Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 January 23

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< 22 January 24 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 Keep. Ironholds (talk) 01:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Horse's Ghost

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

Insufficient notability/coverage in reliable sources. Marcus Qwertyus 23:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Short length is not a reason for deletion. There is no problem with an article being a mere stub; the majority of articles on Wikipedia are stubs. If the article passes WP:N (which, per my sources above, it does) it shouldn't be deleted. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Stub articles are fine, and form an important part of the Project. See, as well, WP:NOEFFORT, where the "stub" argument is cited as an "argument to avoid".--Epeefleche (talk) 02:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep. I'm not entirely convinced that three photographs and their captions are enough to base an encyclopedia article on. On the other hand, the guy would appear to be historically important, and at least one of those captions provides sufficient detail to constitute significant coverage. Obviously the fact that it's a stub shouldn't come in to play. Alzarian16 (talk) 23:15, 30 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. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 17:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Green (photographer)

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

Sources exist that support the subject of the article being a professional photographer and teacher, but does not meet WP:CREATIVE standards for notability. Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response to previous Question/comment: I believe the subject, Beth Green, to be notable in regards to her achieving the right to be admitted (and thus, the first female photographer/photojourmnalist) into a sports venue's locker room. This fact is substantiated at NYIP's podcast site (as referenced), hopefully without exceeding the neutrality guidelines by stating this fact, which has also had a positive influence for other women photographers and journalist in this field. I would think that this is somewhat notable, without being overly presumptuous. As for listing her name as "Beth S. Green", that was done to differentiate her listing from that of the television actress, "Beth Green". I have also deleted any references to the publications she has worked for, or had photos published since those citations do not exist in a web-based article. Please let me know if these edits, that were made today, have corrected the flagged issues from the previous submission. Thank you. Drmidi2010 (talk) 05:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no requirement that sourcing must be to something available online. An article can be sourced to articles in newspapers and so forth. (Of course sourcing to credible websites is particularly convincing.) ¶ Perhaps I phrased myself badly: I hadn't in mind any distinction between "Beth" and "Beth S."; rather, the way in which she was referred to as Beth rather than Green (or Shapiro, which I wildly and perhaps wrongly guess is her maiden name). Consider Zelda Sayre Fitzgerald (sorry to bring up a mere celeb here, but her article is well developed). As a child (or in contradistinction to her husband) she can be referred to as Zelda; as an adolescent or unmarried woman, as Sayre; as a married woman, as Fitzgerald. I may misunderstand this person's surname(s), but anyway she should not normally be referred to simply by her personal name. (Then again this is not a matter of tremendous importance.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply to Hoary: 1) I now see that this has been added to the list concerning this post: "Very few or no other articles link to it. Please help introduce links to this page from other articles related to it. Tagged since January 2011." - I believe that it would be quite viable for internal (or wiki-links) from the NYIP (New York Institute of Photography) pages to Beth Green's page would be easily added, once a determination has been made to keep her "bio" page from deletion. There were also many more links in the original post that were removed by another editor. Perhaps these were either considered to be redundant, or removed for some other various reason. Again, I have removed any link or reference where the citation was questionable as to being supporting or a verifiable link to the associated component/subject.
      • 2) "Beth Green" (actress from the TV series, "The Bill" does in fact have a page at wiki, thus listing Beth Shaprio Green as "Beth S. Green" would help to distinct these two individuals from each other, again, if the latter subject's page is to be kept from deletion.
      • 3) There are certainly many sources that exist attesting to Beth Green's work at the New York Times, The Washington Post, The Daily News, USA Today, and Newsweek Magazine. However, I removed these statements from the post since I do not have them within my posession, at this particular time. I also did not think that pdf files scanned from the actual printed articles about Beth Green would be acceptable and/or compliant to wiki's standards for such bio submissions, since they would not represent a completely "neutral point of view."
      • Let it suffice to say that I will do and provide whatever is needed to see this through, if you can specify all that is needed at this point of time in the editing process. If nothing is needed from me at this time, then I will be most patient and await the final decision. Hopefully, a "thumbs up" will be in sight on the horizon for Beth S. Green. - Drmidi2010 (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be at cross purposes here. First, what name does she normally use? If it's "Beth Green", then there's no need to rename the article. The only thing I've wanted to say about her name is the very minor one that it's generally not good to refer to her (as an adult) within the article simply as "Beth". ("Green", OK; "Beth Green", OK; "Beth", not OK. Compare Marilyn Monroe. Her besotted fans may call her "Marilyn"; Wikipedia calls her "Monroe".)

Secondly, if there's material about her in (say) Newsweek, then it can certainly be cited, even if it doesn't appear anywhere on the web.

My guess is that if you can dig up at least one other reliable source for the locker-room business, and also find some other discussion of her or her work, the article will be in the clear. However, I don't claim to be able to read the minds of other people hereabouts. -- Hoary (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, we are not "at cross purposes here." I agree that she should be called either "Beth Green" or "Green" within the body of the article. However, what I was referring to was the fact that the original page was titled "Beth S. Green", which was then redirected to a new name, "Beth Green (photographer)", whereas, the other Beth Green at wiki does not make the same sort of distinction by naming her page "Beth Green (actress)". Fact is, Beth Green often uses her middle initial since there are actually several Beth Green(s) out there, (it is a rather common name).

As for external publications regarding Beth Green's past experience and credentials, I am aware of several reprints from Photo District News (www.pdnonline.com), Article: "Beth Green Brings Glamour To The Boardroom" by Lorraine Gracey, (which refers to her past experience with corporate portrait photography, portraits of corporate executive women (and men, too), and there's a direct quote in there about her position as a photo editor for the business section of Newsweek, opening her own studio, and other experience that I had originally posted in my first draft. I have no date for this article, however, I do have the actual reprint of it and can submit that in pdf format if need be. I also have another reprint from Photo Pro magazine, the article is named, "Beth green's Success With Executive Portraits, Making The Best Look Better" by Lisa Berkley, that discusses Beth Green's executive portrait experience, and also mentions her positions with Newsweek, her assistance with Minor White, her position as a stringer for UPI in Philadelphia, etc., and that, too, I have as a reprint and as a pdf file. Again, for both of these articles, there are no dates on them, though I suspect these dates could be tracked down, if need be. If I were to present these as citations, would it be of help for keeping the page from being deleted? - Drmidi2010 (talk) 05:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also, I would like to bring your attention to two paragraphs written by the NYIP on their "Meet Your Instructor" flyer for Beth Green:

"Beth Green is one of the most well-rounded members of the NYI faculty. She runs a photography studio, Beth Green Studios, working with clients in the areas of real estate/architecture, lifestyle/public relations, and corporate. Over the years, Beth Has taken portraits of most of the prominent New York City CEOs."

"Before opening her studio, Beth was considered one of America's most respected photojournalists. She was employed by the wire services, producing work for the front pages of The New York Times, New York Daily News, Washington Post, and People Magazine. As a wire service photographer, she went on the campaign trail during two presidential campaigns, and photographed the Queen of England and the Pope. She also made history -- and the pages of trivia books -- as the first woman photographer permitted to take photographs in a men's locker room after a professional sporting event. In 1978, Beth left the beat and joined Newsweek as a Photo Editor. In this role, she both took photographs and managed the magazine's Business section and Fashions & Leisure sections. She also edited the magazine's annual "Best Pictures of the Year," and collaborated on over 100 covers."

I also have that as a reprint from The NYIP. - Drmidi2010 (talk) 05:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you may wish to improve the article with your new materials and see what people then think. -- Hoary (talk) 06:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certainly will do that this evening, though when I re-insert this reference, it will look very similar to what was originally posted, though now I have several citations to support it. (Tuesday, January 25, 2011) - Drmidi2010 (talk) 08:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the editor who took the brushcutter to this article in the beginning, I respectfully ask that you do NOT make it look similar to what was originally posted. Never mind the lack of references -- your original posting was fluffy and promotional almost to the point of advertising. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 01:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Simon: I have only added three references that support a citation for the Charles Rangel photo, and two articles (PhotoPro and Photo District News) that support her experience in the corporate portrait arena. It is certainly not my intention to add back that which has been deleted twice for this insertion. I have merely added some references to outside sources at the bequest of editor Hoary to "improve the article"; and certainly not to "fluff" the article. And these were also two address the second notice on the article: "Very few or no other articles link to it. Please help introduce links to this page from other articles related to it. Tagged since January 2011." Drmidi2010 (talk) 07:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • In sumation to the submission, we have done everything to address these issues and are now awaiting a decision and/or remaining comments concerning this article. I am hopeful that I have demonstrated notability of the subject, support of statements with citations and references, and have stated that my purpose in posting this bio is not a COI issue (from my perspective). Therefore, I will not add or make any other changes, unless directed to do so by the adjudicating powers that be. Drmidi2010 (talk) 07:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Sticking my neck out a little here, but assuming good faith on the offline and subscription-only sources, this would appear to meet WP:GNG by a small margin. It doesn't appear to be causing any harm, so there's no particular reason to invoke the stricter parts of WP:BLP. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Alzarian16. I am hopeful that the others involved with this dicussion will also agree with your point of view. I would like to add that the submission of this topic (made last year) was done by someone else, perhaps without the benefit of understanding some of these guidelines. However, as to this submission, it is my intention to conform to meet these standards and with good faith in presenting it "matter of fact" and with a "neutral point of view." I believe Green's notability in the field is deserving of such a page at wiki. Drmidi2010 (talk) 16:00, 31 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 nomination withdrawn. He played in what is now the Serbian Superliga, before Montenegrin independence. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tomislav Ćiraković

edit
Tomislav Ćiraković (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. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG, and who has not played in a fully pro league. No reason was given for contesting. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:04, 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. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 00:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Smurfing (online gaming)

edit
Smurfing (online gaming) (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, no sources. Deprodded by IP without comment. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. For once, I'm writing a more-than-one-word rationale for a fairly clear AfD. Also for once, most of the comments seem valid. Also for once, I see Colonel Warden in the delete camp :p. Both sides have argued well, but consensus is in favour of Keeping this content - as an aside, I particularly liked User:Jrtayloriv's rebuttal. There are well-worded concerns about the neutrality or lack thereof of the article, and I think the rename may help allay some of that. Ultimately, an argument over what content is POV or not, or what page titles are appropriate or not, or whether this should be merged or split or turned upside down or at a ninety degree angle can be conducted on a talkpage to form consensus as much as they can here. Consensus here is clearly to keep, but consensus can change; if parties still have issues with the article's content, I encourage them to take it to a talkpage and try to hash out the specifics there. Hopefully the result is an article more people can be happy with. Ironholds (talk) 01:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

