Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 June 2

< 1 June	3 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clan of the Cats

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

No coverage by reliable sources to establish notability. Kelly ^hi! 23:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This may approach a Wikipedia record: this article has been up for seven years without any independent sources, reliable or otherwise, referencing any of the information in the article. Zero hits on Google News, obviously, and almost all the Google hits start with the sentences "Clan of the Cats is an urban fantasy webcomic by Jamie Robertson. It chronicles the adventures of a witch, Chelsea Chattan, who is also afflicted by an ancient family curse" - plainly, the creator is an indefatigable self-promoter. Fails all three criteria of WP:WEB, Fails the GNG, probably COI violation, as the article was created by User talk:JamieCOTC, a SPA whose sole Wikipedia activity revolved around it. Ravenswing 16:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can't say there is a whole lot out there. [1] may be a reliable source but only mentions the topic in passing. There are a few others, all fairly similar. I'm loath to see a webcomic that is this long running get deleted, but I don't think we're anywhere close to WP:N. Hobit (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it is mentioned in the International journal of comic art, Volume 7 [2]. I do not know if there is enought coverage by reliable sources.--Crazy runner (talk) 06:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC) Two hits on Google News. [3] [4] --Crazy runner (talk) 07:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was nominated multiple times to Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards. [5] [6] [7]

2003 Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards
- 2003 WCCAs Outstanding Dramatic Comic (Nomination)
- 2003 WCCAs Outstanding Fantasy Comic (Nomination)
2002 Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards
- 2002 WCCAs Best Serial Comic (Nomination)
- 2002 WCCAs Best Dramatic Comic (Nomination)
2001 Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards
- 2001 WCCAs Best Other Character - Sebastian (Nomination)
- 2001 WCCAs Best Fanstasy Comic (Nomination)
- 2001 WCCAs Best Dramatic Comic (Nomination)

--Crazy runner (talk) 07:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of news about Clan of the Cats on Comixtalk.com. Some come from Jamie Robertson so we can not count them but others have independent reviewers such as A Burgeoning Apparatus of Michael H. Payne.--Crazy runner (talk) 07:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sebo #1 a spin-off of Clan of the Cats is available on iPhone Apps [8] According to Comixpedia there are three spin-offs hosted by different websites.--Crazy runner (talk) 11:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know if the following reviews are reliables: Webcomic Book Club [9], Comicwidows, Andrew Lynch [10], Tangent, Robert A. Howard [11][12][13][14]--Crazy runner (talk) 11:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: self-promotional spam that falls far short of WP:NOTABILITY as, like above, the only sources I can find are unreliable blogs, press releases or trivial mentions. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 13:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Smith (columnist)

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

Not notable person who writes a column for his job - no decent independent coverage of his life - if his column (or anything else about him is notable) Ask the Pilot - currently it is a redirect to the BLP - no objection to a redirect to that.Off2riorob (talk) 23:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Long-time columnist for notable publication, published author with book from major publisher. I could live with turning it into an article about the column until sources are dug out and biographical/career data is expanded. Gamaliel (talk) 00:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not support any user that vote comments keep on a BLP that is uncited - in fact I object to such users.. Is his book wikipedia notable? - NO - Is his column wikipedia notable - NO - Is he wikipedia notable - NO. - Off2riorob (talk) 00:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His book is from an imprint of one of the world's largest and most prominent publishers. His column has appeared for nine years in a leading online publication. Repeating your dissent from these facts in capital letters isn't any kind of response to them. Gamaliel (talk) 03:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Doesn't seem to have received any significant coverage as a person ╟─Treasury Tag►senator─╢ 08:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Smith has written about a lot of notable topics, but that does not make HIM notable, as I can't find any WP:RS that indicates that anybody has written about HIM. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, WP:CREATIVE, etc. Qworty (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did a pretty good sweep looking for significant interviews. I see he's commented on a few things here and there, but his life/work has received no secondary critical response. — chro • man • cer 00:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable enough to be interviewed on National Public Radio by Andrea Seabrook http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89588760 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.255.149 (talk) 22:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not exactly an interview - its a three minute filler and its not about him at all. The full summary is - In 2008 when interviewed on NPR Smith said the skys are safer than the media would have you believe. Off2riorob (talk) 22:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's briefly introduced and then asked for some airline travel facts. Contributes no information about him that we don't already know. — chro • man • cer 20:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As it fails basic notability as per WP:BIO ie "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject", the one inline references from his own website Ask the Pilot is an unreliable self-published source and not 'multiple published secondary sources'. It is I agree can be used on his own article but it can not be the only reference to base his notability on. I could live with a redirect/merge to Salon.com as that page already lists him as a contributor as well as his book. The two sentences on him can be incorporated without much effort.--Michaela den (talk) 10:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neuropa

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

'Neuropa' is a compound word, from Neu + Europa, which has been used several times for various meanings: it was a word used by W.E.B. Dubois to describe Nazi plans for Europe, and it has also been the name of several bands and record labels. None of these uses seem particularly notable. This article focuses on the Nazi use, but as it notes, the Nazis never used the word themselves and it 'did not come into general use in English'. As such, I can't find many sources using or discussing it. This article, then, is basically about a single article by W.E.B. DuBois. I just don't think it's notable enough to justify an article. Robofish (talk) 23:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At best a dictionary definition, which is outside of the scope of the project WP:not--Torchwoodtwo (talk) 10:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a word that is being used to describe the topic of New Order (Nazism), but the word itself does not seem to have caught on. -- Whpq (talk) 12:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Georgian Bay, Ontario. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Georgian Bay (Township of) Public Library

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

Non-notable small town library. Orange Mike | Talk 23:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Georgian Bay, Ontario. Far too minor for its own article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Straightforward merge. No need for an AfD. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 00:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- reply - I've been told I'm a "bitey" and over-enthusiastic deleter, so I'm making a conscious effort to jump through all the hoops. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Georgian Bay, Ontario per Necrothesp. A merge like this isn't a delete per se, the text can be copied into the Township's article nearly word-for-word. Deleting outright would be wrong. PK T(alk) 18:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kjarposko

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

Non-notable neologism; semi-advert for the author's name. Orange Mike | Talk 23:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a neologism but this does appear to be spam. Not seeing significant coverage in 3rd party sources. RadioFan (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's a type of number puzzle, not a neologism. I can find no significant coverage to establish that this is a notable number puzzle. -- Whpq (talk) 12:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Spider-Man (1994 TV series) episodes. (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 18:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Alien Costume

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

Articles

Day of the Chameleon The Awakening (Spider-Man) Blade the Vampire Hunter The Cat/The Black Cat Doctor Strange (Spider-Man) Doctor Octopus: Armed and Dangerous Enter the Green Goblin Duel of the Hunters The Final Nightmare Enter the Punisher The Prowler (Spider-Man) Partners (Spider-Man) Framed (Spider-Man) Goblin War Guilty (Spider-Man) The Haunting of Mary Jane The Immortal Vampire Hydro-Man (Spider-Man) The Hobgoblin (Spider-Man) Insidious Six (Spider-Man) Kraven the Hunter (Spider-Man) The Lizard King (Spider-Man) Make a Wish/Attack of the Octobot The Man Without Fear (Spider-Man) The Menace of Mysterio Morbius (Spider-Man) Night of the Lizard The Mutant Agenda and Mutant's Revenge The Return of Hydro-Man Ravages of Time (Spider-Man) Rocket Racer (Spider-Man) Secret Wars (Spider-Man) The Return of the Green Goblin Shriek of the Vulture Spider Wars Spider Slayers The Spot (Spider-Man) The Sting of the Scorpion (Spider-Man) Tablet of Time Tombstone (Spider-Man) Turning Point (Spider-Man) Venom Returns/Carnage The Ultimate Slayer The Vampire Queen The Wedding (Spider-Man episode)

Delete all - over the last couple of weeks I've been working through Category:Marvel animated universe trying to clarify and consolidate its contents. I am suggesting that all of these episode articles be deleted. First and foremost, they all fail the general notability guideline which requires significant coverage in reliable sources. Many of the articles have no sources. Those that do rely on unreliable sources like fansites, blogs and IMDB and sites that may or may not have some affiliation with Marvel, none of which can be used to establish notability. Note that passing mentions in sources, which do exist, may establish the existence of these episodes but passing mentions do not establish notability and existence is not notability. Second, the articles for the most part consist of long and overly detailed plot summaries, in violation of WP:PLOT and WP:WAF, which require that articles on works of fiction be more than plot descriptions and that articles about fiction should show how the fiction is significant in the real world. Many of the articles have been tagged with various concerns for well over a year, including calls for improved referencing, indicators of real-world significance, comportment with Wikipedia style and general notability concerns. Since no independent reliable sources exist, these articles cannot be improved to bring them into compliance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Harley Hudson (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you try to clarify and consolidate its contents ? Could you provide an example ? You are deleting and deleting and deleting, no merge, no writing, nothing. In my opinion, the content should be merged by season. These articles have not enought notability and some of them are just a plot but a merging with a list of episodes by seasons will help keep informations and fix the problem. I have the feeling but I can be wrong that Harley Hudson prefers to delete articles instead of trying to fix them. There are no pages with a list of episodes and short summaries from seasons 1 and 5, valuable informations about episodes from seasons 2, 3, 4 can go into Spider-Man (1994 TV series) Season 2, Spider-Man (1994 TV series) Season 3 and Spider-Man (1994 TV series) Season 4. --178.33.171.25 (talk) 10:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into season or series episode list(s) seems the reasonable course here. That would include creating missing list(s) and actually porting over the standard info - episode number, title, director, writer, and short episode summary being the minimum. At this point all that has been done with these articles is 1) PROD and then 2) AfD for "deletion". No apparent attempt to retain anything has been shown. - J Greb (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And for clarity sake: List of Spider-Man (1994 TV series) episodes is short 2 pieces, directors and summaries; Spider-Man (1994 TV series) Season 4 is short the directors ; Spider-Man (1994 TV series) Season 3 is a bit of a mess but it does include DVD release information lacking elsewhere; and Spider-Man (1994 TV series) Season 2 is a train wreck. Realistically, all of it can be merged into List of Spider-Man (1994 TV series) episodes, retaining the information in a form similar to other series episode lists without going overboard. - J Greb (talk) 17:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - None of the information in the episode articles is reliably sourced. Merger of unsourced information is not an appropriate solution. I'm unclear what WP:RETAIN, which discusses national varieties of English, has to do with this discussion. The information can be added to the list articles by finding it in reliable sources without porting over unsourced and unverified information. Harley Hudson (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - My error on the section/guideline, but the point still stands that retention of information deemed reliably sourced is a recurring concern within AfDs. And yes, credits and short - 100 to 300 words in the case of episode lists - summary can be reliably sourced to the primary source. It's when uncredited or incompletely credited information is added that secondary sources are required. Or when critical commentary - which is what is needed for stand alone articles - is made.
      In this case there are episode lists related to this show and for the most part those lists are missing elements that seems standard and could be reliable sourced to the episodes. An attempt should be made to merge that information to the lists and converting the episode articles into redirects. And yes, part of that merge is a necessary editing down of the summaries to that 300 word cap.
      - J Greb (talk) 22:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per J Greb.--Crazy runner (talk) 07:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per J Greb. BOZ (talk) 11:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per J Greb. These articles about individual seasons, or all seasons together in one article, would be consistent with other television show articles on Wikipedia. Spidey104 14:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany Teei

