: the different opinions in the german wikipida are discussed right now, meanwhile we are talking in the Arbitration Committee. Ignore those german IPs, they just want to cut off the debate there presenting a deleted article in the english wikipedia. That's the background. Best wishes, --Capaci34 (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing like a german or english wikipedia!!! The only difference is the language. So this is the wikipedia in english, the other is the wikipedia in german, but the wikipedias to not belong to a country. A example: if Sarah Knappik would compete in a show like the "Dschungelcamp" in any other country of the world and would get there a media reaction like in Germany, the article has to be relevant in the german language wikipedia, as well as in any other wikipedia. --88.79.92.162 (talk) 17:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: She participated in no less than three reality TV series, modeled for notable companies, and has what appears to be legit coverage. Whether she's famous outside of Germany or not is irrelevant.  Mbinebri  talk ← 05:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:Coverage does not have to be beyond the land of origin, but significant. That appears to be the case. Agathoclea (talk) 13:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As I happen to come from Germany and in addition to this, watched every episode of the show, allow me to explain her person to those of you who don't know her: she was a partipicant of the german leg of American Idol and lost relativly early. After that, she has done nothing of significance. Now she has entered the show I'm a Celebrity and it is highly doubtable that she will win, it is most likely that she will leave the show at this very day. So, the main question is, where does her notability, which is disscused here, come from? That she lost in two shows and happens to have a difficult personality? I don't think that is enough to give her an own article. Aside from that, not every wannabe-celebrity that has an article in a national wikipedia is notable enough to deserve an international article.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    comment The fact that *everybody* seems to know her chances to win or not to win indicates that there is enough media coverage to establish notability. Is she a worthwhile inclusion ie really important? Not really. "Notability" in the wikipedia sense is a misnomer. Here we think it means the subject of the article is noted - In RL we think the term means "worth noting". There are a lot of of worthwhile articles-subjects we can't include because there are no sources. On the other hand the media seem to have a great interest in subjects of very little worth. That is what we call a 'celebrity'. And 'celebraties' are notable in the wikipedia sense. Agathoclea (talk) 08:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Maybe she is not relevant but the Wikipedia entry itself, a strange phenomenon. -- Polluks ★ 18:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Coverage is not significant. There was coverage when she was a candidate at the German version of I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here!. But now she will be forgotten like other former members of this reality television game show who were not famous before. --Yoda1893 (talk) 10:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 22:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Camden Steamer

edit
Camden Steamer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Never thought I'd say this...but Non-notable soup CTJF83 chat 17:30, 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. If more sources "comes to light" we can reconsider but this is a BLP and it can't be in article space without them. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Peter Savage

edit
Roland Peter Savage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Yutsi Talk/ Contributions 17:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since you already copied the only comment on that AfD over here, I placed a G6 speedy tag on it and removed it from the 24 January log (where I stumbled across it in the first place). —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:25, 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. Courcelles 22:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Outliers

edit
The Outliers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, almost all links are red links. Yutsi Talk/ Contributions 17:16, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 03:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fanpop.com

edit
Fanpop.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No coverage outside of the social media press. All references are promotional puff pieces. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 08:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ABC Online: They're just crediting fanpop for sourcing the image (I can't see how this could be the original source, but okay)
Newweek: ""I want him to take me to prom, but after that, the next move is his," gushes fan Dottie, 17, on Cera's FanPop.com Web page. "All hail Michael Cera!"" - this isn't coverage of fanpop
USA Today: Briefly mentions that a teenager uses the site.
I've been through every result (there are only four pages). Apart from the Sacramento one (which is a promotional piece from 2006) there is no actual coverage of Fanpop. They are brief mentions that don't satisfy Wikipedia:Notability. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 05:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. In this article from USA Today, Fanpop.com is used to set an example of a large network. This is not a "brief mentioning of a teenager", but rather a reference to Fanpop.com as a major platform for countless fans to communicate;
  2. Two full reviews here and here;
  3. ABC Online uses Fanpop.com as a source here and here;
  4. Brief or not, this is a major newspaper using Fanpop.com as a source again – this time for a quote;
  5. There are numerous sources in foreign languages, such as Spanish (with ___domain extensions spread all over Europe and multiple South American countries), Italian, German, Polish, Slovakian, etc. This establishes worldwide notability as well, i.e. Fanpop.com is also notable outside of the English-speaking circle (which is not that small by itself). Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I urge anybody viewing this debate to go to each of the above examples and do a search on the pages for fanpop. Really not mentions that show notability. The exception is your examples in 2, but if you think that's independent coverage and not promotion you're being a bit naive. The non-English links are just social networking detritus. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 20:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All your personal opinion, completely irrelevant to Wikipedia's interests. Interestingly enough, you created this deletion proposal in a very convenient timing – to justify your earlier comment that it's a "poor source". This Wikipedia essay should explain it all; your arguments are all forced and the other two editors are simply waving policy names. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 05:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I found a bunch of fanpop spam, and that led me to discover the article which I noticed was a deletion candidate. Deal with it, and stop focusing on editors instead of content. My opinions match those set out in WP:NOTABILTY and WP:RS. If I aired my opinions with no respect to guidelines they would sound more like "let's delete this awful spam on sight". Wenttomowameadow (talk) 12:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, "spam" is your opinion. Please, let's stop right here and let uninvolved editors chime in. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's my point; "Pah, this is just useless spam" would be my opinion, which is why I'm not putting that forward as an argument. The argument I am putting forward is based in policy. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve: Fanpop is a highly trafficked website and, in some ways, part of the new social media. There are some aspects of the article as it is presently written that are not important enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia in my view, such as the breakdown of most popular clubs, but that does not mean that there should be no Fanpop article on Wikipedia. In a lot of ways, Fanpop has become an online hub for supporters of various fandoms, people, and entities, and as such, is wholly notable for its service as a vehicle to aid in this commingling. I concede that Fanpop will probably never become as prominent as MySpace or Facebook, but it's certainly notable enough for at the very least a few paragraphs on Wikipedia. There is a case to be made here for improvement, but the case to nuke this article just falls short in my book. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 02:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you find any coverage of it showing notability though? Who says that it's a prominent online hub? 03:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wenttomowameadow (talk • contribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the above seems to argue that we should keep it because it's popular, but the Alexa rank (which is currently 1,183) simply isn't impressive enough that it should be kept on that basis alone. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you've missed my detailed listing of sources with extended explanations. Please read the entire thread and reply. Thank you. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you missed where Wenttomowameadow pointed out exactly what was wrong with your supposed "sources". While we're at it, Fanpop seems to have fallen in Alexa rank since the 22nd, so if anything I'm even more convinced than ever. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I only have one further comment to make. I would recommend that all in favor of deleting this article, as well as the AfD closing administrator, take a 10-minute field trip over to the actual website to judge it firsthand (if you have not done so already). Yes, such an excursion would do nothing about the issue of media coverage, but it could aid in the overall determination of whether Fanpop is something worth having a Wikipedia article for or not. As I've said earlier, it certainly seems major enough for encyclopedic mention in my book. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 07:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Us judging it for ourselves is absolutely the worst way to approach this. It's third-party coverage that counts; please at least gloss over Wikipedia:NOTABILITY. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 09:30, 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. merge is only an option if there is decent sourcing and this is a delete because there isn't Spartaz Humbug! 03:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate MotorCycling