United States-supported Dictatorships

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

Inherently POV article stating e.g. that the Nazi Germany was a US-supported dictatorship. I'm sure that some person somewhere has put that opinion out there, but this list will always contain opinions only and thus shouldn't be included here. Travelbird (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi Germany was backed by companies in which Prescott Bush, a U.S. senator was a shareholder and director of. He is one politician, but there is no questions that many wealthy American politicians of the 1920s and 30s supported Fascist dictatorships such as Hitler and Mussolini's. If you believe the Hitler add is an opinion-based add, I can understand partially where you're coming from. Delete it, then. But everything else contaisn no opinion and is completely fact. Every dictator and regime listed is referenced by a/numerous source(s). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.178.208.80 (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If a senator as a private individual was a director of a company that did business with a regime, that does not entail US government support of that regime, at least not without extraordinary sourcing. If the criteria for inclusion in this article is that low, than the article will be meaningless. Also, our article on Prescott Bush notes that the story of his support for the Nazis is false. GabrielF (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This should focus more on things like the Shah in Iran, Ubico in Guatemala, Noriega in Panama (before he fell out of favor with his CIA handlers), Somoza in Nicaragua, Suharto in Indonesia, the Greek Junta, Franco, Uribe in Colombia, and ... you get the point -- situations where there is direct collaboration, military/intelligence aid, etc. between the U.S. government and a foreign, authoritarian government. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep and clean rewrite -- This article is in terrible shape, but it is clearly about a notable topic, and should be rewritten in prose (rather than as a list) using reliable sources. To see why this topic is notable, just do a quick Google Books search for United States support dictatorships or United States support authoritarian. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree that this is a notable topic which is often discussed. Article should cite respected sources both pro and con: That US support of dictatorships is always bad and that it is sometimes justified. We couldn't have beat Hitler without helping Stalin. Oops just lost the argument by Godwin's law. :-) -Borock (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite. - This is a notable topic and while it is a POV-magnet, I don't think it's inherently POV. A related article is Covert United States foreign regime change actions, which is problematic but certainly notable. We do need to clarify what support means exactly. For example, I think the inclusion of the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan is questionable because IIRC we supported them while they were insurgents against the Soviets but we provided minimal if any aid when they were in power. EDIT: Having looked through the articles on these regimes I can only support keeping this if it's prose rather than a list. There are many types of support: for example, the US supported Francois Duvalier even though they disliked him (and I'm sure this is true of many others) because he was better than the alternative. If we don't explain the context and the nature of the support in prose than the article does become invariably NPOV. GabrielF (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, many of these situations are more complex than "support/didn't", so it has to be prose, if we are to provide context. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also made the point on the talk page that the US, post WW2, is so powerful and far-reaching (imperalistic?) that it supports every nation, directly or indirectly. Borock (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with trepidation. While this article screams "soapbox" it's also a clearly delineated subject in academia with plenty of reliable sources to establish notability. An article that should be kept with the best of intentions but will, no doubt, end up being a POV attack essay. TomPointTwo (talk) 23:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion I would recommend this article being renamed "Non-democratic governments supported by the United States". The title has a greater scope, is more "big picture" and would be less POV prone. TomPointTwo (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the title "United States-supported Dictatorships" was horrible, for many reasons. Thus I've renamed it to United States support of authoritarian regimes. Most of the literature on this topic focuses on the aspect of authoritarianism in certain governments that have been (and/or are) supported by the United States. They often talk about being "non-democratic", but generally this is only being discussed as one of several types of evidence that the government in question can reasonably be called an authoritarian government.
For instance, the U.S. puppet government in Colombia is "democratically elected", but they use paramilitary death squads to intimidate their political opponents, and regularly imprison, torture, and murder leftist union leaders, journalists, and teachers. That is, a government that elects representatives in what many people in the United States call a "democracy" (selecting candidates), can also be authoritarian (torturing, hacking people's heads off with chainsaws, drug trafficking, etc.). I think the current title I've renamed it to is more in line with the standard in the literature on the subject, and best describes the central theme in the topic (i.e. questions surrounding the implications of the United States having supported authoritarian regimes, while claiming to represent some nebulous concept they call "democracy"). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd disagree with your characterization of the Columbian government but that's neither here nor there and I see your point in the semantics used by sources. Still, authoritarian is, in itself, a rather POV term as is is dependent on a ideological analysis of society rather than a more straight forward checklist of political methodology. "Authoritarian" is superior to "directorial" but I'd still say the broader, less ideological "non-democratic" is more valuable in building a durable, non-POV article if for no other reason than it supplies a contrasting foreign policy position without becoming too combative. TomPointTwo (talk) 01:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article will always be incoherent and/or inaccurate. -- Assume that high-quality reliable sources were used, rich context and all significant views were provided throughout the article, and the article was carefully copy-edited for both tone and clarity. Given this assumption, what is it that makes you feel that the nature of this particular topic would mean that it would always be incoherent and inaccurate?
  • The US-Philippines relationship has nothing to do with the US-Chile relationship. -- Wrong. They have an immense amount to do with each other. They are both brutal dictatorships that had very close ties with the United States government. The United States claims to be a supporter of "democracy", yet supports authoritarian governments (and lies to it's own citizens about it). This clearly seems to be a contradiction, and an interesting and deadly serious (pun intended) issue. That's why so many scholarly and popular sources have explicitly analyzed it, in great depth, over a period of many years. Because there are so many high-quality reliable sources having a serious discussion about this topic, we will have an article on it per WP:NOTABLE. Of course some individuals, especially U.S. nationalists might get a bit upset about the fact that supporting dictatorships is widely frowned upon, and thus their nation is getting "cast in a negative light" even if one simply objectively describes what they did. This is closely akin to the reasons for which Creationists get upset about the state of the article Evolution. But the fact is that the United States has supported dictatorships, whether you think it legitimate or not, and this has been widely discussed. Upsetting? I hope not too much. But it's just the way things worked out, and per WP:NOTABLE, there's really no justification for deleting such a notable topic.
  • There is no reason to fork this out from a general article about US foreign policy -- There are millions of pages of scholarly literature that have been written about U.S. foreign policy. But we can't put everything about U.S. foreign policy in the U.S. foreign policy article -- there's just too much. So what we do is fork out articles. We choose to fork out a new article when there is a particular topic that is widely discussed in reliable sources, as a subject in itself. That's what we're doing here -- forking out an article about a huge, widely discussed topic (namely, U.S. support for authoritarian governments, and what it means). Not everyone agrees about what it means, but only delusional, fringe individuals believe that it didn't happen. What this article will contain is a brief overview of the history of U.S. support for authoritarian regimes, integrated with coverage of the current state of the debate between various notable individuals and groups about what it means. This is not "inherently biased" or any of the other nonsense that so frequently gets spewed out every time a controversial social/historical issue comes up. It would only be biased if we wrote it wrong. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A notable subject, lots of RS on the topic, there is lots to write about and it's not an attack article, and to those stating it will be "incoherent and/or inaccurate"-well lots of articles are like that, just look at any Israel/Palestine article or a fraternity article. Passionless -Talk 07:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Inherently unbalanced and so contrary to core policy. The US has supported various classes of country for various reasons — once, a large part of the Federal budget went to paying the Barbary pirates. As it has made much effort to support democracies, a more balanced treatment would cover the full range of client states, not a biased set. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The article is supported by scholarly sources. It is premature to call for a delete right now. Clearly the article is one-sided and needs balance. Perhaps it should be moved to user-space? :::I agree the article suffers from POV, but editors have cited reliable sources that explicitly say the US has supported numerous dictatorships. The article is barely a day old, give editors a chance. Wikifan12345 (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The problem with the article is that is that there is no neutral way to determine the subject matter.
What constitutes a "dictatorship" or "authoritarian regime" ? Most people would agree that North Korea is one, but what about Morocco, Russia, Thailand ?
What constitutes "support" ? To what level does it have to rise to make a country eligible of the list.
The fact that in the short history of the regimes like Nazi Germany, and the one of Idi Amin have been added just to be removed again shows the fundamental flaw of the article: there is no NPOV way of drawing up such a list. Whether or not a certain government is authoritarian and whether or not it is being significantly supported by the US government is a matter of opinion. The fact that we can find these opinions in some text doesn't change that fact that they are still opinions. And as such inherently not NPOV. Having such an article will just lead to endless edit wars over what should be included and what not. Travelbird (talk) 11:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the article suffers from POV, but editors have cited reliable sources that explicitly say the US has supported numerous dictatorships. The article is barely a day old, give editors a chance. Wikifan12345 (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Wow ... that may be the only time I've ever seen Colonel Warden advocate deletion. Go figure. In any event, the Colonel misrepresents NPOV. The policy doesn't require that articles avoid topics which fans of the subject would consider disparaging. It requires that articles be written in an unbiased fashion. Nothing prevents the Colonel, or any other editor, from writing an article concerning client states of the US or any other country, whether as such or as a List of sovereign foreign aid recipients of the United States, organized by dollar amount. I agree that the article will be a likely magnet for polemics - on either side of the political spectrum - but they would be content disputes inappropriate for AfD.  Ravenswing  17:36, 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. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 02:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IDWCRR – iRacing Drivers World Championship Road Racing