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

No ranking, no titles, and nothing to indicate she meets WP:NSPORTS other than an early round exit at the Commonwealth Games, which, IMO, isn't sufficient. Maybe someday, but not today. Courcelles 21:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - She was profiled here. Essentially, injury put her out of tennis for some time. However, at this point, she doe not have the coverage to meet WP:GNG, and her tennis career is insufficient to meet WP:NSPORT. She has no world ranking, and has never won a tournament of sufficient note, or been in the main draw of a major tournament. -- Whpq (talk) 12:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'd say competing for your country in the Commonwealth Games constitutes the "similar international competition" that's criterion #2. Ravenswing 17:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'd say that the Commonwealth Games would certainly be the case for other sports, but I am not so convinced it is for something like tennis. -- Whpq (talk) 17:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Commonwealth games would make her pass N Tennis as there is a line in there about competing for your country at an international event e.g. davis cup or fed cup, I would guess at MSE's come under that ruling. Good twins (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply - It does, and I disagree with an assessment that the Commonwealth Games is such an equivalent. -- Whpq (talk) 01:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I don't see how the Commonwealth Games would confer notability even in other sports. There is a discrepancy at WP:NSPORTS, which I've just noted on its talk page, but although badminton players are presumed to be notable if they participate in the CG, for gymnastics and triathlon, competitors need to win a medal. Hence, the whole Commonwealth Games argument falls down. St Anselm (talk) 07:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete user Saihimesh has created a bunch of articles of non notable tennis players just because they inheriently pass the notablity of tennis project, even though they fail serveral other areas of the notabilty list such as winning a tournament of over 50K or playing in the main draw of a WTA tournamet or playing in the qualies to a GS. Good twins (talk) 22:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Stipulating so, so what? AfDs aren't judged on the creator's edit history. They're judged on whether the subjects meet notability and verifiability standards, something you concede this one does above. That being said, errr ... the POINT of the presumptive notability standards of WP:NSPORTS is that if a subject meets any one of the criteria, they are considered notable. Ravenswing 23:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - I concur with Ravenswing. Whether this article is kept or deleted depends entirely on the merits of this article, and not the actions of the article's creator. -- Whpq (talk) 01:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NSPORT#Generally acceptable standards #1 based on her qualification for and participating in Cook Islands at the 2010 Commonwealth Games. WP:NSPORT does not discount someone for representing a small country. Given the number and size of the participating countries for Tennis at the 2010 Commonwealth Games#Participating nations this easily qualifies as a "major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level." --Marc Kupper|talk 20:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Certainly not! The Commonwealth Games is not the highest level - that would be the Olympics.
Delete. There seems to be a misunderstanding of Wikipedia:Notability (sports) in this discussion. Participation in the Commonwealth Games does not imply notability, except in badminton. There is no other avenue of notability asserted here, so the article should be deleted. St Anselm (talk) 07:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Typed her name into a search engine with no avail, clearly Brittany Teei needs some sources. I found one The Gaea Times article, but it only mentioned her in a game match. She doesn't even have an official website. SwisterTwister (talk) 05:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Neutrality^talk 05:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the Love of You (film)

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

Fails WP:MOVIE. Singularity42 (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable independent film with no reliable sources. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 21:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an indpendent film with no coverage in reliable sources which has yet to make its debut. -- Whpq (talk) 12:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At the very best this one is too soon. Writr/director Tiara Luten has no credits to her name[15] and, while she is found on social networks,[16] neither she or her film(s) have any coverage in reliable sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Clayton Powell IV (engineer)

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

Non-notable engineer. Not to be confused with the politician of the same name, who is notable. No third party sources. Briefly an MIT professor, but no real claim to notability beyond the usual acheivements that you would expect from anyone in academia. Prod declined, in part because his family is notable, which I don't consider a basis for individual notability. Hairhorn (talk) 21:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: ... which, of course, it isn't. I'd advocate redirecting this to his father's article, but his notability is threadbare and likely ripe for an AfD in similar fashion. Ravenswing 17:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Berg

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

Tony Berg was added to Eureka, California as a notable person by an IP editor who said he was a fighter, loan shark & bouncer. I cannot find a notable Tony Berg in Eureka, California who is a fighter, loan shark or bouncer. Following the link to the Tony Berg page that the anonymous editor linked to his/her edit, I found nothing of notability and was unable to verify the information on the page. Since this is an entry on a living person for whom I cannot find local or regional notability, I marked the page for deleting following the 3 step instructions on WP:AFD.Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As someone who watchlists articles on several small cities, I can tell you that people add themselves or their friends to "Notable residents" sections all the time. It's entirely possible that the person added to the Eureka, California article coincidentally had the same name as the person that this Wikipedia article is about. ~~I see no valid rationale for deletion of the article Tony Berg presented here.~~ —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC) retracted statement 14:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have retracted part of my comment above in light of this discussion being reopened by JamesBWatson (talk · contribs) and the comment he left on the closing non-admin's talk page ([17]). I made the now-retracted statement because I was and still am genuinely confused as to the nominator's intentions, but did not consider the possibility that the nominator might want the article on the music producer deleted. Would the nominator please clarify whether the article on Tony Berg, the music producer, is indeed the one he wants deleted? —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The way I read the nomination is this: the first two and a half sentences are just an explanation as to how the nominator came to find the article, and are not really relevant to the deletion discussion. The reasons given for deletion are "I found nothing of notability and was unable to verify the information on the page. ... this is an entry on a living person for whom I cannot find local or regional notability." Although the nomination could perhaps have been expressed more clearly, it is clear that it is indeed Tony Berg that is being suggested for deletion. Apart from anything else, that is where the nominator put the AfD notice. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From what the article says, this is a person who was a routine session musician, and later became a producer and an A&R executive for a record company. That does not suggest a lot of notability, and the only source cited is a brief paragraph at allmusic.com, which includes such paragraphs on pretty well anyone in the music industry. My own searches have also failed to produce any evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability criteria. The article mentions relatives of Berg's who may or may not be notable, but that is irrelevant, as notability is not inherited. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. After reading the nomination rationale a third and fourth time, I came to the same conclusion James did concerning the nominator's intent. I also came to the same conclusions James did about this person's notability when doing an assessment of my own a couple of days ago. This sounds like a person who should meet notability criteria, but doesn't. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

O Fantasma

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

I created this article as the IP address; I cannot speedy delete this article, so I can avoid creator and IP controversies. The article appeared to established the film's notability; however I think, not enough people have become aware of the film anymore. I don't mean to offend the film's targeted audience. In fact, I have been embarassed by my own article that hasn't improved for years. Feel free to comment if you wish. Gh87 (talk) 04:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Are there any notability or verifiability concerns? If we could cite that award I would vote keep for notability as it received a decent award. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I haven't had time to assess notability, but this [18] should verify the Entreveus Award. I couldn't verify the NewFest award nor the two nominations, but I understand that this sort of content is editor-reviewed by IMDB (and the footnote at the awards page [19] seems to confirm that). I will try to look for sources to establish notability later, unless there is some consensus that the awards and nominations are sufficient, in which case this can be considered as a keep !vote - frankieMR (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 26 May 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, CTJF83 20:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. IMHO, if a film wins an award at a significant international competition, it is notable. Jewishprincess (talk) 21:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's pretty well known too [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] - frankie (talk) 23:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Lazlo: Where's Lazlo?