edit
Ultimate MotorCycling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Has a few links but they seem to be press releases and self-published.Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I have actually cited Ultimate Motorcycling in articles in the past, but I've lost confidence in their independence. I tried to find news articles about them, and came up only with press releases. This press release claims they are the #1 US streetbike magazine web site according to Alexa.com, which might be a claim to notability. Something called FishbowlLA blogged in response. My take is that the list of top 10 Alexa traffic rankings for US streetbike magazines is not considered notable by independent media to a degree that would meet the criterion at the top of WP:WEB "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". I don't think the Alexa ranking is a "well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization". A merge into Robb Report#Other publications wouldn't be a travesty. --Dbratland (talk) 00:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as suggested by Dbratland. Brianhe (talk) 03:32, 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. Courcelles 22:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Kusmirek

edit
Jan Kusmirek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find sufficient sources to show that the basic requirements for biographies are met. The only source which could provide notability is this but I do not think this is sufficient. Unless extra, independent sources can be found, which directly discuss the subject, this should be deleted. SmartSE (talk) 15:57, 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. actual merge target can be changed as soon as there is some clarity on where it fits - article talk would be best place to decide that. Spartaz Humbug! 03:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Circular highway shield

edit
Circular highway shield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD - Fails WP:GNG - OK, so a number of states use circular highway shields... doesn't mean there needs to be an article on it. Admrboltz (talk) 06:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:32, 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 no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 03:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Watson (author)

edit
AfDs for this article:
James Watson (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minor author with no evidence of notability. The only source is a local newspaper, where the main reason for mentioning him seems to be that he is a "local" author. I know people of no notability at all who have received this much local press coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Watson's novel Talking in Whispers seems to have garnered enough attention to merit an article per WP:NBOOK criteria #4, as Google books shows that it is used in many curricula. Perhaps the article could be rewritten with an emphasis on the book, with the author's biograpical information retained? It would then need to be moved to the new title "Talking in Whispers". Note that this is simply a suggestion, I have no strong inclination towards keeping or deleting the article. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Talking in Whispers is his most famous book but his other work has also received significant coverage. See for example the "Authorgraph" profile and interview in Books for Keeps 58 (September 1989).[8] (As explained at the Books for Keeps website, "Authors selected for ‘Authorgraphing’ usually have a considerable publishing track-record and reputation."[9].) See also the several reviews listed by Tassedethe in the first Afd.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Talking in Whispers and other works,and its coverage.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Amazon.com doesn't even sell most of his books [10], minor author and hardly any independent coverage other than a small town seemingly trying to promote itself (this is like claiming a local league sport is notable because the local newspaper covers it). WikiManOne (talk) 23:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Talking in Whispers (1983) is listed (and given an extensive page-long discussion) as one of the critic Julia Eccleshare's 1001 Children's Books You Must Read Before You Grow Up (Cassell, 2009). This establishes WP:NOTABILITY as a significant children's author. The Freedom Tree (1976) is also widely reviewed. A profile of the author with a critical assessment of his career to date was included in Something about the author, vol 10, p. 192 (Gale Research, 1976), confirming independent assessment of his notability in this field, even then. Jheald (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article itself provides evidence of notability. Just because it isn't on Amazon is hardly compelling. A lot of books - particularly older ones or those in the pre-internet age - aren't available on Amazon. In any event, some of his books are available on Amazon: http://amzn.to/gIowaw. Moreover, the fact that his work has won or been nominated for notable awards is further evidence of notability.Agent 86 (talk) 00:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 22:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So Broken