edit
IDWCRR – iRacing Drivers World Championship Road Racing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has had no attempt at referencing after six months, no attempt made to establish notability. The bundled in season articles have even less notability and primary author appears hostile to the concept. Falcadore (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2010 iDWCRR season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2011 iDWCRR season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Additional comment one of the justification provided on the talk page of one of the season articles is that two professional racing drivers have taken part in this series. It has never been established that I am aware of that what on athlete does as a hobby is even encyclopedic.
Originally this began from the two season articles which seem to fail levels of notability. Computer game campaigns have not to my knowledge previously been considered encyclopedic or notable, but added the main article as it has similar issues. --Falcadore (talk) 21:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a10 - please consider contributing to our existing article Person of color. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"People of Color" Page

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

totally non encyclopedic POV essay, violates WP:NOT in so many ways it's not funny WuhWuzDat 20:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I am not sure why this Article is under considerations for deletion.


1. It is entirely factual. I think factual articles about people and culture should be included in Wikipedia. Please, take the time to point out where this article is opinionated and not factual.


2. Although this Article does include a definition, It states: "Although articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic, they should provide other types of information about that topic as well. If possible, articles that contain nothing more than a definition should be expanded with additional encyclopedic content."


This article discusses word usage about a large group "People of Color". It states that: "Descriptive articles about languages, dialects, or types of slang are desirable." This article is (so far) about "Descriptive language."


Although I feel this Article will be short, I would like to expland this article to include: -- Another section called: "Why Are People Different Colors?" [This section would talk about human genetics and pigmentation] and include Pictures of "People of Color."

-- Another possible section would be "Genotype v/s Phenotype," which (if it is not overly controversial, would discuss how people appear (phenotype) different from the way their "genetic make-up" would normally be expressed. For example, the way Make-up, Hair-dye, Plastic Surgery, or Tanning physically alters our appearance...this is just an idea.


I DO NOT believe this article is: Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, sports-related, or otherwise.


Opinion pieces. (Opinions are not factual...please point out non-factual (non-documentated) information in this article.)


Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself... (This article is not about myself).


Advertising. All information about companies and products are written in an objective and unbiased style. (There is no business promotion on this page).


Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so. (This artile is not promoting any events)


Non-disruptive statements of opinion on internal Wikipedia. (I hope the language I used in this article is non-offensive, if it is, please point it out.)


Please explain in detail how this article is non-factual and, or non-encyclopediac. Thank You. C-ritah (talk) 21:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestions. I would hope you re-read my outline, and then considered the differences I proposed between the two pages. My approach would be more "factual/scientifically oriented" and less "American/political theory oriented. I am not saying there is anything wrong with political theory. Wikipedia influences a larger audience. I think a balanced, factual "people of Color" page would also be a good idea. C-ritah (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


This is my first Wikipedia Article. I may be asking for help (If you have suggestions, please feel free to pass them along.)

I have seen the "Persons of Color" Wikipage, (and have used it as a reference), but I was considering "a page" with more than the definition she (or he) has included. A page that included pictures (of people), termonology (local, slang, and "historical?") and Scientific information about human genetics.
I am unsure of how to incorporate "Political theory" with "Scientific and "literal" termonology. I would like a "Literal/factual" approach, to exist alongside the "cultural/political" approach.

Any suggestions?

Where can such page like this (an inclusive (of every color) page about people, genetics, and languages from a global perspective) EXIST??? Any suggestions?) C-ritah (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. Article meets speedy deletion criteria A10. Article has been userfied and moved to original author's userspace as this was clearly a good-faith contribution. l'aquatique[talk] 23:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"People of color" page

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

totally non encyclopedic POV essay, violates WP:NOT in so many ways it's not funny WuhWuzDat 20:52, 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. NW (Talk) 02:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Militant Forces Against Huntingdon Life Sciences

edit
Militant Forces Against Huntingdon Life Sciences (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 believe this "name" is notable per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), all the evidence points to the fact they are simply another front for the ALF (tellingly, the license for the main image illustrating the groups "work" states Images taken by the Animal Liberation Front and uploaded to Bite Back Magazine are always public ___domain.) Most of the sources provided at self-published via Bite Back. The only 3rd party sources that even mention them are a few newspaper reports, and they are reporting the attacks, rather then provide significant coverage to them as a group, their aims or objectives. We've been through this before, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Students and Workers for the Liberation of UCLA Primates. At best, this "name" should have a brief mention in the ALF and/or SHAC articles and the title redirected there. Rockpocket 16:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just to clarify they are not another ALF front, like for example the Oxford Arson Squad, but like the Animal Liberation Brigade for example, as they oppose the ALF ideology as stated in the article. Because they posted to Bite Back Magazine it would be public ___domain, so I put what I put on the description to show that for MFAH it would be the same as well, admittedly not very clearly though. I've taken out the others section, as I realise it doesn't have a second notable source, however the two actions against the Novartis CEO were major news at the time with thousands of articles in Europe and the arson at highgate farm was reported on in the UK. I know its not much, but what has been reported they have received a fair amount of coverage for, I just didn't think I needed to include that many sources. Whereas before I had overlooked before that the UCLA individuals had only one or two attacks reproted in the same article and may not be an established group. In contrast MFAH claim to be as, as reported by the media. Maybe it should try be shortened further first similar to how other AR groups pages were before they expanded? (ThompsonFest (talk) 11:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment. Its well established (and covered in the ALF and SHAC pages) that the same groups of people use names like these to carry out illegal or violent acts, while maintaining ideologically clean fronts under a different name (i.e. the "non-violent" ALF or the legal SHAC). My point is that we don't have any reliable sources that tells us anything about this group or their ideology. Unlike the ALF or Justice Dept, which are discussed at some length in books, sociology literature and the news media, the only third-party sources that even mention these groups are news reports of the direct action, with trivial coverage along the lines "...and the attack was claimed by X."
It is telling that a report in the Daily Telegraph is cited in support of one of their attacks [1] and yet the report doesn't even mention this group, instead most of it is about SHAC, with the police claiming they were investigating all possible angles – “including SHAC”. I suspect that is because the newspaper is well aware of what is covered in the SHAC article: that the "legal" core of SHAC and the individuals that carry out illegal direct action in other guises have proven time and again to be one and the same. Likewise, the BBC report of the Highgate Farm arson doesn't mention the group either [2], never mind discuss it in any significant way.
WP:N requires we have reliable, third party sources about the subject of an article (i.e. in this case, the group); that significant coverage just doesn't exist for this group (as of yet). Until that time, this should redirect to SHAC and a brief mention of this front should be made on that page. Rockpocket 18:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 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, Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:41, 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/redirect. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Battersby

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

With greatest respect to the subject of the article, this article appears to fail the test for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. All I can see are Facebook, LinkedIn and similar sites, plus gig guides. As always, more than happy to be shown wrong. Shirt58 (talk) 11:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I couldn't find anything either, but I'm confused about the addition of "Richard William Wright" at the beginning of the name. Of course, Richard Wright has his own article, but I did not think the two were the same person... if I'm incorrect and it is a stage name of some kind, then Merge, otherwise I can't find enough coverage of him (as opposed to the band) so Delete. - ManicSpider (talk) 16:33, 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, Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:36, 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 Withdrawn, has been translated. Jac16888Talk 01:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

10th arrondissement of Marseille

edit
10th arrondissement of Marseille (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nomination. Remains largely untranslated after much longer than two weeks listed at WP:PNT Jac16888Talk 20:22, 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Bridge

edit
Sandy Bridge (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 lacks any proof (ie. references) that this bridge even exists. Google Maps doesn't know of it, and all News articles are about the processor architecture.[5] hydrox (talk) 19:16, 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Stewart (political journalist)

edit
Brian Stewart (political 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)

I couldn't find much about him anywhere except on the National Review website itself, and even there, there is no full biography. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but he appears non-notable. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 18:58, 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 no consensus. Valid concerns were voiced by both sides regarding notability, 1E, etc., but no decision was agreed upon. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 17:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elsa Moberg