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

Clearly, this article has two sources and not enough citations to provide it. JJ98 (Talk) 20:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —JJ98 (Talk) 20:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —JJ98 (Talk) 20:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm having trouble fitting a one-hour special within the context of WP:TVSHOW, but winning one primetime Emmy [26] checks criterion 3 of WP:NFILM right away - frankie (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 20:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the nominator that the sourcing is poor, but winning an Emmy is enough to establish notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hasan Bolkhari

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

I see no notability, fails WP:GNG CTJF83 20:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Not because I like or agree with the content but because his Tom and Jerry seminar, which much media has touted as anti-semitic, has been aired on television and has caused an international uproar with many references in the media (as anyone would expect). I'd like to say delete but there are too many media references on Google to ignore. Please give me a reason to say delete. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 01:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have sources about the uproar or that it aired on TV? Most of the sources I found were not in English, so I can't verify. CTJF83 06:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources on English Google. The first TV source has a userid wall. To be honest, I don't want to beef-up the article. I would rather it is deleted. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 08:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hi, i`m dr.bolkhari`s cousin and the article creator. feel free to ask any question regarding dr.bolkhari and please be resonable when stating personal ideas! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexi10 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Because you have a personal connection you should avoid getting involved in discussions in this AfD. But that does not prevent you from explaining your reasons as to why you think this article should be kept or deleted. Look at the way I have made my comment above. I think that this article can be a worthy encyclopaedic article. Take the time to read WP:RS. I suspect that your cousin has had a rough time from the media. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 19:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

media`s reflection of one`s word cant be reliable to judge one`s knowledge. i`ll try to gather more web-based(!) material to keep the article alive. by the way thanks for your attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexi10 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:BLP1E. No serious number of publications to be found in Gscholar, Gnews items only mention subject in the context of this particular event, with no indication of lasting notability. Ray^Talk 15:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing in WoS either. This is just WP:BLP1E and thus an uncontroversial delete. Agricola44 (talk) 15:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - WP:BLP1E. —Tim Pierce (talk) 22:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bryce Cass

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

Delete. Notability is not established in accordance with WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Lack of significant, reliable, and independent sources. Subject lacks significant roles in television and films. Cind.amuse 08:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 27 May 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, v/r - T P 19:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A young actor with a few roles, and some passing mentions but no significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 12:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tekle Tesfazghi

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

I cannot find appropriate coverage of this singer to satisfy wp's notability requirements for this 1-sentence article. The article has been tagged for notability since 2010. Epeefleche (talk) 01:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Epeefleche (talk) 05:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 27 May 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, v/r - T P 19:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Honestly, this probably could have been speedied A7. There's not even an attempt at asserting notability here. Nor can I find anything resembling a reliable source for this artist, or either of the mentioned songs. Serpent's Choice (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily redirected to combat boot. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 00:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Military boots

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

No notability established. PROD was removed without explanation or improvement. Sitush (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For now, swiftly redirect this to combat boots, just like Grandma used to wear. The current text seems to be an advertisement or fan page for a product that makes no particular claim of encyclopedic importance: Military boots are a high side womwns boot that is often worn with just bare-feet. They were designed in 1972 by Richard strech. Recently desiners have made the boot so it fits comfortably round a bare foot and rejuces sweat. I am mildly surprised to find nothing better in history, since this title seems a very reasonable search term. This looks like an Obvious Right Thing, and I'll likely just do it within the next several hours unless someone objects quickly. Making military boot a redirect as well, in case it doesn't already exist. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think it might actually be a fashion item, and originally designed as a fashion item, as with the Ugg boot etc. It may never have had a military purpose. OTOH, who the heck is supposed to know given the information provided? It is an extremely awkward term to GSearch on. Perhaps I should try with the alleged designer's name? But perhaps I won't. Off out shortly, so if a redirect happens in between times then that's ok by me. - Sitush (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Searching for "Richard Strech" (and "Richard Stretch") don't yield anything talking about fashion on the first several pages. Feet and footwear: a cultural encyclopedia, by Margo DeMello, yields no non-military fashion definitions in those portions Google is letting me see.[27] Still looks like the obvious answer to me; then again I see no strong reason to delete the history, either, in case anyone finds something. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have made no more progress than you with searches. There are clearly issues with spelling in the article but the permutations of the alleged designer's name are endless. Forgive me for not understanding your references to the history (presumably article history) being of any great significance. I do understand CC-BY-SA/GFDL issues with moving/merging, or at least I think I do, but in this instance a straight redirect does now seem to be the most obvious solution & the article history would be preserved by that method. Perhaps I should have boldly done that in the first instance rather than tie up AfD. - Sitush (talk) 23:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For technical reasons involving the various licences involved, which I am not a close student of, it's undesirable to delete revisions except when they are the sort of thing that ought to be low-level erased rather than simply removed (libel and such). Any editor could have redirected this, but AFD works too. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 00:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Szabó

(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. PROD was contested by creator without providing any reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 03:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Doesn't meet the relevant notability guidelines. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sabily. (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 18:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zakat Calc (software)

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

Non-notable product, no substantial reviews on quick Google check, nothing in G News. TransporterMan (TALK) 18:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (by page creator) — Zakat Calc is included in Sabily, a free, open source operating system designed by and for Muslims. --Christopher Forster (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2011

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

Merge into Sabily. No real stand-alone notability, it would seem, and the Sabily page already contains a list of other features that everything here would fit into neatly. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to merge (by nominator) — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ojuba Linux Fedora-based

http://www.ojuba.org/wiki/_media/news/oj3-final.jpg?cache=

http://www.ojuba.org/wiki/_media/linux/xfce4-notif.png?cache=

It could be ported to other Linux distributions as with Monajat (software).

--Christopher Forster (talk) 11:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC) and --Christopher Forster (talk) 12:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher, I think that you may be missing the point of this discussion. The issue is not whether or not it is a good, beneficial, or useful product. The issue is whether or not it is Wikipedia-notable (which is considerably different from dictionary-definition notability). You might want to read my advice to new users page, though all of it might not apply to you. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Sabily, not notable enough for its own page, lacks reliable, third party sources. Also note, I have nominated Monajat (software)‎ for AFD on similar concerns, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monajat (software).France3470 (talk) 13:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Sabily as it fails notability as per WP:ORG and there are no reliable sources to demonstrate the significance of the product nor claims of notability per WP:VERIFY.--Michaela den (talk) 12:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gtcbio

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

Reads like an ad for the consulting company Maneesh (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per nomination. They put on trade shows, apparently: GTCbio’s goal is to organize quality forums that facilitate the exchange of biopharmaceutical and biomedical intelligence between industry leaders, academic and government organizations, and the financial community. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google returns a lot of hits but they were all press releases by GTCBio or by a company announcing that they were attending a conference. The large amount of conferences and attendees does make me wonder why no other literature is available - frankie (talk) 01:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was closing as moot, article was speedily deleted by User:RHaworth as lacking minimal significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MITACS Inc.

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

Dubious notability and promotional tone. Orange Mike | Talk 17:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete. This is close to speedy deletion territory as blatant advertising top to bottom: ....connects industry, academia and government through innovative research and training programs.... MITACS aims to help Canada build the economy of the future – an economy built on knowledge, innovation and ideas....Trains Canadian graduate students with non-technical skills such as project management, business communication, networking and entrepreneurship, capabilities critical to their career success. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability not established. Of the three external links, only the website of the organisation mentions MITACS, and that reference cannot be used to establish notability. --Pgallert (talk) 08:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy - as blatant advertising or NN, take your pick. Nommed for speedy, someone else close this please. → ROUX ₪ 18:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Axelrod

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

Appears to fail WP:AUTHOR. I have tried to locate reliable sources regarding the books and have found no substantial coverage. The name appears to be shared by other people, so it makes it a bit difficult to be sure that none of the sources are regarding this Kate Axelrod. I also tried a search for the Mother Jones award, which is mentioned in the article, but can not locate a citation for that. Regarding the Donegal Fellow, there is also nothing I can turn up. If proper reliable sources are turned up by others with better Google Kungfu, then I'll be happy to withdraw the nomination. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nearly unsourced BLP is pretty much a slam dunk deletion. Even if the claims are verified, I'm not sure she's notable, unless there's some substantial coverage of her. --Rob (talk) 17:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We've had a lot of trouble with Featherproof Books and their authors on WP in the past. A lot of self-promotional articles have appeared here--and have been deleted at AfD--for writers who just do not meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:BK. Todd Dills was a notorious case--scroll down and view the deletion log at that red link--the article was deleted in 2008, 2009, and 2010. The same thing happened with the self-promo article for the guy who runs Featherproof, Zach Dodson--look at the long deletion log on that particular red link. Those articles and this one on Kate Axelrod are part of a systemic abuse pattern by Featherproof and its associates on WP, in violation of WP:SPAM, WP:AUTO, WP:COI, and WP:SPA. As the nominator here has correctly pointed out, Kate Axelrod fails WP:N per WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. I would also add that she fails WP:ACTOR. For those of us who have been trying to get Featherproof Books to stop abusing WP policies, to see these articles keep popping up is quite dispiriting. Since these folks just erase the speedy tags over and over again, it looks like all we can do is take each individual violation to AfD. Qworty (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Anthony Bradbury (A3: Article that has no meaningful, substantive content: ). Non-admin closure of orphaned AFD. Serpent's Choice (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tha Cliff Xefpatterson

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

No sources and no notability. Saddhiyama (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. This is actually a Flash animation, and qualifies as web content without an assertion of notability under CSD A7. Article so tagged. Serpent's Choice (talk) 17:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' Xefpatterson has some presence on YouTube. Despite 200,000+ views (which is nothing unusual these days), there is nothing here to sustain an article about one of his flash animations, and I doubt there will be for a long while; WP:SNOW. Curious why the nominator went for this AfD, rather than a straightforward CSD A7. Astronaut (talk) 17:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under Criterion A7. No indication of significance. Guoguo12 (Talk) 19:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Digimon Xros Wars characters. Content is still available below the redirect in case someone wishes to merge. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bagramon