edit
So Broken (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable song. No references (youtube not valid). No significant coverage. — Timneu22 · talk 14:40, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional Crossroads

edit
Traditional Crossroads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indications that this record label rises to the notability requirements of WP:ORG. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:16, 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 Speedy delete - Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bird flapping causes death

edit
Bird flapping causes death (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I think this might be a hoax. I searched for this study, and found nothing. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to speedy it, but I wasn't certain whether the person had meant to type more zeros. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:35, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chloe Traicos

edit
Chloe Traicos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A nice PR blurb written by the subject's PR. Fails WP:NPOV, sources are distinctly trivial, language is non-neutral. As far as I can tell the primary purpose of this article is promotion of the subject. Guy (Help!) 13:20, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEAS Control Systems India Pvt. Ltd.

edit
KEAS Control Systems India Pvt. Ltd. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article fails to make a case against the criteria of WP:ORG. Non-trivial independent reliable sources showing impact on the historic record have not been found. Unfortunately the article creator (who is employed by the same company, see user page) has persisted in removing improvement notices, speedy deletion tags and a PROD so raising for wider discussion. Fæ (talk) 11:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I have added reliable newspaper articles to improve notability. I'm still working on the article and i need more time. Thanks Suraj (talk) 11:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the coverage in the cites is not substantial, and I found one dead link. I am sure that the author is well-meaning, but I suggest that he review WP:COI. It this company is truely notable, list it as a wanted article, and let someone else come along, research it and write the article. In general, it is very difficult to assess India-based companies because most AfD participants are not familiar with India-based media. However, even giving this article the benefit of the doubt, I do not see substantial coverage. Racepacket (talk) 13:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet WP:COMPANY. The coverage added is not indepth and substantial. Suraj, for an indian company to pass our notability standards, we usually need multiple indepth articles in media outlets like ET, business line, business world, cnbc etc. Even BSE/NSE listed companies have failed to meet our notability guidelines before. It is possible that your company has had such coverage. Move the article to your userspace, add them and then resubmit.--Sodabottle (talk) 08:54, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Semantic Stimuli Response Measurement

edit
Semantic Stimuli Response Measurement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing in Google scholar or books with this phrase, which leads me to wonder if it's all publicity for the company named in the lead. Part of a family of related articles. Dougweller (talk) 11:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Shevrin's paper and Dixon's text are listed among the article's "further reading" list. Do these materials specifically address "SSRM Tek", or is it a case where SSRM Tek proponents are citing them as an orientation to the general area of their technology? That could make a big difference. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:07, 28 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) 00:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minehead F.C.

edit
Minehead F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very very minor provincial amateur football team, no sources. Guy (Help!) 10:49, 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 delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody Mary of Duquesne

edit
Bloody Mary of Duquesne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable local urban legend. Dmol (talk) 09:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS - possible hoax.--Dmol (talk) 10:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No ghits whatever except this article. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:20, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 03:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Premiere (Valery Leontiev album)

edit
Premiere (Valery Leontiev album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Failed PROD. PROD reason was "Unsourced, does not appear to be any sources on google search, does not appear notable." Decline reason was "albums by notable musicians are notable"

I disagree with the decline, as while that might be a rule of thumb, it does not trump the demand for sources, of which there are none. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non notable album as notability is not inherited, also no reliable sources found. Mattg82 (talk) 15:58, 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 all. Courcelles 22:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

320 AH

edit
320 AH (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1114 AH. Apparently, this whole scheme isn't speedy-deletable per that consensus, so I'm nominating the remaining articles here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Full list
  • Convert to navigation pages If people pop these into the search box, something should exist to direct them to the year articles that we have on Wikipedia. To that end I propose these all redirect to a navigation page containing a list of every year AH that exists, and it's start and end dates in AD, and every year AD for the period that AH exists, with start and end dates in AH. As AH is a lunar calendar, there is no simple math formula that can be used, the start and end dates shift relating AH to AD every single year. 65.93.14.196 (talk) 06:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect the AH pages with little or no added content to the corresponding century articles. The century articles can contain information by year in a list format, and they allow the reader to see more information in its historical context. Those years that have a significant level of detail can be forked back out into separate AH articles.—RJH (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The problem I see with this approach is that the content of these articles is restricted to Islamic events. This is no more appropriate than a list of centuries AD restricted to Christian events. Islamic events can be incorporated into the BCE/CE articles, just as non-Islamic events are. As they are written, this is a collection of 200+ articles of the form "List of Islamic-related events in the year X AH" and we just don't need that. (As evidence that we don't need it, most of the articles are blank except for section headers, amounting to empty lists.) YardsGreen (talk) 07:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment—As I see it, Islamic events are more closely interrelated to each other than non-Islamic events. Hence it is logical to group them together. Sorry but I'll have to disagree and my preference remains the same.—RJH (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the following comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1114 AH by Paul McDonald:

    There is no encyclopedic reason to have a separate page for every possible unit of measure conversion on a numeric scale. If there is a reason that this particular time period is of importance, then YES by all means (say, something of significance about the time period 1114 AH). But I don't see that in the article.