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

See below. JJB 18:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Prodded by David in DC thoroughly as follows: No sources. Unencyclopedic. Relied exclusively on two putative "references" that were not obviously about Elsa Moberg and that are raw data maintained by gerontology researchers and longevity hobbyists. Neither is a reliable source. What's left is a name, birthday, a guesstimate for date of death and unsourced statements about where the subject lived. I deleted unnecessary, and unencyclopedic info, and focus on, another "record-holder". The focus in many longevity bios, on "record-holding" by nationality, occupation, blood type or what-have-you is unencyclopedic. The WP:WALLEDGARDEN needs pruning. After DiDC removed GRG and OHB as less-than-reliable sources, OlYeller declined prod, finding two sources. Both sources are local, 10 sentences or less, and about other subjects than Moberg (Zachrison and Småland), with one sentence to Moberg each. Neither mentions the earlier birthdate. Per WikiProject guidance at WP:WOP#Notability and sourcing (which has been unchanged consensus for a month now), extant sourcing fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO1E, and WP:RS. Finally, redundancy with WP's 2001 list, its Swedish list, and its Zachrison article is WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. JJB 18:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment. Voting for your own nomination is inappropriate; it gives your voice two votes instead of one. But then we never expect you to follow the rules, do we?Ryoung122 17:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I didn't know that. Could you cite a policy or guideline to that effect? I speak here of your first assertion. Your second is incivil and best ignored.David in DC (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if it's necessarily against policy, but I can see Ryoung's point. It does look like a !vote in addition to the nom. More commonly, the rationale is included in the nom. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 17:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. On further reading, JJB has the standard list of false accusations, and is self-contradictory: "no sources" and then mentions two references. JJB uses weasel words like "unencyclopedic" and false characterizations such as "raw data". This is NOT raw data, this is processed and vetted data. A guesstimate for date of death? Please. That information can easily be found.

If this material is not enough for an article at the moment, it can be merged to a list and expanded later, as there is a sufficient reason to keep it. Oh, and DavidinDC removed sources first? Sources that are reliable? Talk about a hatchet job.Ryoung122 17:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hatchet job? WP:NPA. For a less, um, nefarious explanation, please see my comments near the bottom of the page, in response to Heymid.David in DC (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She is notable for being the oldest resident in her country for a period of time. There are references, categories, and some biographical information about her. All that the article needs is some extension and some care. Give it time. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nick, the guidance, linked above, at the project at which you are a member, states, "But longevity itself, without more, is subject to Wikipedia policy guidance on one-event biographies." Your argument for inherent notability is contradictory to both your project and WP policy and purposes; and you have had opportunity to disagree while this guidance was being written, and you did not. The "please wait" argument has already been used at very many AFDs listed at WT:WOP#Deletion recommendations and has generally failed. AFD gives you a week to find significant, independent, notable, multiple, verifiable, reliable sourcing, which your silence basically admits has not been found yet. JJB 22:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment. JJB is citing her own policy insertions, typical COI Wiki-lawyering. Also, "silence is consent" is a lie, especially when others are not notified of the change.Ryoung122 18:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll AGF about the gender confusion in your use of pronouns. As to not being notified, I made the most recent edits a month ago. If you're a member of the project, surely you have the project's page on your watchlist. If not, it's really not cricket to complain about a lack of notice. David in DC (talk) 22:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The gender confusion is probably a symptom of the same issue evidenced by the inability to recognize italics as indicating a quotation, because "he" (meaning Ryoung122) also referred to my quotation of your (meaning David in DC's) words (meaning "no sources", "unencyclopedic", and "raw data") as being my own words, dramatically demonstrating the dullness of "his" determination. Ryoung122 also deleted from WP:WOP the month-stable consensus guidance that I quoted above, and I restored it after explaining the consensus rationale (and "his" reliance on falsehoods, as in fact you rather than I wrote that sentence). I also changed ONEEVENT to WP:BLP1E. JJB 14:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • KeepMerge - Two points. One being that she was notable, in my opinion, for a period of time and notability is not temporary meaning that the fact that she doesn't hold the title anymore shouldn't be an issue. If people have an issue with it, I would say that points more to the fact that "oldest person from a country" probably shouldn't imply notability. My second point is that, as I mentioned on the talk page, there are definitely more references available. I'm not of the belief that a "local source" is somehow incapable of being reliable or usable as a reference so I would say that all six sources found here in a very brief search, imply notability. That they're not in the article now just means that the article needs work and not that the article should be deleted. If I were to change my vote, it would most likely be due to WP:ONEEVENT but I'm not convinced that it applies to the length of a person's life. OlYellerTalktome 03:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks; those points don't go directly to the conclusions at the longevity WikiProject, quoted above. "Oldest person from a country", alone, does not imply notability; agreement has been that, when it's notability alone with age over 110, BIO1E applies and the person may be mentioned in lists instead (line-item notability). Some parties disagree repeatedly in AFD but have never commented on the project guidance in place, which is not constructive (an ArbCom is open). All editors so far have indicated that "inherent notability" is a deciding factor in their vote, and the project has decided against inherent notability in bare cases like this. I had seen the six sources and on the prior brief review they all looked similar to the two of them that are already in the article (and I may confirm this later). Note that local does not mean unreliable but does mean less independent and less certain to have been established as reliable by RSN; one-sentence mentions are plainly not significant; and article-level notability is not established even if six articles all mention the one event (record-breaking age). JJB 18:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
      • After your comments and the comments of others, I'm changing my opinion. I think a Merge is in order (not the change above). I think this information is better suited for a list of the longest living Swedish people (if an article exists) or List of Swedish supercentenarians. If people who fall on this list have other notable information, an article can be created. As for the discussion going on regarding oldest-people type articles at WP:N, I hope it is concluded soon so that it can be applied to AFDs so that discussions like this don't need to happen as often or are easily concluded. Until then, I'm not sure that it's anyone who participates in such AfD's responsibility to be involved with that case. OlYellerTalktome 18:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - Nothing at all notable about this individual. No accomplishments, nothing at all that meets WP:BIO simply a lady who lived to a fair age and passed away, which when it comes down to it, is not encyclopedic content by any measure. - Galloglass 07:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps an article along the lines of Timeline of three tallest structures in the world, then the names of the people and their age could be listed, but each old person would not have an article of his or her own. Maybe it would violate WP:NOR though. Dr bab (talk) 14:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Congratulations! You have correctly and independently hit upon the compromise that was reached in 2007; see list of Swedish supercentenarians. What was not solved at that time is that, due to issues currently being heard at ArbCom, redundancy to such articles abounds, and articles like the Swedish list have zero reliable sources. I have no problem merging Moberg's sources to that article, as has been done previously; and may I count your comment as a merge !vote? JJB 18:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. The 2007 compromise included mini-bios, not just list format. It's not too much to have a paragraph or three lines on someone who was once Sweden's oldest person ever.Ryoung122 17:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge. Ideally this could be merged to List of Swedish supercentenarians. As the former recordholder, her case is significant as a milestone of longevity extention.
    Some of the above comments, particularly those of Galloglass, are substituting personal opinion for Wikipedia policy. Notability is not established or disestablished simply because one believes that extreme age is not notable. Aside from being Sweden's oldest person for more than a year (so much for the "one event" excuse), her story was well-covered in journalistic sources.