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

No out-of-universe notability, no sources whatsoever. Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (films). Crusio (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He is a major character in the series storyline.Fractyl (talk) 17:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being "major" or "important" is not synonymous with "notable". Please base your keep !vote on arguments based in policy. --Crusio (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. *Weak Delete. He is undoubtedly an important character in the series. I scoured Google which has oodles of hits to find anything that could support notability to no avail. What I'm thinking is that maybe it might be possible to merge some of these characters in to one article that might meet WP:GNG. Maybe summarise each character in Digimon. I tried to find anything to support a "Keep" and if you give me a good reference I gladly will. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 00:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to List of Digimon Xros Wars characters. The subject does not have any independent notability, but that doesn't prevent it from being included as part of a larger list of characters. —Farix (t | c) 02:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Farix and WP:ATD. The nomination is unnecessary, since non-notable fictional elements can always be upmerged, there is no policy-based reason for deletion. Jclemens (talk) 04:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're certainly right in that. However, note that we have (up till now) one "keep" !vote. And check the article history and see how many editors are working on it. If I were to upmerge this article, that would almost certainly result in an editwar and much wikidrama. Hence the nom, an AfD decision would simplify things. I can live with a "merge" decision, obviously. --Crusio (talk) 05:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to List of Digimon Xros Wars characters as per Farix's recommendation. [Have changed from "weak delete" above to "merge/redirect"]. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 10:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have been quite curious as to why there have not been vast amounts of articles created for the Digimon Xros Wars characters, since the other seasons have individual ones for their major characters. I suppose the character list already makes up for it. Just a thought. Evilgidgit (talk) 22:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Digimon Xros Wars characters: The fictional character does not meet the general notability guideline and an article about it would only be a plot-only description of a fictional work. As only one sentence from the article is referenced with a primary source, I do not think that a merge is warranted, but a redirect to List of Digimon Xros Wars characters is an acceptable outcome given the prominence of the character in that series and also because it's a plausible search term. Jfgslo (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Digimon Xros Wars characters: At the present moment in time, the character is not notable enough to deserve its own page. Even though he is a major antagonist in the series, any notable information can simply be placed in the List of Digimon Xros Wars article. Katanin (talk) 01:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect in the interest of building a consensus. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fails WP:V. There's no real evidence that this university exists, possible hoax. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okwa University

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

The article gives no sources. I can find no confirmation of anything about this, not even its existence. A Google search for "Okwa University" produces six hits, of which two are Wikipedia, three are pages in which the word "Okwa" just happens to be followed by "University" (e.g. "Anthony Okwa, University of Jos"), and one is a list of educational institutions in Nigeria, in which "Gideon Okwa University" is listed. Not one of the hits refers to an Okwa University in the Sudan. The article did attempt to give a reference to http://www.okwau.com (now removed) but that page simply says "OKWA U DOT COM: COMING SOON" and nothing more. The article may well be a hoax, and if it isn't then it refers to something which has absolutely no notability at all. The article tells us that the University is not yet built or opened: time for an article when it exists. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming good faith, this is not a hoax, but a university that is so new that is had no presence as of yet. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. I also note that the nomination AfD tag was removed by an IP, which I reverted. Bearian (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails verifiability. There's nothing there to confirm any of the information in the article. There is in fact, no evidence for event the planned existence of this university. I also love this statement from the article:

Rank: Okwä University is not rated because it is not built and opened but it ranks best among all universities and colleges in South Sudan and Areas. -- Whpq (talk) 13:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since I made this nomination, the author of the article has added further unhelpful material to the article, including spurious "references" that don't even mention "Okwa University". The impression that it is a hoax is getting pretty strong. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sometimes when we assume good faith, it's not worth it. Bearian (talk) 15:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes. In fact I now wonder why I bothered with this AfD, rather than just speedy deleting as a hoax. I must have been in a friendly mood or something. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep by criterion 1: nomination withdrawn without dissenting comments. Non-admin closure. Serpent's Choice (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Long Island Sound (band)

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

Fails to meet WP:BAND, non-notable band. TransporterMan (TALK) 14:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (by page creator) - The band meets notability requirements. It has two singles -- "Animal House" and "Joseph" -- on regular rotation on Triple J radio (Australia). Also has won a music competition (to play at Groovin' the Moo), although whether this is considered "major" is potentially debatable, I suppose. FuJay (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator — I've confirmed that the band has been in rotation at Triple J, thus satisfying WP:BAND#11. I would nonetheless like to note that there are a considerable number of different reasons not to consider the Triple J Unearthed competitions to be "major music competitions" for purposes of WP:BAND, primary among them being that Triple J Unearthed has run somewhere around 22 competitions since 2006 with as many as 5-6 winners in each competition. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Michael

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

Removed my own prod when the earlier AfD came up (not sure how I missed it). Role in Lemonade Mouth is new since then. Prior AfD came up with four brief/insubstantial references in reliable sources. Current article completely lacks substantial coverage in independent reliable sources and I am unable to find any. Not notable. SummerPhD (talk) 03:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete it! He is at least an actor! rtucker913 (talk) 08:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes, he is an actor. However, he is not a notable actor. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I just noticed the prior AfD. Result was delete. Tagged for speedy deletion. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Speedy declined. This version (though still lacking independent sources) is significantly different. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Added more references to prove he is a notable actor Blondewitch (talk) 06:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Thank you for the additional sources. However, I am not finding anything approaching substantial coverage.

adage.com in a photo caption “Blake Michael, host of Cartoon Network's Fried Dynamite”. Not substantial coverage.

animation magazine.com gives us virtually nothing about Blake Michael, the subject of this article. “Blake“ (no last name) is either Blake Michael or the fictionalized Blake hosting the show. In either case, he’s 10 years old and will be hosting ‘’Friday Dynamite’’. Not substantial coverage.

kidsturncentral.com presents a press release from Excite Books briefly discussing what 11 year old Micheal will be doing for them. Not independent.

itunes.com gives us a page where you can indeed buy the non-notable song he recorded with someone else who is not notable. The song exists, which does nothing for notability.

deadline.com does not give any indication it is a reliable source. In any case, its bare mention of Michael tells us he will be in ‘’Lemonade Mouth” and was discovered in an open casting call (implying he was unknown otherwise). Not significant coverage and seems to indicate any notability would hinge on the then up-coming ‘’Lemonade Mouth’’ role.

becksmithhollywood.com is apparently a blog presenting an interview with a ‘’Lemonade Mouth’’ producer. Total content about Michael: “Heartthrob-to-be Blake Michael ‘is really the Cinderfella of this whole thing. He sent in a self-made tape with his mother reading lines with him in Atlanta. The tape just popped. We knew we had to have him,’ Chase recalls.” Not substantial coverage. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - Five more sources added. Three are bare mentions (ocregister.com, variety.com, mtv.com). One blog (disnology.com). And this other thing (girlslife.com) telling us he likes magic tricks, helped make breakfast on Mother's Day once and he once talked back to a teacher in kindergarten. Still fails WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:GNG. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment-
- Comment- The article from deadline.com says Blake was discovered at an open casting call by Disney. The article is inferring that Disney was not familiar with him prior to that casting call, not that Blake lacked a career prior to that casting. Additionally, the comments, specifically about Blake, by the executive producer of Lemonade Mouth are indeed substantial. Ms. Debra Martin Chase, producer of multiple hits including Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants, Princess Diaries, Cheetah Girls, and more, has been involved in casting/discovering Blake Lively, America Ferrera, Anne Hathaway, and others. A quote from Ms. Chase referring to Blake as a "heartthrob-to-be" and saying "we knew we had to have him," is substantial. Blake has not only been quoted, but his quote and name comprises the sub-headline of an article in a MTV.com news article (which has been referenced.) Perhaps Blake's Wikipedia article needs to be short like another cast member, Naomi Scott, whose entry contains just 3 references (sharing one in common with Blake) and those references don't contain any more biographical information than Blake's. So out of all the references on Blake's article none of them are notable? Really? Blake Michael's article should not be deleted.Blondewitch (talk) 22:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - The content from the executive producer is not "substantial" as in it does not say anything substantial about Michael. Substantial coverage would give us biographical info about him: where and when he was born, schooling, family and such. Instead, we have that the producer considers him a "heartthrob-to-be" and such. We have numerous sources that mention him in passing or quote a single sentence from him. We need reliable sources that tell us substantial biographical info about him. At present he does not meet WP:ENT based on his roles. This leaves us with the general notability guideline: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". PLEASE read the explanation there. It explains what we mean by "significant coverage", for instance. At the moment, you're just adding insubstantial coverage, unreliable sources and independent sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Obviously User:Blondewitch is heavily invested in defending the article - this and the previous one constitute almost all her Wikipedia activity - but this is a classic case of throwing some threadbare references, any threadbare references, up in an attempt to meet GNG. These sources either fail WP:RS or do not discuss the subject in the "significant detail" required. It falls on WP:ENTERTAINER, but the subject fails that as well: demonstrably he has not had "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Ravenswing 17:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geert Jan Stuyver

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

Long time unreferenced biography of a living person with no significant coverage in independent reliable sources able to be found. The-Pope (talk) 13:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No success finding reliable sources, either. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 06:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Mentioned in Italian Wikipedia (redlink - no references). No sources found. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alexi Gorbatov

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

No apparent notability to WP:NSPORT. Typically chess players are Grandmasters to be considered professional. Alexi is one level lower as an International master and no other obvious claim to ~~fame~~ notability. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 13:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but he is an International master and many might like to know him(like I did myslef)-Hooshdaran — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.182.40.208 (talk • contribs)

Delete Usually for an International Master (as opposed to a grandmaster) to be notable, he must be distinguished in some other way - as an author, coach, etc. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A notability claim for a chess player should include one or more achievements similar to the following: competition at the highest level of chess (such as participation in later parts of a World Championship cycle or invitational tournaments of top GMs), winning a national championship, membership on national team at a Chess Olympiad, notability as a coach or chess writer. I searched a bit but didn't find any evidence of these sorts of achievements, and there are no inbound links from any other articles. If something like this is added to the article and sourced before the AFD closes I will reconsider my not-a-vote. Quale (talk) 03:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 15:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. International masters are a bit borderline on notability. They are very strong players indeed, and their competence at the game make them authorities when they publish chess books and articles, but most of them are actually amateurs who make a living doing something else. Since the article contains nothing more than the year the IM title was awarded, I agree with Bubba73 and Quale that the article is too thin to justify inclusion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bubba. SyG (talk) 16:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Tindall