    JamesBWatson (talk) 09:30, 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoa That is a massive list. I agree with the consensus to delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1114 AH, and that should extend to all of these articles as well. But with so many articles, I'd like to first make sure that any notable information in any of them is already duplicated at the corresponding Gregorian pages. YardsGreen (talk) 06:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Review Of the ~200 articles listed, only 82 have any information at all. I am reviewing these one by one to see if the information is duplicated at the Gregorian page, but it is time-consuming. Much of the information is not duplicated, so I am duplicating the easiest info as I go. I am tracking my progress on my user page, but I will soon need to stop for the night. I believe the large amount of information in the AH articles that is not in the CE articles strengthens the case for deletion. As I read the articles, it feels like there are two separate Wikipedias here, one Islamic, the other not. That should not be the case. YardsGreen (talk) 09:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - if it is easy, I would have no objection to redirecting to the corresponding article for that time period. Racepacket (talk) 13:10, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crime in Buenos Aires Argentina

edit
Crime in Buenos Aires Argentina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Worthy topic, but this is an unsalvageable piece of unreferenced original research that reads more like a newspaper editorial on current events than like what we'd expect from an encyclopedia. Delete and restart from scratch.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:38, 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Branders.com

edit
Branders.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article does not provide reliable, independent sources to show that the subject company meets the notability standards of WP:CORP. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:07, 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. There doesn't seem to be sources so,,, Spartaz Humbug! 03:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Four Wheeler

edit
The Four Wheeler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable film per my Google search; a selection to the little-known Syracuse International Film Festival does not confer sufficient notability. Perhaps just a case of WP:TOOSOON. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:05, 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 redirect to List of Decepticons. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snapdragon (Transformers)

edit
Snapdragon (Transformers) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable fictional character, no reliable sources, and none of the non-reliable sources are even about the character. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. BE——Critical__Talk 20:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. no 3d-person sources. So he's O-U-T. Got it? Pillhead Maddox (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

The above editor should probably be ignored. He joined on the 15th, and on the 16th he started voting in deletion nominations and posting on the Transformer wikipedia project page. Most likely a sock puppet from any of the various puppeteers menacing the project. 198.51.174.5 (talk) 18:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, it's a sock puppet. Mathewignash (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:04, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ADTPro

edit
ADTPro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject appears to not meet WP:GNG Bhtooefr (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:04, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Wolff

edit
Roland Wolff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced BLP of unestablished notability. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:04, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 03:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hagiology Publishing

edit
AfDs for this article:
Hagiology Publishing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This publishing company has had barely any coverage in reliable third-party sources. The BBC reference in the article only mentions the publisher as a side-note at the bottom of the page. The rest of the references are either broken or belong to the company itself. The company hasn't even published any works notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. This article should have been deleted on one of the previous two AfDs, but hopefully third time's the charm! – PeeJay 17:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - firstly, what right does the nominator have to say "This article should have been deleted on one of the previous two AfDs" - one was a clear keep and the other was no consensus. I hate to accuse anyone of sour grapes, but that's what this looks like, as on each previous occasion the nominator "voted" for delete. Secondly, the BBC article is about the collective's most important publication. You say "the article only mentions the publisher as a side-note" - that may be true, but the whole article is about "In That Number" which is referred to as "a significant work of football reference in its own right". If this AfD succeeds, most of the publication houses in Category:Book publishing companies of the United Kingdom will also have to be deleted on the same grounds. Of the first four in that category, only one has any independent references. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the BBC article is about the publication, then the publication should have an article, not the publisher. There's nothing notable about this publishing company, as proven by the complete lack of references that deal specifically with the company itself. – PeeJay 00:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I know I !voted "delete" on the last AfD, but there has been no community consensus to delete this article after two AfDs, and Daemonic Kangaroo makes a valid argument for keeping. GiantSnowman 13:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does he though? Like I said above, the BBC story used in the article only mentions Hagiology once, and if the book "In That Number" is that significant a football reference, maybe it should have an article instead. – PeeJay 07:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the reliable sources given are about books, not the publisher. They mention Hagiology only in passing.--KorruskiTalk 12:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sorry, I'm with Peejay. Notability is not transferable, and if this publisher does not meet the GNG or WP:ORG on its own merits, then it should be deleted or merged to the appropriate article. Speaking of merits, can we judge this AfD on them, and not on whether the nom's daring to diss the previous consensus or whether other publishing house articles may or may not be at risk? WP:AGF, please.  Ravenswing  21:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Four independent sources, yes, but none of them devotes more than two sentences to the publisher itself. The reviews could be used to establish notability for the individual books - In that number might even justify an article - but Hagiology would appear to fail WP:ORG by a very long way. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As the wind seems to be blowing towards deletion, can I suggest that the article content is trimmed and merged into the Southampton FC article, with the Hagiology article becoming a redirect, especially bearing in mind the large number of redlinks that deletion would cause. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 03:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Irish calendar

edit
Irish calendar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:OR and Not dictionary, article seems to an attempt list Irish (Gaelic) names for annual events Gnevin (talk) 12:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:03, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Eng

edit
AfDs for this article:
Kenneth Eng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article had been deleted twice pursuant to discussions in 2005 and 2006. The most notable event, obviously, came after (in 2007), but I still believe that this person is not sufficiently notable — WP:15M applies in this case, I think. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 15:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:03, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 03:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ceri Radford