Ryoung122 17:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This page was at first a redirect. At the time it was converted to a standalone article, she was the oldest Swede to have ever lived. An article should not be deleted just because the subject no longer has that honour. Finally, I can't think of anything that suggests Wikipedia doesn't benefit with this article. Why are there seemingly so high notability requirements for supercentenarians? If we should delete this one, I think we should also delete a bunch of other BLPs about supercentenarians. Also, as a side note, it's hard to get an article deleted through PROD if it has existed for five years. HeyMid (contribs) 19:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I quite agree, we should delete all these articles that fail the notability policy, this one included. - Galloglass 20:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Honour, like being a "record-holder", is not what this is all about. Notability and coverage in reliable sources are the guidestars here. The article failed miserably on these counts when I put up the PROD notice. Being wrong for a long time isn't really a badge of honor. The PROD notice led to some plausible approximation of reliable sources being inserted in place of the earlier citations to raw data tables that were clearly out-of-bounds. But those articles still don't establish notability, in this editor's view.
"If we should delete this one, I think we should also delete a bunch of other BLPs about supercentenarians." I agree. And not just BLP's, but plenty of BDP's, as well. And myriads of ill-sourced charts, tables, and cross-referenced lists filtered by occupation, country, continent, and who-knows what-else. (Blood type? Where the subject stands/stood on the great "Tastes Great/Less Filling" divide?) But in the meantime WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is no reason to keep one article, just because another similar bad article or articles exist. David in DC (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. David: Please STOP with the misuse of terms such as "raw data" to refer to the GRG. It is NOT raw data. It is PROCESSED data. Just ask all those not on the lists. Your continued misuse of the term to disparage the GRG is typical of the misbehavior that editors like you continue to get away with. The GRG is cited by the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, CNN, Guinness World Records, and in the academic literature. Your refusal to become educated on this subject, at the same time you insist on editing it, is problematic and detrimental to Wikipedia.Ryoung122 17:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our contrasting views about the data tables hosted at www.grg.org have been aired sufficiently for this AfD. Let's stop refuting each other here. Anyone interested can read the continuing conversation here. David in DC (talk) 19:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She was the oldest living person in Sweden at one time. She was a person of notability and she was documented. Encyclopaedias contain information about the highest mountains and the longest rivers, therefore, contrary to what David in DC states, the world's oldest people, be it regional, national or worldwide, are by definition encyclopaedic. Cam46136 (talk) 06:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC) — Cam46136 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Record-holders can be, and are, included in lists, so this deletion discussion is not about removing the information that she was once the oldest living person. However, wikipedia's notability guidelines apply, and the issue here is whether Moberg meets WP:GNG. None of those claiming "keep" have offered any evidence that she does. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to closer: The notes above do not do justice to the commitment to COI and SPA editing held by at least four editors above, as documented at WT:WOP#COI list, which should be closely consulted. For instance, Cam46136 has made only 18 edits to WP, all 18 of them to AFDs about supercentenarians. I hope it will not be necessary to connect the dots on this one. JJB 14:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep - The topic meets WP:GNG. Much of the referenced material is in Sweedish sources rather than English sources. Moberg's longevity brought reliable source coverage to detail her life, well beyond the one event of becoming the oldest person in Sweden. None of those claiming "delete" have offered any evidence that the topic does not meet WP:GNG. Deletion evaluates topics and the omission of the Sweedish sources material from the article does not justify deleting the topic. The edits to the article since the nomination have addressed the concerns of the nomination.[6] Since reliable source coverage of Elsa Moberg goes beyond the context of the single event of Moberg becoming the oldest person in Sweden, the article should be kept. Concerning the nomination, the multiple !votes by the nominator is inappropriate. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your good-faith attempt to resolve the nom concerns, to which I will indicate where the concerns remain unaddressed and new concerns arise. You added a paragraph sourced to four unlinked articles, and three external links (two appear to be paylinks, and one is an 11-sentence article on Zachrison that beats the others in nonnotability by giving only half a sentence to Moberg). (1) 3 (or even 5) local-only mentions, totaling 2.5 sentences, are neither significant (let alone multiply significant), nor independent, nor necessarily reliable, nor verifiable in the pay cases, nor necessarily notable; this is my basis for saying GNG is not met. (2) The conflict over deathdate, which seems to arise within GRG, is evidence that the date is not even sufficiently notable to have been reported consistently. (3) As David stated, focus on record-holding by nationality, without other notability factors, is unencyclopedic: specifically, the existence of the article is undue weight (overemphasis on record-breaking), not rectified by sourcing that lacks true content. (4) All but one person commenting at the WikiProject agree that cases like this satisfy BIO1E (or WP:BLP1E) and are appropriate for merging or deletion, not retention. (5) But there must also be something to merge, and your statement that reliable sources detail her life beyond BIO1E is not consonant with your edit, in that trivial mention of siblings and marriage is not life details "well beyond the one event" (going "beyond the context" means being notable or newsworthy for other reasons than the record-breaking event, such as a supercentenarian using her fame to record a rap CD). (6) Your statement that much material is in "Sweedish" sources is not consonant with your citing unlinked non-Swedish sources, and your linking nonmaterial Swedish sources externally without citation. (7) You act as if nonnotability under GNG has the burden of proof (asking us to prove a negative), when in fact notability has the burden of proof, which I don't think you have met. (8) Your argument that omission of "Sweedish" sources does not justify deletion is not valid, because deletion is justified on other policy arguments, and because the sources omitted were already accounted for in those arguments. (9) You rely unduly on Ryoung122's statement that (a) I voted multiple times and (b) my two-paragraph nomination is inappropriate, when in fact no conscientious human or computer would mistake my nom for double-voting, no policy forbids two-paragraph noms, and AFD templates in fact make a two-paragraph presentation more presentable (and thus preferred by many editors) in long-nom heavy-markup cases. (And undue reliance upon Ryoung122 is currently subject to ArbCom review in the "Longevity" case.) (10) If you have access to the paywalled articles or the unlinked articles, you should copy relevant fair-use portions of them to satisfy WP:V, which is unmet by any of your added material (nothing you added can be verified as coming from the sources named).
In sum, IMHO to retain this article rather than delete or merge, I would (as I stated at WT:WOP#Common deletion outcomes) look for (1) a verifiable plurality of significant coverages in unquestionable independent (preferably nonlocal) sources, (2) a resolution of the issue that the debated deathdate suggests nonnotability, (3) notability beyond the context of the one event (record-breaking), (4) support by other non-COI editors active at WP:WOP, (5)-(9) harmony between your statements and the extant facts and policies, and (10) satisfaction of WP:V. Thank you for your consideration. JJB 16:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep, nomination withdrawn Mandsford 22:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shoelace knot

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

Already largely exists at reef knot. Delete & redirect? (Also, the "Techniques" section may be relevant to the other article...) ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Despite being very similar, a shoelace knot is distinctly different to a reef knot in the way that it is tied and untied. I believe the methods of tying a shoelace knot can be expanded, meriting the shoelace knot an article of it's own. Since many people tie a shoelace knot every day, documenting the various methods of tying the knot is very important. --George Makepeace (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After rereading both articles, I agree with the author. Sorry. Withdrawn ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Whilst I agree that the knot is notable and would have !voted keep of the nomination had not already been withdrawn, I think there is a little tidying up to do. Specifically, this article duplicates the subject already at Shoelaces#Shoelace_tying, and some links to Reef knot should now direct to this page inclding, but probably not limited to, the Bow knot redirect. I42 (talk) 19:21, 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

High altitude wind power patents

edit
High altitude wind power patents (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 a strange page. If anything, it should be at List of high altitude wind power patents, but that would make it an awfully specific list of individually non-notable entries. Very, very few patents merit articles here, and a list of likely non-notable patents in a very narrow field does not seem particularly notable either. bd2412 T 18:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on stamps of Hungary

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

Way too short a list. No sources, no sign that it'll be expanded. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:18, 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 no consensus. Even the nominator does not seem to favor outright deletion. Discussion of a merger can and should take place on the target article's talk page.Beeblebrox (talk) 00:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wack Pack

edit
Wack Pack (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 group of people notable only for their association with The Howard Stern Show. Any salvageable and sourceable content should go to the article on the show. The article has been a minefield for WP:BLP issues, probably because this group was brought together apparently for the purpose of mockery, an activity that Wikipedia should not emulate. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment My main concern that was that the article had survived two previous AfD's. On that basis I thought it "felt wrong" to instead turn the article into a redirect without any further discussion. I do think there have been many recent edits to improve the article (including those by Kenilworth), but I'll leave it to others to decide if it's enough to merit inclusion on Wikipedia. To be clear, there is a tremendous amount of wp:AGF on my part here, I just thought the circumstances merited further discussion CarbonX (talk) 10:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not a prediction, just a comment on what has actually been happening, as a glance at the article history will show. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited. If they are notable only in the context of a radio show, they should be discussed in the article on that show. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps my post wasn't clear. I wasn't suggesting the individuals themselves merited an article each, just simply that the amount of coverage the group gets makes it notable in itself. The fact that an article isn't the best written on Wikipedia isn't a reason for deletion, nor is the fact that the subjects are eccentric and enjoy mocking each other. I really don't see it fitting into the Howard Stern show article very well at all either.--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that everything that can be reliably sourced is already at The_Howard_Stern_Show#The_Wack_Pack, as mentioned above. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Jeffrey Group

edit
The Jeffrey Group (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:PROMO - this page was the creation of User:TJG2020 (note the initials of the subject), now blocked for promo. Article was prodded; prod was removed by the now-blocked user. Nat Gertler (talk) 16:17, 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wildball

edit
Wildball (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 event lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to be more advertising than encyclopedic article. ttonyb (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The Event has taken place annually each year since 2007, attracting about ~200 participants and countless spectators and people attending the public parties yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.187.93.35 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 23 January 2011
  • Comment - The Event gained ~1200 Fans + almost as much friends on Facebook since going public on 27th of Dezember 2010, since it was a underground event the last years, mostly known and talked about in the years before. The Articles and News on the Blog are called 15.000 times each week, And the term "wildball rally" is wide known in the scene, due to forums and features in offline print magazines. The article shall not be an advertiesment, but an encyclopedic information for people who are interested in the event and its background. If there are changes required to make the article better, please tell us what to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.187.93.35 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 23 January 2011
  • Comment - Why Delete???? There are a couple of articles in print magazines, countless followers through their blog, just type in "wildball rally" at google and you will find plenty of information - mostly by independent people searching for information about the rally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.186.13.24 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 23 January 2011

*Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.79.170.187 (talk) 10:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC) [reply]