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

The only assertion of notability is the claim of a Grammy-nominated recording. However, as I mentioned on the talk page more than a month ago, I can find no evidence that his recording was in fact nominated for a Grammy. A month ago it was not mentioned on his personal website nor his EMU faculty biography, and though it's since been added to each of those, I can find no independent mention of this. The relevant Grammy category is either "Best Instrumental Soloist(s) Performance (With Orchestra)" or "Best Instrumental Soloist Performance (Without Orchestra)", and outside the Wikipedia article, mirror sites, and sites related to him, there is nothing to support the statement that the recording was nominated. cmadler (talk) 12:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —cmadler (talk) 12:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —cmadler (talk) 13:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doing this Google News archive search, one source (American Music Teacher) shows he won a national student competition in 2005. The source also says, "Aaron has been a prize winner in various solo competitions throughout the United States and also has performed in Finland, Hungary and Italy." But I could find no other coverage, including by searching a library database of newspaper and magazine articles. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the Grammy nom is bogus, do you think the MTNA plus "various solo competitions" is enough to establish notability? (I'd think not.) cmadler (talk) 14:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd still hope to see more coverage in reliable sources before I would recommend a "keep". Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find significant coverage about him to establish notability. The claim of a 2010 Grammy nomination is not only unverified, but strictly untrue as the Grammy nominees and winners from the Grammy site itself makes no mention of Aaron Tindall or his recording "Songs of Ascent". -- Whpq (talk) 13:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: - His record company may have submitted the CD for consideration, but that is not a nomination. -- Whpq (talk) 13:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Robert Anton Wilson. (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 18:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guns and Dope Party

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

This is a non-notable, fictional "political party." It does not seem to exist outside of Robert Anton Wilson. While Wilson is notable, the "Guns and Dope Party" is not, per WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:ORGIN. OCNative (talk) 12:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, I would support a redirect to Robert Anton Wilson. OCNative (talk) 02:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vote to keep. Wilson is a significant figure and this is an important part of his opus Jewishprincess (talk) 21:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Jewishprincess had 5 edits before 2 June 2011, of which three were AfD discussions. OCNative (talk) 02:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 15:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 15:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to Wilson's article; it's mentioned there, and that's enough. Ravenswing 17:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Robert Anton Wilson, per Ravenswing.--JayJasper (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Not notable enough on its own for an article, but might be a search term. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep None of the redirect !votes addresses the arguments made during the first AfD that resulted in a keep. There were a number of references listed, which seemed to establish notability, and that was what the consensus appears to have been. What has changed since then that warrants overturning the past keep? Monty ₈₄₅ 16:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you look carefully at the sources cited to establish notability in the first AfD more than 4 years ago, the sources are all discussions of Robert Anton Wilson, rather than coverage of the party independently of Wilson. OCNative (talk) 02:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the references focus enough on the party that I think they are valid to use for notability. Just because they are not solely about the party does not mean they are irrelevant when considering notability. The fact that in the lead of all of them, one of the first things mentioned is the party also speaks to the recognition of the party as being worthy of note. Monty ₈₄₅ 07:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of the sources provided, one is a tabloid and the other two are obituaries of Robert Anton Wilson. There are numerous obituaries of Wilson that fail to even mention the party at all, such as [28], [29], [30], and [31]. If the party he founded was so notable, shouldn't all his obituaries mention it, rather than just two? OCNative (talk) 09:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Giver#Adaptations and delete history per consensus. When this begins production the history can be restored. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Giver (film)

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

Article is speculative, bordering on CRYSTAL. While one of the sources used seems to confirm the existence of plans for the movie, that doesn't establish notability. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 12:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTFILM. According to the IMDb, this film is still in development. Future films should not have Wikipedia articles until they start filming. Any number of delays could occur before this production gets in front of the cameras. Due to the inexplicable popularity of the novel, I am sure that this film will be notable if it is made, but right now it is too early to have a Wikipedia article about it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NOTFILM, film has not been produced yet, therefore an individual article is not yet warranted. Tyrol5 [Talk] 17:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles" (WP:NFF). Guoguo12 (Talk) 20:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Giver#Adaptations per WP:NFF since filming has not begun. This is a project truly in development hell, stuck there since the mid-1990s; it has not ever come close to production. No problem with recreation if filming ever gets underway. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Erik. Monty ₈₄₅ 16:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LioD

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

Delete. Unreferenced article, possibly original research. Cannot find reliable source to support content. Contested prod. WWGB (talk) 11:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 11:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsupported by any reliable sources. The concept may be a bad translation of something Swedish, but given the material we have here, it is impossible to determine. -- Whpq (talk) 13:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be a hoax, or some kind of private joke. /Julle (talk) 17:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Vestal

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

Basically a glorified webmaster. Nothing notable about him. Jonny2x4 (talk) 08:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 13:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:CREATIVE, WP:GNG, etc. No WP:RS to assert WP:N. Qworty (talk) 19:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Kohler

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable author who has only published a couple of minor books. Basically a glorified webmaster. Jonny2x4 (talk) 08:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 13:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:CREATIVE, WP:GNG, etc. No WP:RS to assert WP:N. Qworty (talk) 19:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Article is a blank page with one small phot - no other content. Tagged for speedy deletion CSD#A3. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

संजय सोनवणी

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

About the user. Title in Hindi. SuryaPrakash.S.A. ^Talk... 08:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 18:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LiveChat

AfDs for this article:

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

Note: A version of this article was deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Livechat. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Live Chat is one of category names. There are many live chat softwares provided by other companies under the "Live Chat" category. So I think Live Chat shoud be an article telling visits following things: what is live chat, features of live chat, functions of live chat and so on. It is not reasonable to create a "livechat" article for only one live chat software product. Ellen here (talk) 05:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a substantial difference between 'LiveChat' service and general category of live chat software. Agree that 'Live Chat' (written separately as 2 words) is one of generic descriptions for chat software. At this moment Wikipedia presents that correctly: live chat, live help and live person all link to live support software page, where a general description of the software for maintaining online relations with website visitors is listed. 'LiveChat' is a page describing the popular brand. 'LiveChat' is also protected by the USPTO trademark (registration no: 3068899; no claim is made to 'Live Chat' written separately). Klim3k 09:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~. The nominator's rationale for deletion is not a valid one, as it's an issue that can be easily handled with disambiguation, not with deletion (I will take care of that shortly). However, since we're at AfD already, I decided to check this article's notability. Most of the references on the article are blogs and/or sites where this software can be downloaded, thereby failing the reliable source requirement. Of the sources on the article, only one might be construed as reliable: the "Enterprise Chat Software Reviews" one. Having only one reliable reference fails the "significant coverage" requirement. All that being said, my delete !vote is a weak one mainly because of the difficulty in locating additional sources due to this product's name easily being confused with the generic live chat software category when doing an internet search. If anyone else has better luck with finding additional reliable sources I can be persuaded to change my !vote. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added some references to more reliable sources, such as Internet Retailer or PC Magazine. Klim3k 18:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I struck my !vote above in light of the references provided; I am now neutral. I would be amenable to a speedy keep under criterion 1 (failing to advance an argument for deletion), as the nominator's principal concern has now been fixed with dab hatnotes. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As advised by KuyaBriBri, I have removed the references to download pages and add-ons pages. Klim3k 21:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Request: Would an admin please move this discussion to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LiveChat? This is certainly not a 3rd nomination, as the title implies, though I suppose it could be considered a 2nd nomination, as the article appears to have been previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Livechat (note absence of CamelCase). I'd move it myself, but I don't know what the rules are, if there are any. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as a disruptive nomination by a single-purpose/sockpuppet account. PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a reason for keeping. Whatever you guess the nominator's motive to be, the discussion should be assessed on the merits of the arguments. This is even more so when another version of the same article was deleted following consensus at an earlier AfD. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SK criterion 2 allows a speedy keep if nomination is "unquestionably vandalism or disruption and nobody unrelated recommends deleting it" (original emphasis). I believe this is a disruptive nomination by an SPA who wants to remove/suppress information about a competitor (see my claim at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ellen here). I suppose the question of whether or not this is unquestionably disruptive is open to interpretation, but nobody unrelated has recommended deletion (well, I did, but I retracted it after the article creator improved it).