edit
Ceri Radford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication that this living person meets Wikipedia:Notability (people). Qwfp (talk) 12:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unsure. I've never heard of her, but then I don't read the Daily Telegraph. Likewise, there are countless articles in Wikipedia about journalists who seem equally obscure to me. In defence of this article, she does write for a leading national newspaper and, in addition to being a columnist, is also a novelist. That makes her more than just a run-of-the-mill journo. Emeraude (talk) 13:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Other stuff exists, but that's not relevant here. Her one novel is yet to be published, so doesn't help towards meeting WP:AUTHOR. Qwfp (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
She's worked mainly for the Telegraph, so the hits there are not independent, and it's possible to remove articles in the Telegraph from GNews Archive, leaving 9 hits that (to my eyes) provide no evidence that she meets WP:BIO. --Qwfp (talk) 12:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:02, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ototrend

edit
Ototrend (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:02, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 03:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chinriu Honten Limited

edit
Chinriu Honten Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

hints at but does not address notability, recent string of edits by rep of company named in article are suspect as the thing reads as an advert Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:01, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 03:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shinkilow

edit
Shinkilow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article written by a member of the group, which has remained unsourced for nearly a year. A Google search fails to turn up any non-trivial third-party coverage, and the organization fails the WP:ORG notability criteria. --DAJF (talk) 09:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:01, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Top Five

edit
Top Five (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable website. Meager coverage at best. Drmies (talk) 05:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per reasons given. Η936631 (talk) 07:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confused by what you mean by "defunct"? (a) linked site appears to be still up, running, and updated. (b) And since when is WP only concerned about "current" items? Notability has been established per WP guidelines via coverage and references by recognized 3rd party sources. If the article needs to be cleaned up or added to, that's not a reason to call for deletion. SpikeJones (talk) 03:20, 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 delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flood (poem)

edit
Flood (poem) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The author was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Thomas Abbott (2nd nomination) and I can't find any RS about the poem. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC) The deleted Paul Thomas Abbott mentions this as a source; see Isis magazine. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dubious encyclopedic value given its superficial notability, if any. Hard to imagine a poem being notable if its author is not.Agent 86 (talk) 00:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blade Chord

edit
Blade Chord (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only 26,000 sales seems pretty tiny for a single. And its use in a video game is hardly unusual. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 06:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:00, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 03:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodshadows

edit
Bloodshadows (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All of the sources I'm finding are trivial and unreliable. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 06:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:00, 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 no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alloy (PHP framework)

edit
Alloy (PHP framework) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Claim of notability is an award which is not readily verified and questionable reliability. Unable to locate additional coverage in secondary sources. Pnm (talk) 01:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 03:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment For FYI with respect to the notability issue, here's a list of websites that use Alloy, according to their own community google group: [12] --DanielPharos (talk) 11:35, 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:59, 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 redirect to Magnetar. Spartaz Humbug! 03:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum electrodynamic threshold

edit
Quantum electrodynamic threshold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The phrase "Quantum electrodynamic threshold" does not appear to be notable. (Google scholar finds only the single use in Scientific American, google books and regular google turn up mostly wikipedia mirrors and circular refs.) Anything useful said about the content of the Scientific American article is already contained in the magnetar article, so there is nothing to merge.TimothyRias (talk) 10:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC) TimothyRias (talk) 10:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is just the field strength where relativistic corrections become important. The article is borderline copyvio of the Scientific American article (which is a good read, incidentally). As an aside, we need an article on Schwinger field, if anyone feels up to writing it. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch that, relativistic effects become important well below this. This is more like where the interaction energy of an electron bound in a magnetic field becomes stronger than its rest mass (E = ħ*eB/mec exceeds mec2). This looks like it should give a critical field strength, which I suppose could also be called a threshold value. Back of the envelope gives gigatesla, so this is probably what they mean. The atoms deforming bullet happens at any field strength, but it should get really interesting when it goes quasi-two dimensional. I do not see why this would be the same value as above but I may be wrong here.
I strongly suspect that there is a different name for this critical value, but as the nominator says, it does not appear to be a term in common use. As the article stands, it provides less information than no article would (assuming that the good bits are already at magnetar, I have not checked). Do we have anyone here with a stronger particles/astrophysics background? Pair production for me is just another a power leech and even the Z machine comes nowhere near this, so this particular limit is a bit far afield (har). - 2/0 (cont.) 00:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking around some more, there seems to be at least some literature about the special properties of very strong magnetic fields with a field strength above some critical value. Thusfar, it seems that it is mostly referred as just "BQ" (where I assume the Q stands for quantum), but also "quantum critical field strength" (searching for the last phrase on google scholar and books actually produces some results. I think the best option might be to rename this article, and expand it. One option would be quantum critical field strength, another would be to go for a more descriptive name like ultra-strong magnetic fields.TimothyRias (talk) 09:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point - that has been done and undone already here [13]. A redirect to gauss (unit) where it is mentioned might be better.--Kkmurray (talk) 03:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious redirect to wherever. But not notable for its own article per google news and books. BE——Critical__Talk 20:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:59, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Islamic University of Indonesia people

edit
List of Islamic University of Indonesia people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Directory of people, should be deleted as per Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory Travelbird (talk) 03:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - none of these entries are notable or sourced. In the usual List of x university people, the lists are trimmed to remove non-notable people and footnotes demonstrate that they have a connection with x university. Apply the rule here would delete all four names. Racepacket (talk) 13:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (without prejudice) per Racepacket; there is no point to listing non-notable people associated with a university. If it turns out that there are sufficient notable people verifiably associated with the university, whether faculty or alumni, then the list can either be recreated (well, started again from scratch), but right now it looks like only one of those listed merits an article, so he can simply be listed in the university's own article. Also, any individuals who are verifiably significant to the university though not notable could merely be mentioned in the university's own article. postdlf (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Another absurdly non-notable list that is ripe for parody. Nwlaw63 (talk) 00:07, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Črnčič