  • Keep @Ravenswing: Its not necessary to score out postings saying "keep", just because you have a different opinion, neither to answer in a condiscending way. And, i am not even going to comment your off-topic potshot regarding the facebook-fanpage. ON TOPIC: If wikipedia decides, the article should be deleted, then we won`t complain.
All i / we just say is, the article is about an talked about public event, even though in fact not THAT much talked about yet in the online world. -due to it was an underground event for 3 years, although there was mediacoverage, for example a 2page feature in germany`s second largest modified car-mag.
There is no doubt that the event held in august 2011 will gain loads of reliable, independent and third-party sourced material in on-, and offline magazines, communities etc. We would be glad if it will be kept, but we wont start crying, if not. Best regards, a bunch of sometimes-drunk-but-always-enjoing-their-great-life boys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scallywags.stephan (talk • contribs) 21:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – It was me (ttonyb), not Ravenswing that stuck-out the votes. I did so with a very good reason. They are duplicated from the same IP address. Being talked about is not a reason for inclusion into Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not about popularity, but rather about verifiable articles. Verifiability is what is lacking in this article. Unless you can provide support for its notability using reliable sources the article will be deleted. If the event does gather adequate media coverage then it can be created at that time. ttonyb (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: To expand on Ttonyb's remarks, the core policy of Wikipedia boils down to a basic premise: the world has heard of you. "Underground" events, by their very nature, are out of the public eye, and subjects about whom no one has written in books, magazines, newspapers or other such media do not qualify for articles. Does that set a high bar for "indie" pop culture events? Yes, it does: deliberately so. It isn't helpful that the "official website" has no content, or that according to Network Solutions was created only in October. If this event has, as has been claimed, written up in German automotive print magazines, we'd be grateful to see the citations.  Ravenswing  23:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The strikethrough was because you are allowed one !vote per poster. Anything more has to be a comment, reply, or sometimes just a sigh! No references complying with WP:RS have been given. Your own site can be used as extra info, but it cannot establish notability. Possibly there are no references that are acceptable here - I just did a quick gsearch and couldn't find any. Over to you.... Peridon (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle Matty's Coffee Syrup

edit
Uncle Matty's Coffee Syrup (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 product Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:23, 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. No evidence of meeting a notability guideline produced by consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zheng Saisai

edit
Zheng Saisai (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 Tennis notabilty as per here KnowIG (talk) 14:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I based my argument on the notability of the Youth Olympics itself. If I read an article about the Tennis sections at the Youth Olympics, let's say, I would definitely want to know more info about a gold medalist! I don't know why everyone is so strict about those guidelines and criteria. Some articles do not meet them, but that does not mean they are not notable for any other reason! This is an encyclopedia, and if a gold medalist at an Olympics event it is not notable, then let's just delete the hole Wiki and move on with our lives. (Gabinho>:) 13:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  • We are strict about paying attention to guidelines and criteria because they represent the consensus as to what belongs in the encyclopedia and what doesn't. I'm sure, for instance, that you wouldn't appreciate me attempting to mass delete your tennis articles, in defiance of those self-same guidelines and criteria, with a claim that tennis is a silly sport and doesn't deserve any premise of notability. General consensus has always been that medalists at the Youth Olympics are not presumptively notable, because the Youth Olympics doesn't represent the highest standard of competition available, historically the governing factor for presumptive notability of athletes. If you'd either like to overturn that consensus or overturn all guidelines and criteria you don't like, this AfD isn't the proper venue to do it. That being said, you're tossing WP:ITSIMPORTANT and WP:ILIKEIT arguments at us.  Ravenswing  17:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 04:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails secondary notability guidelines for tennis players. This is an amateur teenage athlete. If we had articles on every amateur athlete with career prize money over $5000, we'd have a billion articles. And winning a gold in the Youth Olympics is many orders of magnitude lower on the notability scale than winning a gold in the Olympics. The difference is an olympics gold medalist is arguably the best athlete in the world in that sport at that time, a youth olympics gold medalist is the best athlete in the world between the ages 14-18 whose parents have enough money to send them to Singapore for the one instance of the youth olympics that has ever taken place. Big difference. SnottyWong gossip 16:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
perhaps you mean a thousand, not a billion. And we could handle a thousand if we decided we wanted to. DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 30 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mónica Puig

edit
Mónica Puig (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 Tennis notabilty as per here KnowIG (talk) 14:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please learn the notablity of junior players regarding ranking. Thank you KnowIG (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Courcelles 20:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An-Sophie Mestach

edit
An-Sophie Mestach (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 Tennis notabilty as per here KnowIG (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was today don't be so smug.
Why took it personally? I didn't eve looked at the nominator... Just telling my opinion. (Gabinho>:) 18:06, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rum & Coke

edit
AfDs for this article:
Rum & Coke (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; no references for over a year. Not much content here, either. Powers T 14:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment On the first two pages of a google search I found four reviews, including one by the BBC [10] and another by the Independent On Sunday [11]. I've added these as references. Edgepedia (talk) 15:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep, withdrawn by nominator Mandsford 14:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nicky Quaid

edit
Nicky Quaid (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 WP:ATH. Opening for wider discussion after PROD deletion and as there there is no specific guideline for hurling. Fæ (talk) 14:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw - Speedy Keep My mistake, there is some guidance under WP:ATH#Gaelic games which I overlooked. Fæ (talk) 14:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 00:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pagani Huayra

edit
Pagani Huayra (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: no definite details available, car has not been put in production at this time. Contested prod. Jarkeld (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are definite details about the car. The name is Huayra as this link shows http://www.motorward.com/2011/01/pagani-huayra-first-pictures/. There is no reason to delete this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thejoebloggsblog (talk • contribs) 12:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (but only barely): From what I can gather, Pagani has announced the Huayra as the official successor to the Zonda and both that fact and the leaky pictures have been picked up widely by the international motoring press. So seems to meet WP:GNG that count. As for not in production, I don't know if that matters -- as far as I can tell, there's no specific and applicable guideline for notability of cars or products, so we don't have more than WP:GNG to go on. In any case the article is definitely a stub, so I have added the template. -- BenTels (talk) 15:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep upcoming model -->Typ932 T·C 17:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep this upcoming model replaces the Pagani Zonda and is just as significant. Recently it has been officially unveiled: see here. Article does need a rewrite to incorporate new information though. Purpy Pupple (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: That article is well written and excellent. No need to delete it. --123.192.63.119 (talk) 09:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: The Huayra is going into production, and it now has an official press release complete with photos. There is plenty of precedent for pending models to be included in this encyclopaedia. The Huayra is also a significant car: a gullwing supercar from a marque whose bona fides are well-established. If the Ferrari FF deserves a page, the Huayra meets the same criteria for notability. Sacxpert (talk) 06:30, 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Connolly

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

Assertion of notability is based around a short film Toys (subjects are the director and producer) winning an award at the "American International Film Festival"; this is sourced to http://www.aiff2010.com/. A similarly-named organisation states on their website "due to recent concerns" that they are not affiliated with this site. Otherwise, I can't find significant coverage of the subjects to establish meeting WP:BIO. January (talk) 12:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article lists two films, both shorts, both of which IMDB lists as being in post-production rather than released. Both featuring unknown actresses who seem to have worked only with Connolly or in bit-parts elsewhere; plus all the non-acting work on these shorts seems to have been done by Connolly, making it sound like a startup operation rather than an established movie production company or him as an established director. There is very little about him online, certainly not in non-English movie criticisms. And the festival acclaim is on a page whose title is "ACME news" and whose organization has been disavowed by a similarly-named organization, so that one seems a bit dubious. So it doesn't sound like this person meets WP:BIO just yet. -- BenTels (talk) 15:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 00:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Onagadori

edit
Onagadori (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 nn Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rescue: Type in Onagadori in Google and the potential references (with images) jump out at you. Badly needs references and more text though. I've flagged this article for rescue by ARS. -- BenTels (talk) 15:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Different species, having unique characteristics, and bred at different times by different people. [12] Dream Focus 07:18, 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 wrong forum. List on RfD instead. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FM- and TV-mast Krynice kolo Bialegostoku

edit
FM- and TV-mast Krynice kolo Bialegostoku (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cleaning up a number of redirects that are partial translations from Polish to English. Structure is not referred to by this name in any reference. Owner of the structure (TP EmiTel z o.o.) refers to it as RCTN Białystok (Krynice)

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons - partial translations from Polish and incorrect naming reference :

FM- and TV-mast Krynice k. Bialegostoku (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
FM- and TV-mast Krynice koło Białegostoku (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
FM- and TV-mast Krynice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ajh1492 (talk) 10:57, 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. According to Jogurney, he "seems likely to pass the GNG if someone can access/read Arabic sources." Unfortunately, we cannot assume things. If an Arabic-speaking user translates a passage containing significant coverage of him, I am willing to restore. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moneer Musa Elamin

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

Doesn't play in a fully professional league. Best claim is that he played in a continental club competition, but it was only one match. Does not appear to pass the GNG. Mkativerata (talk) 09:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability." Unless raw statistics are now considered to be substantial coverage, this does not meet NFOOTBALL. —WFC— 16:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an aside, he doesn't actually meet the football-specific part of NSPORTS, which calls for participation in a fully professional league or international appearances. But that's more for your benefit than my own, as I actually look at article subjects qualitatively when determining notability. —WFC— 17:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additionally, NFOOTBALL is a guideline that creates a presumption, not a guarantee of notability. The presumption should be rebutted for individuals whose only claim to fame is one match in a continental competition and for whom we can find absolutely no coverage in independent sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Torsofuck

edit
Torsofuck (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 has never had any independent sources. Guy (Help!) 09:10, 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Elementary School

edit
Bangladesh Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. Non-notable elementary school. Lacks any indication of importance or significance through content or significant, reliable, and independent references. Cind.amuse 07:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Education (a not-even-a-guideline that I strongly disagree with, and this is a textbook case why). --Shirt58 (talk) 08:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete: I was born and brought up in Chittagong. The school is NOT notable at all, even in the local context of Chittagong. The article also looks like a copyvio taken off the schools brochure. --Ragib (talk) 04:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Chittagong#Education per the standard outcomes for elementary schools, or as a second choice delete per nom and Ragib. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. This was the initial plan, but the initial editor reversed the redirect twice, blanked the page, and removed a G7 CSD tag. Attempts were made to communicate with no response. At that point, I thought to bring it to discussion. Then the AfD tag was removed twice. If another redirect was attempted, the editor's track record indicates further disruption. I was hoping that the AfD would bring the editor out to discuss the article with other editors, offering an opportunity to mutually arrive at consensus, but it doesn't appear to be working. Therefore, deletion may be the best answer at this point. Cind.amuse 06:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Cindamuse and Ragib, unless it can be redirected to an education section in an article about Chittagong. Kudpung (talk) 15:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/merge as usual for elementary schools. This has been one of our most satisfactory compromises. Cindamuse is right that the redirect should have been possible without coming here, but when people are stubborn we need a community decision. DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC) ,[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by User:RHaworth (G3: Blatant hoax) Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FACTSDACTIM_ROSS'_PROM

edit
AfDs for this article:
FACTSDACTIM_ROSS'_PROM (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 subject does not appear to have been covered significantly in reliable sources; see the general notability guidelines. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:46, 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voyage Manager