Notwithstanding all of that, I am again changing my !vote to weak keep (and striking my neutral above). While the article leaves much to be desired (specifically removal of promotional content + coverage in reliable sources outside the computing industry), the references added since this AfD was opened are enough to push this over the notability bar in my book. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep there look to be enough independent sources to establish notability. Add ins should be allowed to appear in the article, but in themselves are not independent refs. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:Hadal. (non-admin closure) v/r - T P 02:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Chronic 2012

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

Contested PROD. Says 1999 in the infobox, but looks like a forthcoming album (to be released in 2012?). Seems like unsourced WP:CRYSTAL - can see no obvious reliable sources, and can't find where the "Confirmed Tracks" comes from -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete for WP:HOAX and unverified information. --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 07:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any sources, unverifiable at best. Qrsdogg (talk) 13:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of reliable sources. Tyrol5 [Talk] 17:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete for WP:HOAX; no references, never been highlighted on the internet. Iconmike2007 (talk) 18:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 10:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 20:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Cordero

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

Prospect included in a notable trade who hasn't become a notable figure on his own. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —– Muboshgu (talk) 05:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ONEEVENT Ma^t_chups 15:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think WP:ONEEVENT would apply to a professional baseball player who almost certainly gets at least periodic coverage for playing in games. But WP:ROUTINE does. Rlendog (talk) 19:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Dong Jun

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

Article does not appear to meet music criteria. Djc wi (talk) 05:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 11:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:CREATIVE.--v/r - T P 02:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

McGraw (chicken)

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

Prod was removed. Concern: Notability not established and no reliable sources (only source is a web forum) Eeekster (talk) 04:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, speedy if possible. I smell a hoax. And chickens. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems rather non-notable, and possibly hoax. References point to some forum threads, no reliable sources provided. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 10:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Commment FWIW, this isn't a hoax, there really is a Dr. Albert McGraw who breeds chickens to lay blue eggs, as strange as it seems. [32][33][34] Qrsdogg (talk) 13:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Woodfield (subdivision)

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

Don't see any evidence that this housing development has any form of notability. At 521 "estimated" inhabitants it is not particularly large. Daniel 02:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any evidence of notability either through a particular assertion of significance in the article or through references in reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 04:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 United States House of Representatives elections in New Hampshire, 2006. Neutrality^talk 04:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Hampshire's 1st congressional district election, 2006

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

It makes little to no sense for a separate article for this election article to exist when: a) It is in need of serious edits to fix many mistakes. b) It is redundant: All of this information, in fewer words, can be found at the page for "United States House of Representatives elections in New Hampshire, 2006." This page offers nothing new to the event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tqycolumbia (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to statewide article at United States House of Representatives elections in New Hampshire, 2006#First district; redundant and unnecessary. With only two districts in New Hampshire, that article can easily cover the elections that year in both districts. And the stand-alone 1st district article is merely a copy of the information already found at the statewide article. Judging from the edit histories, it looks like the 1st district article was posted later from text copied and pasted (without attribution, mind you) from statewide one, so outright deletion would also be okay, as long as all the incoming links are fixed. postdlf (talk) 16:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per postdlf.--JayJasper (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 03:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin D. Kline

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

Poorly referenced (and possible WP:COI) bio of a person notable primarily as a municipal councillor in a town of less than 5,000 people; claims of notability as a musician are entirely unreferenced and purely promotional in tone. In the absence of properly sourced evidence that actually he meets either WP:POLITICIAN or WP:NMUSIC, delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. Probably autobio or by close relative. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 05:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTABLE, poorly referenced. Tyrol5 [Talk] 17:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If, and only if, it can be sourced, he arguably passes criteria 4 of WP:MUSICBIO: "Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country." This is absed on claims he performed at major clubs in Nashville, Atlantic City, and New York City in winter 1999-2000. It's unbearably difficult to search for such a common name, so I leave it to the creator (or others) to do the hard work. Bearian (talk) 19:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not referenced well, but that can be fixed. His status as an elected official is referenced in the Maryland State Archives as well as a few others places...but i dont think I referenced it correctly in Wiki. The municipality may be small, but it's historical significance is important considering it's the home of Air Force One and Andrews Air Force base and the work he is doing with Andrews, Prince Georges County and the State of Maryland to revitalize the entire area...is notable to our state and hopefully to the President, Vice President, congressmembers, senators and dignitaries that travel through the town on a daily basis. The music was interesting to his background, but not necessarily what might make him interesting or notable by itself. Please give me some more time to correct the mistakes of referencing correctly and clearer on the notability. And NO, I am not a close relative, but have met him several times and I offered to write this article. Sorry my skills are lacking on my first try. But he is an elected official in the State of Maryland. Tara Lieden 21:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BABYGRAND007 (talk • contribs)
Question Can this article be pulled back into a Work In Progess to properly cite? Or can there be a recommendation to Hold? I may have launched it too quickly, but all the references regarding proper citing, both with the politics and the music can be referenced, I just failed to do so in the correct way. I am, admittedly new to the Wikipedia process and obviously the preceding "comments" are quite informed of the correct way to cite the article. Thanks !

Tara Lieden 22:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

KEEP But it needs some major fixin'....All the information in this article so far is verifiable..I tried to goggle a few of the "items in question" and there are several trusted articles/references available that verify the information.....it's just not properly cited, or cited at all for that matter. I logged onto Wiki to try and help correct these citations and hopefully can assist in keeping this article up. The first article concerning the elections is reference to St. Louis Newspaper, however the link is to The Washington Post article. There are a lot of reference mistakes, but as far as the validity of the person, it meets the requirements of notability as an elected official with notable credits...just some of the important details and ALL of the citations are left out. KEEP but let's fix this one. Danny Geston 23:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
KEEP and thanks for the advice on all the proper citing and references...I deleted the feel of the Bio and put just the facts..it makes for a much better article now anyway...so thanks for the help and guidance...as I said before...this was my very first article...so I needed the learning curve. I have cited a majority of the article and am waiting for a few more links to cite the rest. Yes it is difficult to find everything, but I am working on it !!

Thanks again for the help and please consider to KEEP this article...i did a lot of work on it! :) Tara Lieden 04:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BABYGRAND007 (talk • contribs)

KEEP I took some time to re-write some of the info. It was too Biographical and now, along with all the proper citations, it is much more factual and interesting. The Notable Venues still needs to be referenced. I didn't have the time yet to research but am willing to in the very near future. Pretty good considering where it started from just a week ago!

Danny Geston 23:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by OVIETHEGREAT8 (talk • contribs)

Comment it appears as if one or two accounts have voted 'keep' numerous times above--please don't stuff the ballot box. As for the article, it's in need of major clean-up, for a multitude of images, unnecessary bold-face type, and promotional/resume tone. Can be cut way down, eliminating the chaff, which is to say, a largely non-notable history, particularly in politics--holding a number of civic positions in a town with a population under 3,000 may be praiseworthy, but it is not noteworthy. Just because it's sourced doesn't mean the information meets guidelines for inclusion. 99.156.70.138 (talk) 23:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep or deletion aside, BABYGRAND007's recent edits have vastly improved the article--I still question the need for listing various civic achievements, but at least this looks a lot more like an encyclopedic entry. 99.156.70.138 (talk) 02:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Thank You Anonymous person...this is my first article and its tough when everyone throws a millions critics at you at once....I do appreciate the ACTUAL HELP in giving advice to correct the article. And I am continuing to cite and reference... I agree...it's short and sweet..and much better !! AND NO...I'm not related to the guy..just a fan ! :) :) Thanks again !

Tara Lieden 02:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

- - Good work--you're welcome. Nobody likes having their articles tagged, but the alternative was to 'strip-mine' it myself, which sometimes leads to edit warring. Just so you know, though I edit anonymously I've written many articles here and have a passable grasp of the landscape. Cheers, 99.156.70.138 (talk) 03:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Thanks again! Your help may have saved the article. :) :)

Tara Lieden 03:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laina Beasley

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

as per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. as unique as this person is all it got was a spike of 6 gnews hits in 2005 [35]. LibStar (talk) 02:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interesting, but doesn't appear to be notable enough given WP:BLP1E. Probably deserves a mention on Suspended animation or a similar page. Qrsdogg (talk) 13:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable, move entry to Suspended animation.--Jarhed (talk) 04:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sun In My Heart

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

fails WP:ORG. nothing in gnews [36]. google only reveals mirrors and directory listings. interestingly a source is "rider's digest" [sic]. LibStar (talk) 01:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably could have been speedied.--v/r - T P 02:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wind, Flower, Snow

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

I am nominating this page for an absence of the notability of this Kelly Chen's album. Also, no sources. I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reasons as mentioned before:

Gh87 (talk) 21:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a stub. The Wiki is not a list. Numerous notability problems.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 11:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, simply being a stub is not a reason to delete an article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:48, 24 May 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, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Despite the lack of sources, the presence of the album art suggests that it is a real album. In addition, the artist's article suggests that she is a fairly notable figure in the Cantopop music industry, which would make her albums notable as well. It needs sources, but it should not be deleted.--Danaman5 (talk) 11:32, 26 May 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, Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 11:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marek Strzała

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

Notability - Might be notable in Krakow, but not very notable on the Internet - no English language sources. Few if any independent references with wider recognition. It's a guy with a travel website - article written with a blatant advertising bent.

I am also nominating the following related pages because it is a redirect with diacritical marks removed:

Ajh1492 (talk) 00:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ Redirect to Krakow-info. By creating this entry, I simply stated the obvious. Many WP articles about Krakow which I worked on feature his website (if not Strzala personally) as our resource base, including Kraków / Churches of Kraków / History of Kraków / St. Leonard's Crypt / Church of St. Casimir the Prince / Wolf Popper Synagogue / Transport in Kraków / Wawel Cathedral / St. Mary's Basilica, Kraków / Kupa Synagogue / Church of the Visitation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Kraków / and Historical Museum of Kraków. In case our community decides that Strzala himself is not notable enough, I would suggest that the article be ~~renamed~~ redirected to Krakow-info (http://krakow-info.com which Strzala created). Krakow-info is used in many more WP articles as the source of info about the city including Culture of Kraków / Juliusz Słowacki Theatre / Hedwig glass / Lesser Poland Voivodeship / Jan Matejko Academy of Fine Arts / Opera Krakowska / Districts of Kraków / Lesser Poland / Kraków szopka / Wawel Cathedral / Collegium Maius / and ... 482 other Wikipedia articles in the English language.[37] — Krakowski (talk) 13:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a LOT more notable references to the locations and sights of Krakow. Having lots of links in EN:WP is NOT a sign of notability especially when you personally state you have created a number of those articles. It brings into question all those other articles if they are correctly sourced. Ajh1492 (talk) 16:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't put words in my mouth. If a topic needs improving, go ahead and improve it. — Krakowski (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked through a number of the cited articles and the referenced to the author's works are of ephemeral usage in the articles provide (tacked onto the bottom and not even cited inline). I just don't see how the author rises to the level of Wikipedia:Notability (biographies). There are significantly more reliable references than some author's attempt at a Yahoo-clone. IMHO, it's advertising. Ajh1492 (talk) 19:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A number of articles you quote use this website as nearly a single source. A simple search finds lots of other more notable sources to use. Ajh1492 (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Krakow-info seems like a non-spam website, at least at the first glance. Whether it is reliable, is a more interesting question. I don't see that it cites any other references. See Wikipedia:Notability (websites) and if you think it is notable, please create the entry. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. At this point the article does not satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (biographies). We would need sources independent of the subject (not self-published), discussing him and showing he is notable. If you could find them and add to the article, I'd support keeping. Also, please keep in mind that Wikipedia articles should not be written in a promotional tone. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's more like a locally-gown version of Yahoo. Why not use sites like www.krakow.pl from the local tourism authority. Ajh1492 (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or, Wikipedia. Both creating and reading such websites seems to me a waste of time (this is not an argument in this deletion, just my own opinion on misguided good faith efforts people put into creation of such sites that try to poorly duplicate what Wikipedia has or will eventually do much better). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: just for the record, it is not necessary to directly apply the AFD tag to the redirect as well as to the main article; if the main article gets deleted, the redirect will be speedied as a G8 at the same time. Bearcat (talk) 23:24, 27 May 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, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, the only thing to be found is a couple of his own articles. No prejudice against Krakow-info provided it meets WP:WEB, comfortably if possible - frankie (talk) 23:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Please make note that the article has been re-written according to your suggestions and moved to Krakow-info. Thanks. — Krakowski (talk) 00:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make a mess of the AfD. Don't repurpose and move the article, create the new article separately and just let this one (and the redirect) be deleted. Ajh1492 (talk) 02:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also suggest that this is restored as a separate article. Now, is this website notable per Wikipedia:Notability (web)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the Alternatives to deletion policy: "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. [..] Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. " Improvements inspired by comments from the community are a part of regular editing. They should not be reverted back by the nominator during an AFD, so that he could have a better chance of fulfilling his wish. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, section How to discuss an AfD suggests: "If the reasons given in the deletion nomination are later addressed by editing, the nomination should be withdrawn by the nominator, and the deletion discussion will be closed..." There's nothing to be gained by preventing improvements from happening. — Krakowski (talk) 13:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATD doesn't say you gut the entire article, replace the content with a completely different article then move the article to try and avoid the AfD. Now we have a separate discussion on the Krakow-info article. Ajh1492 (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is it a problem. You completely replaced the content of the Marek Strzała with Krakow-info content - simply move the content you created into the Krakow-info article - you're the sole author of the information. Then we can close this AfD by deleting Marek Strzała AND Marek Strzala cleanly, otherwise we need to go through a separate RfD on Marek Strzala. So I don't see what the problem is... Ajh1492 (talk) 14:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Water Centre

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

Non-notable Centre. One source with an in-passing mention does not appear to be enough to establish notability. No hits on Google News. Quite a lot of Ghits, but nothing that seems to be substantial. Does not meet WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 01:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Crusio (talk) 07:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Try Google News archives? You can see the contributions of the centre there more clearly. It's kind of ridiculous since the intellectual authority of the centre clearly exceeds that of Northern Virginia Community College, for instance. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 09:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I only get 1 hit from that link, the centre's own website. If you can find more more, you can perhaps add that to the article. As for that college, yep, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Crusio (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except NoVa is ranked one of the top community colleges in the nation. Dude. Check your links? Anyhow, check the archives -- see the centre's role in assessing Australia's fluoride scandal as a public research body ?Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 15:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - definitely notable and asserts as such in the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there had been no assertion of notability, it would have been a speedy. Two universities having a common research program is not very unusual. Here in France, basically any research project worth anything is a collaborative effort between at least two universities or research organisms. That doesn't make all those projects notable, only if we have independent reliable sources. --Crusio (talk) 21:05, 28 May 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, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gets a decent amount of coverage in Google News, looks like there is enough to meet WP:NGO. I added one source to the article, certainly potential for a decent article here. Qrsdogg (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is notable, and article can be improved from its current condition. Tyrol5 [Talk] 17:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable institution, worthy of notice, meets WP:N. Unscintillating (talk) 00:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kuro Interactive

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:CORP. nothing in gnews. 3 of the sources are mere blogs and are not reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 01:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Also advertising: an independent interactive advertising agency... specialized in creating brand experiences and marketing them through social media, experiential marketing, and interactive communications. (That supposed to mean something??) Yet another online advertising business advertising on Wikipedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:40, 27 May 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) 00:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertising spam. Carrite (talk) 03:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kazi Shafiq Ullah

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

I cannot find sufficient RS coverage of this person reflecting notability. The article has been tagged for notability since 2009. It is a BLP with zero references and zero external links.Epeefleche (talk) 01:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 27 May 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) 00:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Honestly this article shouldn't have been on here since 2009, the fact that the notability is hands down....well nothing. I don't think Wikipedia will wither away without this article. SwisterTwister (talk) 05:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shubhangi Bose

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

I cannot find sufficient RS coverage of this singer, whose article has been tagged for notability since 2010. Epeefleche (talk) 01:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Epeefleche (talk) 05:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 27 May 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) 00:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO. no reliable sources found. LibStar (talk) 02:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Kafka

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

While this singer exists, I can't find significant indicia of notability either in her RS coverage, or otherwise. Tagged for notability since 2010. Epeefleche (talk) 02:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Epeefleche (talk) 05:50, 26 May 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) 00:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Still doesn't reach Wikipedia:Notability (music). MySpace is still available for content like this. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –MuZemike 19:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth C. Bucchi

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable author. Ridernyc (talk) 07:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

very weak keep In view of the material here [38], particular the one in the Washington Posrt, [39] he might well be notable for his claims to have worked for the CIA: There seems to be significant coverage besides the CNN stories referred to in the article there. It's not one event, for his principal book Operation Pseudo Miranda is in 280 worldcat libraries, and was reviewed briefly in Booklist v. 97 no. 9/10 (Jan. 1-15 2001) & Library Journal (1976) v. 126 no. 4 (Mar. 1 2001). One of the reviewers recognized the content was dubious, one didn't. . DGG ( talk ) 07:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yes, he has a book out, but the WP:RS given for it are in the business of reviewing just about every title that is published, so they do not satisfy WP:BK. Hard to see how he would otherwise satisfy WP:AUTHOR. Qworty (talk) 20:08, 30 May 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) 00:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per DGG's good research. His contested claim that he was a CIA agent is itself barely notable, based on the possible sources. Bearian (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. All of the content was a copyright violation, which left literally nothing left in the article. That being said, I have no objection to a copyvio-free recreation of the article, as the one keep rationale suggested some notability there. –MuZemike 19:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme Measures (novel)

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

The article states no notability or importance, and I was only able to find one critical review via Google (although this may be somewhat complicated due to the fact that there is an unrelated movie of the same name). It is therefore my belief that the article fails Wp:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Inks.LWC (talk) 10:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 10:34, 26 May 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) 00:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The novel was a NY Times Bestseller. Reviews abound in Google News. Much of it is behind pay walls but I picked out a couple that are viewwable without forking over $$$$: Bangkok Post, Minneapolis Star-Tribune. -- Whpq (talk) 13:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cut Ribbons

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

This article on a band was PRODed under A7. It was de-prodded. I could not find sufficient evidence of notability of this band under wp’s notability rules. Others are welcome to try. Epeefleche (talk) 15:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 27 May 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) 00:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:UPANDCOMING.--v/r - T P 02:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gallow Hill (Abigail Williams EP)

AfDs for this article:

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

Article fails notability criteria for albums. Bootlegs are generally non-notable and no source contradicts this. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 16:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete This should've been deleted long ago, but even my past attempt was persuaded by the addition of one sad source. Fortunately, I think the language at WP:NALBUMS is better, and the argument for deleting this page is stronger. For one, this album was not released, and according to WP:NALBUMS, unreleased albums are non-notable unless they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources. In general, all albums should be mentioned in multiple reliable sources. One single published source doesn't cut it, and this bootleg isn't mentioned in a significant number of sources online. I oppose a merge also simply because, although there's a track listing, the album itself is non-notable—not notable enough to have the track list/infobox/album cover shown on the Abigail Williams (band) article, though obviously the source can probably be used to mention the bootleg in passing, were someone so inclined to add it. Finally—WP:NALBUMS mentions this for songs, but I believe it must be used in this case—"[an article is] appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article", and I think that it's been proven that this article will never grow beyond a stub and will never contain enough information to warrant an even remotely interesting piece of encyclopedia. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:31, 31 May 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) 00:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm unable to find significant coverage for this demo/unofficial release; does not appear to meet WP:NALBUMS. The reference in the article is a brief sentence which can be incorporated into the band's main article. Gongshow ^Talk 18:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added the info to the AW article. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

China Image Film Festival

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

Claims to be the largest Chinese film festival in Europe but provides no evidence to that effect. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and send to cleanup for tone and easily found sourcing. Meets WP:N. With respects to the nominator, the provided source CNTV does specifically state: "...Taking on the challenge is the China Image Film Festival, the largest Chinese film festival in Europe". We do not care if that assertion is true of not, as long as it is verifiable so that readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 25 May 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, Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks like it receives a decent amount of coverage in the Chinese media: [40][41]. Qrsdogg (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of nicknames of historical personages