edit
AfDs for this article:
Leon Črnčič (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG, and who in spite of having been on contract with several fully pro teams, has yet to play in a fully pro league. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:53, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 03:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jugular (band)

edit
Jugular (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Band fails notability guidelines for musical groups. Awards are nomination only for a young, local festival. Radio play is on a local station. Danger (talk) 04:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom, google has only a few results pertaining to the band. ManishEarthTalk • Stalk 07:27, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 03:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UK Teenage Pregnancy Policy

edit
UK Teenage Pregnancy Policy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article appears to be someone's college essay, in tone, organisation, and headings. Purely OR/synthesis, and redundant to the main article linked at top. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per WP:NOTESSAY. If possible, we could try to glean some good info from the article and put it in the main article. ManishEarthTalk • Stalk 07:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We should avoid having two articles on the same subject, and public policy action forms a proper part of the main article. AJHingston (talk) 12:06, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Street names associated with specific trades or professions

edit
Street names associated with specific trades or professions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOT a list of trivia. Article is woefully incomplete and unreferenced. Admrboltz (talk) 03:00, 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. notability clearly isn't there Spartaz Humbug! 03:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wingnut Interactive

edit
Wingnut Interactive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite the initial press release, this company never formed, and the project they were supposedly working on is long since cancelled. I live in Wellington and work in the industry and can confirm the company does not exist. Chopper Dave (talk) 02:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I do not wish to vote, but I do wish to comment. I feel that you would need need an official reference or source saying that the company is no longer active or was never formed, not just 'your word for it'. According to an IGN artical, the have a game that is currently 'TBA' and is nothing to do with Halo Chronicals. I don't know how often IGN update their pages though, or if it is a reliable source. Skullbird11 (talk) 23:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Understandable, it's hard to prove something doesn't exist :) No phone number in the NZ phonebook, they're not part of the New Zealand Game Developers Association, and there is no mention of them outside speculation for the title and a press release or two. They have no website, and searching '"Wingnut Interactive" Hiring' on google results in no actual hiring ads. They were literally announced as part of a deal, registered, and then never formed. The deal fell through and all that's left is this wiki entry :) Chopper Dave (talk) 04:23, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 03:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leviathan (EP)

edit
Leviathan (EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NALBUMS . also nominating the this song off this EP: Heavy Metal Pirates. LibStar (talk) 02:14, 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, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Top That Publishing

edit
Top That Publishing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing to suggest that this book publisher is notable. Was originally a copyvio spam article, but OTRS permission was received to resolve copyvio issues. Stephen 00:30, 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) 00:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

edit
Japanese mythology in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not for lists or repositories of loosely associated topics. The list is also a non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations of unrelated items as well as derived entirely in primary sources. Almost none of the content is even sourced and there is a extraordinaire high chance of original research and synthesis. See also WP:POPCULTURE —Farix (t | c) 00:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 00:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 00:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 00:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It looks like its all O.R. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 11:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The only real deletion argument I see here is that this is all unsourced OR. "X in popular culture" articles comprise a large and longstanding topic (see extensive contents of Category:Topics in popular culture), many of which have passed through AFDs successfully, and there are many other ones similar to this one in Category:Mythology in popular culture. So I don't think there is anything close to a consensus that this topic constitutes "a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization" (I see it as just a categorization - X in Y) or a "repository of loosely associated topics," and I don't see an explanation here as to why it should be viewed as such. A valid, sourced article on (or list of examples of) Japanese mythology in popular culture is certainly conceivable, so the only question should be whether there is anything salvageable here, or whether it's better to just clear this and start over. postdlf (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Postdlf. I think it can be sourced. I know something about Japanese culture, but I'm no expert. Bearian (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if cleaned up notable topic for certain, current content is awful though and will need substantial cleanup and perhaps a full rewrite to be viable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The topic is clearly notable, as a few minutes' searching finds coverage of the influence of Japanese mythology on anime and manga (ISBN 9780812693638, p. 69), horror fiction (ISBN 9780595201815, various pages), Pokémon (ISBN 9780822332879, p. 17), science fiction (JSTOR 4239700) and video games (doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-9949-6, pp. 25–42). As with many of our "in popular culture" articles this one currently just lists examples rather than providing actual encyclopedic content about the subject, but the sources exist to allow that problem to be fixed by editing. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Clearly notable subject.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to 2019 Asian Games. Almost everybody here agrees that this article should be merged and the target mentioned most frequently is 2019 Asian Games. Whether or not both articles should be merged into something else is a matter for the talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Asian Games

edit
2023 Asian Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:CRYSTAL JDDJS (talk) 22:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 2018 and 2022 world cups were only given their own page after the host details had been announced. Before the two were combined in a single article, see 2018 and 2022 FIFA World Cup bids. Ravendrop (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. It, along with 2019 Asian Games should be merged into an article along the lines of 2019 & 2023 Asian Games bids much the same way as 2018 and 2022 FIFA World Cup bids. Only after they are both awarded can they be given their own separate page (again as was the case for the 2018 and 2022 World Cups. Ravendrop (talk) 00:31, 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 redirect to Controversies of the United States Senate election in Virginia, 2006#Allen's Macaca controversy. Spartaz Humbug! 03:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Macacawitz