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

Advert, but I am not sure whether WP:Note is fufilled or not. Trythisonyourpiano (talk) 06:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 00:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Schmidt

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

College baseball player whose career seems non-notable/pedestrian. Some of this seems like a mix of other people (how could he have thrown a first pitch in 1991?), so not sure what's verifiable, if anything. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 06:07, 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 speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7 nancy 07:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Basil Tumaini

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

Questionable notability; appears to be an autobiographical article based on page history. Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 05:37, 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Judablue

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

Delete. Subject does not meet the criteria found at WP:BAND. Additionally lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Cind.amuse 05:18, 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Telnet Fringe

edit
The Telnet Fringe (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 not-notable band. See this search. If this goes, then so should Moonshine & Other Memory Burns. Drmies (talk) 05:13, 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 nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 08:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Stevie Ray Vaughan

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

In no way should this fork stand on its own as an article. This isn't exactly a POV fork, but it certainly suggests that we're a fansite. Who else has a separate article on their death--it's not exactly Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy. Drmies (talk) 05:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge anything that needs to be said and not already into main article on Vaughn. His death does not need its own article. LadyofShalott 05:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There does seem to be a lot to say about it, given the length of the article and the number of sources. I don't like the amount of focus of WP on celebrities and popular music, but I can't think of a reason in policy to delete this article. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. A very well-sourced article. "Who else has a separate article on their death"? How about Category:Deaths by person? Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 07:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course it's well-sourced--but that doesn't mean it should stand on its own. His career is equally well-sourced and needs no separate article. Drmies (talk) 14:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It seems like lots of people are fans of his death, as well as his music. I don't like it either, but don't see the reason to delete the article. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Fans of his death," I don't understand that at all (sounds a bit creepy, actually). It seems to me that in this discussion "well-sourced" is taken to be the same thing as "independently notable". The case of Kurt Cobain, of Michael Jackson, it's not difficult to argue that those are different from those of SRV. For example, the death of SRV is remarked on as the death of SRV--for Cobain and Jackson, it was also the manner of their deaths, the circumstances, etc.

          What the creator has done is cull every single detail, about the helicopters, the weathers, the pilots, the very clothes that the occupants were wearing, verify it, and stick it in the article. Then, they forked it out. But that there is an overwhelming number of verified minutia does not mean the topic is remarkable.

          Finally, look at the references and the bibliography. (Disregard everything after note 24--that's stuff copied from the main article and much of it is directed to his life, not to his death: Ann Richards proclaimed his birthday SRV day, not the day of his death.) You'll notice that except for that one book about "Falling stars" there is nothing there that actually addresses his death other than a news event. They're newspapers, they're obituaries, they're books about him and his music. That's obviously not so for Kurt Cobain, for instance. Where is the book that discusses his death as an independent topic? "Well-sourced"--of course; SRV was well covered, and so his death was as well. But his death, as sad as it was (and I remember what I was doing when I read the news), is not an independent topic. Drmies (talk) 14:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep—The Stevie Ray Vaughn article is already quite long, so I think a merge is inappropriate and this topic should exist as a daughter article, if at all.—RJH (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The main article is 97K, and I've deleted the unrelated parts. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, summarizing, it's long and well-sourced. This goes for lots of deaths, fortunately, see for instance Ted Kennedy, though the current editor can take a lesson in economy from that article. Can anyone argue that SRV's death has anything in it at all that makes it notable as an independent topic? I have yet to see that argument. Drmies (talk) 04:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm arguing WP:SPLIT, therefore not really a separate, independent article. Plus it was an unnatural death of a celebrity. P.S. Ted could do with a split himself; his article is 176K. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Above comment was me. Forgot to log in. Grandmartin11 (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The article stands up on its own in regards to information, length, and readability. I learned something and that's what wikipedia is for, apparently. Unless the article is kept in its original form, I think a loss of information would occur with a merge, so that's not wanted. There's no valid reason for deletion. If a guitarist hasn't had his own entry for his unnatural death at wiki before, then let SRV be the first! There's no policy against it.

KittyRayVaughan (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdraw nomination since this is going nowhere. This is one of those rare AfDs where I can't help but wonder where, in all these words, the actual arguments are. Maybe next time we should split off his life? That's getting kind of long too. Of course, one could consider trimming the enormous amount of trivia from the account of his death, or just get copyright clearance to reproduce every single document associated with it. Drmies (talk) 05:56, 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 speedy redirect to They Might Be Giants#Dial-A-Song per nominator's request and no "delete" !votes. Non-admin closure. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 07:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dial-A-Song

edit
Dial-A-Song (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 information included on this page is more or less an exact duplicate of what's included in the They Might Be Giants main article, Given this, and the fact that's it's unreferenced, I'm not entirely sure an independent article is merited. elektrikSHOOS 04:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, just after I posted this I realized it could just be turned into a redirect. I'm withdrawing this nomination, and blaming my shortmindedness on Twinkle for making it too damn easy to tag articles. elektrikSHOOS 04:33, 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 merge to Education in the Maldives. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of universities and colleges in the Maldives

edit
List of universities and colleges in the Maldives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One notable entry, two non-notable entries and a planned entry. Even if all four were notable, precedent is that lists should have at least five items, so this is one short. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename or merge into Education in the Maldives. This is not a valid list, but there is a notable topic here, namely the topic of higher education in the Maldives. Either retitle it as Higher education in the Maldives or merge it into Education in the Maldives. --Orlady (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • When one has a hammer, all one sees are nails. As usual, TenPoundHammer sees an article he doesn't like and all he can do is nominate it for deletion. No chance of getting him to follow WP:BEFORE, I guess. He didn't even bother discussing it after I deprodded and added references. There's valid material here, as Orlady states, so deletion is wholly inappropriate and would simply be destructive for no good reason. Keeping it as part of a series on Asian higher education would be best, though a rename or merge would also be reasonable. Fences&Windows 03:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was see the main AfD for a rationale. Ironholds (talk) 02:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mark Church (Stratford, Connecticut) (long discussion)

edit

This discussion has become very long and is no longer being shown directly on this page in order to improve performance. Please click this link to view or participate in the discussion. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Mark Church (Stratford, Connecticut)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sarona Reiher