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

Per WP:NOTDIR, we don't have indiscriminate listings of entities. This list essentially covers anyone ("historical personages") apart from "athletes, criminals, entertainers, monarchs or US. Presidents". Most notable people have a nickname of some sort, and I fail to see why we need a list of the nicknames of "famous people" which is almost entirely open-ended. Anthem of joy (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How about for people who've heard of the famous nickname, but not the actual name? Boy Browning, frex, who I've never been able to recall his actual given name... As for "[m]ost notable people have a nickname of some sort", I'd disagree. Doubtless there are legions of notables without one. Doubtless there a legions whose nickname has never become well-enough known to have any chance to make a list like this one. And, BTW, how about just because it's informative & interesting in its own right? You may not be interested in knowing these nicknames, but I'll wager quite a few other people are. Even if they don't actually take the trouble to comment. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Well, the fact that it's interesting is not a valid reason for keeping it. Famous nicknames should redirect to the individual's name, or be placed on a disambiguation page if more than one individual has had them. This list seems entirely indiscriminate, with some entries not even having articles, and the inclusion criteria are laughable. --Anthem of joy (talk) 18:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless someone goes to the trouble of cleaning this up with an inline citation to a reliable source for every nickname on the list. This is a topic that can be notable -- third-party reliable sources do write about the phenomenon of nicknames. However, in its current form, this article is a mess of original research that holds some good-quality nuggets of information, but it's impossible to tell which is the good content and which is original research. Having worked on cleanup, development and maintenance of similar articles (for example, List of city nicknames in the United States and List of people who adopted matronymic surnames), I know that this cleanup will be a lot of work, but it can be done if someone is interested enough -- and the article will be far easier to maintain once the sourcing has been cleaned up. --Orlady (talk) 00:57, 18 May 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} 01:06, 25 May 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, Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is an unsourced mess of OR, and I personally don't really think it would even be notable with reliable sources. If the person has an article, then their nickname belongs there. If they do not, then their nickname doesn't belong anywhere. Nolelover^Talk^/^Contribs 23:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A person who has a well known and verified nickname can have a redirect to help readers of Wikipedia find his bio article. This is and is likely to remain an unreferenced pile of original research. It also is a target for those who dislike some former public figure to add defamatory nicknames which once appeared in some critique. Lincoln was called "King Ape" by opposition newspapers, and "Honest Abe," "The Railsplitter" and "The Great Emancipator" by supporters. A giant mishmash list of well known nicknames and rarely heard nicknames of persons notable enough to have a Wikipedia article is just not in itself an encyclopedic list. It is likely to be cluttered with initials, "nicknames" the person never answered to, and descriptions or joke punchlines. It is full of "nicknames" that do not even appear in the bio articles of the person. It is a likely target for vandalism, since the practice has not included providing any reference to validate the nickname. Edison (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –MuZemike 19:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regina Doman

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

I can't find RSs to indicate this author meets WP:AUTHOR or WP:BIO/WP:GNG. Of the three sources currently listed, one is the author's own site and another appears to be the author's self profile on an author website. The third, though listing the author among the ten most interesting Catholics in 2010, is a blurb in a blog and not the sort of RS needed to establish notability, especially as the only unaffiliated source. Novaseminary (talk) 03:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only independent coverage is [42], which I find to be insufficient for notability by itself. Chester Markel (talk) 04:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 23:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like she has received some non-trivial coverage: [43][44][45] Qrsdogg (talk) 21:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The second and third (the possibly relevant parts of these books, that is) are not about her, and not even the type of reviews or citations that would get a book over the WP:NB line. (The third shows up in WorldCat as being in only two libraries.) Nor, as an analogy, would these satisfy WP:ACADEMIC. The first does have a one paragraph intro about her, but then focuses on Doman's idea of good literature in the context of the Harry Potter books. This, too, falls short of WP:GNG, and doesn't even suggest she meets WP:AUTHOR. Novaseminary (talk) 22:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:24, 25 May 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, Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – In addition to what's already been noted, and this interview, I found in a library database of newspaper and magazine articles:
- "Angel in the Waters". Pieter Vree. New Oxford Review. Berkeley: May 2005. Vol. 72, Iss. 5; p. 44–5. link.
- "Black as Night: A Fairy Tale Retold". Mitchell Kalpakgian. New Oxford Review. Berkeley: Feb 2006. Vol. 73, Iss. 2; p. 47–8. link.
- "Disenchanting the Fairy Tale: Retellings of 'Snow White' between Magic and Realism". Vanessa Joosen. Marvels & Tales. Detroit: 2007. Vol. 21, Iss. 2; p. 228 (15 pages). Google link. – this one has some analysis of her book Black as Night. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But all but the first of these are reviews or mentions of her books (but these probably wouldn't even get any of the books past WP:NB). There is nothing about her here (other than verification that she wrote the books). Just reviews of our citations to one's work is not enough. And the interview is an online site, not in an RS, nor does it indicate she meets WP:AUTHOR and is not sufficient for WP:BASIC / WP:GNG / WP:BIO. If one were to add these sources to the article, they wouldn't be able to support any facts or develp the article. We need relaible, third-party secondary sources (not her website) that can support an article. Novaseminary (talk) 01:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's coverage of the very thing she is notable for: her writing. The reviews and analysis of her work can be used for a "Critical reception" section in the biography. Also, I'm not so quick to dismiss a source just because it is an online-only source. I'm not familiar with Catholics.net but it appears to be an online magazine, not someone's blog, and I think we could be comfortable using it for non-contentious information. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By this reasoning, though, every academic who has had their work discussed a few times by other academics would meet N. There needs to be coverage about her, and that coverage is exceptionally weak. If that weak coverage indicated she meets WP:AUTHOR then fine. But you don't seem to be arguing that. If the coverage meets WP:BASIC, then fine. But you have not argued that, either, and I can't see how it does. If an author having particular self-published books reviewed in minor and online publications a handful of times (with an interview in a book not at all about the author's work or life thrown in for good measure) passes N, then the bar for authors is significantly lower than in most other fields. I would be curious to see how these sources could be cobbled together to write even a few short paragraphs about this person without resorting extensively to the autobiography on her website. Novaseminary (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buldog

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

This 1-sentence-of-text band article was PRODed under A7, as failing to reflect notability (it simply says the band exists). The PROD was removed, without any rationale at all being offered. It appears to lack notability under wp standards. Epeefleche (talk) 20:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Epeefleche (talk) 20:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Phil Bridger (talk) 21:58, 26 May 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) 00:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as it appears to fail WP:BAND. Nolelover^Talk^/^Contribs 23:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blade Loki

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

This 1-sentence-of-text band article was PRODed under A7, as failing to reflect notability (it simply says the band exists). The PROD was removed, without any rationale at all being offered. It appears to lack notability under wp standards. Epeefleche (talk) 20:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Epeefleche (talk) 20:46, 26 May 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) 00:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There appear to be no credible sources even stating that this band does exist, primary or otherwise. This should have been removed under A7. Lord Arador (talk) 05:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What about the source that is referenced in the article? How does that fail to confirm that this band exists? Phil Bridger (talk) 08:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could be wrong, but I believe that the source referenced in the article was written by the recording studio Blade Loki uses. That removes it's credibility because it is not a third party source. In addition, the information provided in that source is not sufficient to qualify Blade Loki as having met WP:BAND. Lord Arador (talk) 23:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A single source (whether or not it is trivial) does not establish notability Guinness2702 (talk) 23:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fjalor i Gjeologjise

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

The article cites no references, and a Google search of the phrase turned up no results that discuss the book, other than Wikipedia pages in other languages, that say the same thing as this page. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 21:46, 26 May 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) 00:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; unsourced, and a cursory search provides no evidence of anything.Guinness2702 (talk) 23:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be surprised if there were sources in Albanian, but I have no way of finding out that, and as this article appears to fail WP:NB, delete. Nolelover^Talk^/^Contribs 23:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The book is on Open Library and Google books, and it gets around 3.5 hits. However, unless the editor who created the page demonstrates its notability in reliable sources, I can't really defend keeping it. Rennell435 (talk) 12:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete. I'm not feeling like trying to figure out to a mathematical certainty whether this should be filed under "no consensus" or "keep". Either way, it's not going away. T. Canens (talk) 03:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

StickerYou

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

Can't find any sources which aren't directly or indirectly fueled by company's strong PR campaign. Non-notable. TransporterMan (TALK) 20:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, The Globe and Mail article referenced in the article sounds pretty convincing of notability. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 20:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty clearly a PR piece masquerading as a news article, but even if it is a RS, one's not enough to preserve the article. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advertisement for a non-notable Internet business, 2008 startup. The Globe and Mail article is a puff piece about a local startup, and does not establish that this business has done anything that should be memorialized for the ages in an encyclopedia. Other references are to Top 100 lists and the like. I found nothing better. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TransporterMan - we want to make this article in-keeping with the standards of Wikipedia. What would you recommend we add to the article. StickerYou was noted as the Start-up of the Day by Microsoft ( http://www.bizspark.com/Blogs/Microspark-BizSpark-Startup-of-the-Day/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=264) and recently written up by Read Write Web (http://www.readwriteweb.com/biz/2011/02/bridging-online-and-offline-ma.php) their Stickers have also been featured in Ad week ( http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/oh-you-will-these-facebook-stickers-130731). Please let me know what other material we need to add to make this a legit article in your eyes. Stickers fan (talk) 19:46, 18 May 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) 00:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here's others [46] [47] [48] - frankieMR (talk) 23:50, 26 May 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, Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – In addition to the coverage in The Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star already identified, there is this article in the National Post; it's enough coverage for the general notability guideline. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It looks like the sources turned up by frankieMR and Paul Erik demonstrate that they satisfy WP:CORP. Qrsdogg (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I was hesitant before but the review from the National Post is really solid - frankie (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is this notable, really? No! Guinness2702 (talk) 22:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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