edit
Macacawitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an article about a name which one person was called, maybe two or three times in one year. Yes there are sources, but it seems like it's too minor for an encyclopedia article. Jaque Hammer (talk) 13:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--Bobbyd2011 (talk) 19:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I think if anything, if there is an article just on the use of the term Macaca, that could be a target. Also the above two "deletes" should be dismissed as WP:JNN and WP:JUSTAVOTE. I still favor keeping. I don't believe "minor" is a good argument favoring deletion (see WP:USELESS); this article I believe was targeted for deletion simply because it is short. There is no minimum length for an article in order to be worthy of inclusion, and the term is notable after all. Xyz7890 (talk) 05:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a frequent nickname used for major political figures with new mentions coming up even today on blogs as he announces his new candidacy. This is in addition to numerous mentions during his 2006 round. Here are a few,[15], [16], [17], [18], etc. Must I go on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiManOne (talk • contribs) 22:42, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 03:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bea Stays in the Picture

edit
Bea Stays in the Picture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:PLOT. It has been redirected three times but has been restored each time without any improvement. The only reference in the article is a ratings figure that is available in List of Fish Hooks episodes so the episode provides nothing more than is available in the main list article, except for a lengthy plot. AussieLegend (talk) 00:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a valid keep argument in a deletion discussion. WP:PLOT says "Wikipedia articles should not be plot-only description of fictional works.". What policy could possibly justify keeping this article? --AussieLegend (talk) 17:35, 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bianca Nogrady

edit
Bianca Nogrady (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:CREATIVE. gnews confirms that she writes articles as a journalist [19], but nothing about her as the subject. simply cowriting a book doesn't get her over the line either. LibStar (talk) 01:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 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 no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Love Like Pi

edit
A Love Like Pi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. Google search does not seem to provide evidence of notability. LadyofShalott 00:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 03:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Squeezeplay (Transformers)

edit
Squeezeplay (Transformers) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable fictional character, no reliable sources, as usual Black Kite (t) (c) 19:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would generally want this kind of thing deleted, but what about Lee's Guide to Loose 1988 Transformers: The Decepticons. Lee's Toy Review magazine, issue #208, March 2010? BE——Critical__Talk 20:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feel free to voice your opinion on the validity of the nomination, but spare us the complaining. What makes you think they are being "tollerated" when there are dozens being deleted? If they are being "tollerated" then they'd be kept. Mathewignash (talk) 16:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surprisingly, I actually agree with Ignash. While it's arguable that we made a mistake by not finding these articles sooner, the community cannot reasonably be accused of "tolerating" them. Community consensus against these is as clear as it could ever possibly be. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:23, 28 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, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harmony House (building design)

edit
Harmony House (building design) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Peacock, primary sources, COI, dubious notability. Prod declined because an admin thought there might be sources but I'm not convinced. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Russell W. Howard

edit
Russell W. Howard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Although this person appears to have been written about in many hip-hop related blogs (and of course on imdb.com), I am completely unable to come up with anything that meets WP:RS to establish notability. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 20:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 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. passing mentions do not count towards establishing notability Spartaz Humbug! 03:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oleg Frish

edit
Oleg Frish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see how this person is notable. Apparently, according to the one (Russian-language) source provided for this BLP, he is one of the most famous men in America, but this is belied by the paucity of hits in Google News. I'm willing to state that Carrot Top is more famous. Drmies (talk) 18:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name in Russian:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Comment I began addressing some of grandeous verbiage of the article.[20] Aside from the one source offered, I found another under the name Oleg Frish... a rather lengthy article and interview of the subject from 2004 in Люди... a Russian version of People.[21] )(translation) and there is actually enough in this longer article to source much of the article... but one does not build a house with only one brick. So I looked further... under the Russian spelling of his name, Олег Фриш and found 3 unfathomable book sources,[22] and 3 more google news sources... minsk.by,[23] Русское радио,[24] and newsru.com.[25] And while a regular google search under his Amercican name brings back a bit over 1,000 hits,[26] a similar search under his Russian name brings back over 3 thousand results,[27] So he may be more notable in Russian than he is in English. Translators? --Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The number of Google hits is irrelevant in an AFD. Please check for Google Books and Google News Archive, and then only list reliable and independent sources with substantial coverage. Edison (talk) 15:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He was recorded at Capitol Studios. So this makes a second brick :-) IMO a sufficient notability for an entertainer. Muslim lo Juheu (talk) 02:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It has not been demonstrated that he satisfies WP:BIO. Not everyone who records a record at Capitol Studios automatically gets an encyclopedia article. Did Capitol release the record, or was it recorded at Capitol for private distribution? How high did it climb in the popular music charts? Perhaps someone could demonstrate that he also has multiple reliable and independent sources with substantial coverage. Edison (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, you are wrong about Capitol. If it were a single claim for natability, then I would agree with you. But a colleague above mentions that he found significant sources in Russian language. I fail to see why a host of a long-standing TV program and took significant role in some several other shows. is nonnotable. In other words, per WP:BIO/entertainers (Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions), your argument is rebutted. Muslim lo Juheu (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Machine translations are not the preference, however the in-depth article Edison did machine translate,[28] and the other two found that he did not acknowledge,[29][30] act as futher indicators of the GNG being met and of a notability to Russia suitable enough for en.Wikipedia, even with us not having heard of this gentleman in the West. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is the nonsense about "Did not acknowledge??" Only the one article I cited showed up in Google News Archive search. The first of the articles you found somewhere provides only a passing reference and does not establish notability: (In translation). The second one, which you also found somewhere, just says (in translation): "Resnick: I did not know that this is such a popular channel, called me Oleg Frish, I just talked to him. He said: How do you feel about this? I replied that I am very sorry, and I do not like it. Kirkorov: You have so many years living in America, you are well aware of Frisch and to the station. This is the most popular radio station. Resnick: I never knew it was a popular channel. " Another passing reference, which establishes that Resnick did not know it was a popular radio program. This is your best evidence for notability? Edison (talk) 02:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I will continue to hope for input from Russian Wikipedians with access to sources unavailable online in the West, as where there is even one significant and in depth article found, there may well be more. And even "passing mentions" may be used to per policy properly verify some aspect of a BLP, such as the individual and his show being spoken about and referred to by others... even if negatively. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:30, 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 no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nelder Dawson