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

Deleted fairly recently at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarona Snuka. Was persistently recreated by a banned editor; recently Bsherr (talk · contribs) asked that it be undeleted so he could fix the problems with it. Bsherr, unfortunately, did not do so; instead, Bsherr made some minor copyedits over a period of less than 20 minutes, then resubmitted. Still no indication of meeting WP:BIO or WP:ATHLETE. I've also removed all the unsourced material, which was most of it, but the sources that exist are still generally poor, many don't meet standards of WP:BLP.Jayjg (talk) 03:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There has been an intervening event since the last AfD of this subject. The subject has appeared in over twenty episodes of a notable U.S. cable television series in a major role. I added references that verify this (which Jayjg omits to mention among my improvements). The relevant notability guideline is WP:ENT, and the subject meets it. The subject is a needed article in its category, represented by the contents of Template:World Wrestling Entertainment employees. Yes, it's one of over 36,000 undersourced (but not unsourced and not unnotable) BLPs on Wikipedia. Jayjg's edits have improved the article, and the solution here is further improvement, not deletion. (Entirely irrelevant is that Jayjg blames me that WP:Wikipedia is a work in progress. I promise I'm trying to finish Wikipedia as fast as I can, and it's better for me to put articles like this in the mainspace so other editors can help.) --Bsherr (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If we don't decide that this should not be an article it could also be a good idea to redirect to The Usos--76.66.180.54 (talk) 04:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained, the relevant notability guideline is WP:ENT. Could you address why this subject fails to meet that guideline? --Bsherr (talk) 17:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant notability guideline for a page like this is still WP:BIO and or WP:ATHLETE and I'm sorry to say it still fails WP:ENT guidelines. She hasn't had any major storyline's, hasn't won any major championships. So its still a Delete from me.--SteamIron 19:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If WP:ATHLETE applies, how do you explain Wikipedia:ATHLETE#Generally_acceptable_standards and its comment about professional wrestling? WP:ENT doesn't refer to storylines. --Bsherr (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It fails WP:ENT #1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. She hasn't had a significant role at all, no notable fueds, no noteable storylines, and No noteable championships, and she donst even meet the other two guidelines And I never said WP:ATHLETE applies here I said and or.--SteamIron 20:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's misleading for you to mention WP:ATHLETE, even in a disjunction, when you know it might be a frivolous argument. --Bsherr (talk) 02:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - She is now involved in a storyline outside of the Usos (i.e., valet to Santino) and, as has been pointed out above, has appeared in over 20 episodes of Raw. She's more notable than the vast majority of independent female wrestlers that have their own Wiki bios that aren't up for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LucyDoo (talk • contribs) 04:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I refuse to accept any legitimacy of a two-day talk page discussion that apparently decided that wrestling is not to be treated as a sport. WP:ATHLETE certainly applies, but even if it didn't (which, mind you, it does), a manager/valet position in WWE is certainly a notable role. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - She is currently involved in a storyline with Santino Marella, who is the WWE tag team Champions, and has appeared in over 24 episodes of Raw, over 5 PPV's as well as was named WWE one to watch in 2011. She is watched by over 5 million people ever week, she is more notable than the many of independent female wrestlers that have their own Wiki bios that aren't up for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.196.114 (talk) 04:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - Editors are reminded that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS should be acknowledged. Every wrestler that is consistantly n TV will have a nice number of appearces. They will also at some point be involved in a storyline. What is your guideline for a notable storyline? IMO, a notable storyline is one that a vast majority of fans will remember for a significant amount of time. i.e Rock v Austin, McMahon v Austin, McMahon v the Invasion, ect. What is your indicator of long term notability outside of the industry?. Sephiroth storm (talk) 11:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - I also note that at this point it fails notability on the following criteria. WP:ENT Subject has not had significant roles on multiple shows. For this criteria, I am including all WWE shows under one, because the shows are not to distinguish between levels of skill. Subject does not have a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. Subject has not (from what has been mentioned here) made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. WP:ATHLETE does not have criteria for pro wrestlers. If this criteria will be used, Project PW should submit criteria for addition. I would argue that it is unlikely that she has been the subject of review by independant, reliable sources. Having a match noted or reviewed is not suitable. (Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability.) Also fails WP:BIO by definition, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." Every wrestler that makes it on TV for a period of time is not notable. Nothing in the above sections establishes her as different than any other wrestler. (no, not even being a second or third gen wrestler.) Sephiroth storm (talk) 11:15, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charles_Herbert_Gotti

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

There is no evidence that this guy exists, no mention in recent news articles about his supposed arrest (a search for "Charles Herbert Gotti" or "Charles Gotti" on Google news returns 0 results), the fourth citation "Mafia: The Government's Secret File on Organized Crime" is a book with information on gangsters that was compiled in the 1960's and would definitely not have information on recent mob activity. Archer Maggott (talk) 03:26, 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. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Faudree Effect

edit
Faudree Effect (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 term "Faudree Effect" does not appear in any primary literature search or Google search (modulo Wikipedia mirrors) as far as I can tell. The given primary source has received negligible citation (I don't contest the correctness of the work) and does not meet WP:GNG in itself. This appears to be a concerted effort by the editor Geometric777 to promote or define the term Faudree Effect, having previously added large discussions about the "Faudree Effect" to Polymer degradation and Polymer. Electrified Fooling Machine (talk) 03:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Original author had already blanked the article in order to signify its withdrawal. -- BenTels (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have undone my closure of this deletion discussion as the author of the article has re-posted his text to the page after blanking it and it then being speedy deleted CSD G7. Please continue the discussion. Thanks. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete, CSD G3 - blatant hoax. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reign-Bow

edit
Reign-Bow (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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huntsville Stars all-time roster

edit
Huntsville Stars all-time roster (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 lists every person who ever played for the Huntsville Stars, a Double-A minor league baseball team, although WP:MLB/N states that playing minor league baseball doesn't automatically confer notability. As such, I don't think this article should exist. JaGatalk 01:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Someone with more knowledge on whether or not fire shelter is the same as this topic is welcome to create a redirect. NW (Talk) 02:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brown and serve bag

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

Unsourced neologism. No references provided; no reliable ghits; author removed PROD. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 00:41, 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 redirect to Pronunciation respelling for English. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

English phonetic alphabet

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

Teaching method without sufficient demonstration of notability. The article itself doesn't give any evidence of notability except for mentioning it's part of the curriculum of a single course at a single college; according to a message left at my talkpage by the article creator, it is also used in a couple other classrooms and has been presented at an academic conference at the provincial level; I don't think that is sufficient indication of notability as the scope of these are rather limited and much is not independent of the subject (for example, another argument the creator gave is that the previous workshop the creators of this alphabet gave is available on the internet, and will be available in the conference proceedings in February). rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:40, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Quinn (Councillor)

edit
Liam Quinn (Councillor) (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 Delete. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pa O'Driscoll

edit
Pa O'Driscoll (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 does not fulfill notability guidelines. It looks like it was written by the subject himself or by a member of Fine Gael in my opinion

Exiledone (talk) 23:56, 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. there is no simple way to merge this content--as suggested, I urge the author to expand the existing articles DGG ( talk ) 05:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Psychotherapeutic Interventions for Substance Abuse and Co-morbid Conditions

edit
Psychotherapeutic Interventions for Substance Abuse and Co-morbid Conditions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • It is true that Treatment of drug abuse could be a useful article, and that some of the content in this article could contribute to it. However, this article is basically a research paper. I suppose it would be possible to cut all the OR out of the article, combine its sources with others, fix the WP:CITE issues, and move it to a more appropriate title, but that seems nearly as difficult as starting such a page from scratch. If someone wants to do use this article to do that, I would suggest that it be userfied unless it is going to be done relatively quickly. I'm not sure what exactly my point is. I suppose my opinion is basically that this article seems pretty clearly unencyclopedic right now, but that it does have some information that could be useful to other articles. Your comments on the original author's user talk page are definitely good ones; if he heeds them his contributions will be far more usable. I understand that deleting the page could drive away a potentially valuable new editor, but I think that anything else that could be reasonably done to it is likely to leave it so unrecognizable that the effect may well be the same.--Opus 113 (talk) 02:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, unfortunately no one will do anything with it, unless author can improve this himself per minimal WP standards (formatting, wikilinks and in-line refs). If he can not, this should be deleted or placed to his user space.Biophys (talk) 04:42, 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Constantin (musician)

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

Unable to find any significant coverage in any reliable sources independent of the subject. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 17:35, 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, Logan Talk Contributions 00:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First Love Illustrated

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

Stub. Unsure about the notability. Unsourced. Cssiitcic (talk) 02:11, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Levy

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

Unsourced BLP. Google searching returns numerous false positives and I am unsure if he meets WP:GNG. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:33, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Supersize

edit
Supersize (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 need for for a seperate article for this. could be just a paragraph in the McDonalds page. ton of original research with very little sourcing. Also could apply to just about anything made big. its goes on to burger king and wendys which didn't even call it supersize. Tracer9999 (talk) 07:03, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 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 no consensus. -- Cirt (talk) 00:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-minu

edit
-minu (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 appear to be notable. A search for minu "Hans-Peter Hammel" (that's his real name) in gnews gets one hit, which isn't helpful. A search for minu Kuchiklatsch (that's his cooking show) in gnews gets no hits. Few google hits generally. The station that his cooking show is on is regional and does not seem to attract that many viewers.[17] Having a German speaker look at this would be useful, as most potential sources are in German. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:29, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"third-largest city in Switzerland--is never going to meet notability standards for being merely that."
Ahem
"Basel also has suburbs in France and Germany. With 830,000 inhabitants in the tri-national metropolitan area as of 2004, Basel is Switzerland's second-largest urban area"
Keep: if he is a celeb of Basel then referenced he would be notable; one need not do a full biography, just write down what he's done and how he is viewed. AerobicFox (talk) 02:15, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of solo albums by members of The Beatles

edit
List of solo albums by members of The Beatles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Since each of the major band-members have their own solo-discgraphy articles, this article is redundant to them.—indopug (talk) 19:55, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There really should be a List of solo albums by rock and roll drummers.:-) Steve Dufour (talk) 21:59, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Petroleum

edit
Prince Petroleum (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:NOTABILITY - article is sourced to subject's own website and a couple of sheer database sites. No gnews hits. Google finds a blog mention of an article referring to them in Fuel Oil News before going into a bunch of database listings. Article created by user whose user page suggests he may be a paid editor. Nat Gertler (talk) 15:31, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Narimizadeh

edit
Reza Narimizadeh (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 that this has been deleted before as non notable, anyway fails WP:BIO Paste Let’s have a chat. 20:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean WP:GNG? Or another guideline? Farhikht (talk) 13:55, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SoThin

edit
SoThin (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 on an interesting, small information technology company. Of the twenty sources in the article, only three are reliable: one is a brief review of their product and two are stories from their hometown newspaper. Reading each of the sources listed does not indicate "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." It's particularly troubling, though, that the single-purpose account used to create the article disguised, to varying degrees, fifteen separate press releases in an apparent attempt to have them appear as reliable sources. The relevant notability guideline reads: "...care must be taken in determining if they are truly notable or whether they are an attempt at using Wikipedia for free advertising. Wikipedia is used to by some editors to create articles on commercial organizations that overtly or covertly advertise a company." All signs indicate that was the case here. jæs (talk) 21:38, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2011_January_23&oldid=1142638285"