edit
Nelder Dawson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Although he may have been prominent locally or among his peers, does not meet general notability requirements Wkharrisjr (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Da Gryptions

edit
Da Gryptions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Rationale was "The subject of the article does not satisfy the criteria listed in WP:BAND. The single independent reference provided is a local/regional newspaper." The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - the article's author (who also appears to be a member of the band) has since provided a significant number of additional sources, although again they seem to be mostly local or regional. Technically speaking, the band still doesn't seem to meet WP:BAND. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - CHARTattack, Treehugger.com, enRoute are all national publications. (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apsobibi (talk • contribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 03:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Rumbolz

edit
Bruce Rumbolz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail the general notability guideline and WP:ATHLETE. Existing references appear to be either unreliable or trivial in nature, not a discussion of the topic. The exception is this article. I am unable to view the full text, but it appears to be a fairly in-depth discussion by a regional source, but to me this alone doesn't meet the general guideline. A quick Google search didn't turn up anything better. VQuakr (talk) 04:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific about how this reference shows the subject meets WP:ATHLETE? Specifically, the policy says "Listings of statistics must clearly satisfy the requirement for significant coverage." Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 19:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reference shows he was in more than one title fight and meets WP:ATHLETE. Can you demonstrate that the information is not reliable? Kugao (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not user-generated? That being said, I don't really doubt that he's been in the fights listed there so if they qualify as "professional competition at the highest level" then we're probably done here. VQuakr (talk) 19:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Kugao --Emerald gloves (talk) 03:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So can we get the "Article considered for deletion" blocks off the page?  :) --Emerald gloves (talk) 03:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC) Emerald gloves[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 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) 00:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Sánchez Bonilla

edit
Hugo Sánchez Bonilla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of sources for notability. I checked LexisNexis (behind a paywall but exhaustive and it found only one piece mentioning his name La Nación (Costa Rica) August 26, 2006). The spanish text can be found at [32], "IMAS recorta presupuesto para fiesta" the relevant text "En el acto participará el presidente Óscar Arias Sánchez, el ministro de Lucha contra la pobreza, Fernando Zumbado, y el artista costarricense Hugo Sánchez Bonilla, quien creó el logo del IMAS en 1972. A este último se le brindará un reconocimiento especial." which google translation gives as "Participate in the event President Oscar Arias Sánchez, the minister for Combating Poverty, Fernando Zumbado, and Hugo Sanchez Bonilla Costa Rican artist who created the logo of the IMAS in 1972. The latter will provide special recognition" IMAS stands for Instituto Mixto de Ayuda Social (Spanish: Joint Social Welfare Institute; Costa Rica)[33]. The only other source I can find is this page [34] for an exhibition at Pennsylvania State University.

There is no article for him on the Spanish language wikipedia. I checked without finding a single mention of him on the following paywalled databases: "Art Retrospective:Index of abstracts from art periodicals published throughout the world" and "ARTbibliographies Index of literature on modern and contemporary art, photography and design." LittleHow (talk) 05:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 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, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Tynan

edit
John Tynan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Failure to find any reliable sources including newspapers etc covered by lexisnexus. One problem is that there is a notable John Tynan who is a jazz writer (and has yet to have a wikipedia article) which makes hunting sources difficult. But searching with his name and the bands mentioned finds only a few pages with tangential references.[35],[36], [37].

It is a concern that the initial article was created by the individual that is also the same individual that uploaded an accompanying image based upon a painting they owned of Tynan suggesting a connection with the individual.

Being a road manager of bands does not seem of itself grounds for notability LittleHow (talk) 11:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 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) 00:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pisal

edit
Pisal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have tried googlind 'Pisal surname', 'Pisal name' and 'Pisal last name', and none returned more than 10 results. Kayau Voting IS evil 13:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 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) 00:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Ferry

edit
Stephen Ferry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Biography of an actor who fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Only ever credited with minor roles. Article was created as part of a hoax campaign by a now banned user, with much greater claims of notability. When unverifiable claims were removed, we're left with a biography that can only cite IMDB and other similar film databases as a source. No significant coverage to be found. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete was in some notable films but in small, mostly unnamed roles, some of which don't seem to match up with the claims in the article, for example: IMDB gives his credit in South Pacific as "Pilot in Hospital", one of three people with that credit. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:27, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2011_January_21&oldid=1142638319"