Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 June 4

< 3 June	5 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 merge to IBM System/360 architecture. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Load Program Status Word instruction

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

Non-notable mini-essay; contested prod. I wouldn't be opposed to a merge but I'm not quite sure where to merge it to. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 23:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Load Program Status Word (LPSW) is an instruction in the IBM System/360 instruction set architecture. Merging it to IBM System/360 might be appropriate, but given that LPSW does not appear to be a unique feature, its inclusion may not be of benefit as it would introduce detailed content that would be out of place in an article summarizing the architecture. Rilak (talk) 02:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to IBM System/360 architecture as a subsection of section Program Status Word (PSW). (A similar operation for the article Supervisor Call instruction would then be reasonable.) --Lambiam 00:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Lambiam. Qrsdogg (talk) 14:23, 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) 03:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fabexi F.C

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

Contested PROD; original rationale was "Non-notable football club, written like an advert as well." Giant Snowman 23:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 23:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia doesn't seem to have articles about any league, cup, or other competition this club ever played in. Furthermore, the two external links provided don't go to any page that describes this football club. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable club. Argyle 4 Life^talk 23:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Semi-professional, never seems to have played in a major league. I have removed spam links several times but they keep getting put back in. This team appears to be an advertising gimmick for the Fabexi Corp. No sources found other than on other B2B sites that feature the company. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:10, 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) 03:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mehdi Rahnama

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

Contested PROD; original rationale was "Non-notable youth player who fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL." Giant Snowman 23:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 23:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 23:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 00:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly fails WP:NSPORT, and appears to fail WP:GNG as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and WP:ATHLETE (WP:NFOOTBALL). His is mentioned as having played for Fabexi F.C, a company's own sportsclub soccer team, that has never played in any professional leagues. The Fabexi F.C. article also has no reliable sources. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article on Fabexi F.C explicitly refers to the club as semi-pro, meaning it is insufficient to grant notability to its players per WP:NSPORT. He also fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:39, 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) 03:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AS/NZS 2243.9 - Fume Cupboards

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

This article describing an obscure dangerous materials handling standard does not appear to be on a notable topic. The article seems to have been one of a series of articles on similar obscure topics created as part of an university project - this has been discussed at: WP:AWNB#New articles on the handling of dangerous materials. I nominated this article for prod deletion, but this was disputed. Nick-D (talk) 23:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 23:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They are all How to comply guides, not encyclopedic at all. possible copyvio from the standard too. The-Pope (talk) 02:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources suggest anything that would pass our notability guidelines - in particular, there has been no "significant coverage" that would allow us to write an encyclopedia article rather than a summary of the standard bou·le·var·dier (talk) 03:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing any secondary coverage of the standards themselves to indicate notability. Qrsdogg (talk) 14:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and notability guidelines. The standard might be notable enough for a section in some umbrella article, but a section of the standard doesn't pass muster. LordVetinari (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply copying stuff of an official standards guide and expecting it to be an automatic WP article is unacceptable. LibStar (talk) 01:24, 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) 03:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brant Imperatore

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

The article does not now describe a person who qualifies as notable under Wikipedia's guidelines. The article currently reads more as advertising than encyclopedia. Avocats (talk) 22:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 00:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. There is nothing notable about him, the only links on him are a Fox Business search results page and a ISDA page for him. It indeed does sound more like propagranda than a encyclopedia entry. SwisterTwister (talk) 05:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Google News Archive finds only passing mentions of this congressional-staffer-turned-lobbyist. --MelanieN (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find substantive coverage in reliable sources. Hekerui (talk) 14:22, 11 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} 14:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Major League Baseball players who have hit 30 or more home runs before the All-Star break

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

Notability? Why 30 HRs prior to the All Star break? Is this some grand achievement that is widely recognized? No, it's just a round number. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —– Muboshgu (talk) 22:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Seems like an unnecessary list to me. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 23:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A list with an absolutely random membership criterion. Why not 20? Why not 40? No references presented to show that 30 is accepted as an important criterion by reliable sources which cover baseball. Edison (talk) 01:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is purely WP:TRIVIA about a statistic which also violates WP:NOT#STATS by not providing "sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader." It fails WP:GNG by lacking multiple sources with significant and non WP:ROUTINE coverage explaining the historical context of the otherwise arbitrary number of home runs before an arbitrary date. —Bagumba (talk) 02:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as being trivia (and oddly arbitrary). —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 00:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the rationale behind setting the cutoff for the list at 30 is based on the fact that Ruth's record for single-season HR was 60, and thus a player with 30+ at the break was notionally on pace to match or break the record. That particular cutoff obviously makes much less sense now that Barry Bonds has moved the bar up to 73. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:20, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jai McDowall

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

He has only just won Britain's Got Talent, which is the only thing he is notable for doing, therefore WP:BLP1E applies. –anemone projectors– 22:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Past winners of Britain's Got Talent have their own pages and this article will only grow as Jai releases music, etc. I would only support a deletion if it was a contest that had no prize. However, the prize money ensures some kind of career and hence notable. Paul237 (talk) 23:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Other articles exist" is an argument to be avoided, though most winners have gone on to become notable beyond BGT. The cash prize does not guarantee he will release an album. That's speculation on your part. It's probable, but until he releases a recording that reaches a national chart, he's only notable for one thing. –anemoneprojectors– 23:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - With respect, I posted my opinion here and you posted yours. You don't need to argue against everyone who disagrees with you here. We're well aware of your opinion by now! Paul237 (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he's won one of the biggest TV talent show's in Britain, and is already getting plenty of coverage. Giant Snowman 23:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Britain's Got Talent (series 5) per WP:1E. - JuneGloom Talk 23:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no need for this to be deleted, he will be appearing in front of the queen which WILL be broadcasted, and then will no doubt release music. 92.22.57.211 (talk) 23:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 00:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 01:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 01:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The rule you cited only applies if said person is notable for doing one thing. Winning the competition itself guarantees that he'll perform at the Royal Variety show. We can't be certain where that'll lead him but that's at least two things that he'll be known for as a guarantee, with probable additions in the future. 90.212.153.186 (talk) 04:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- His appearance on the Royal Variety is linked to Britain't Got Talent anyway, and it's just a single performance. I know I'm violating WP:CRYSTAL myself by saying this but there's always a chance he won't make the performance. Until he's been on it, he's not notable for being on it. –anemone projectors– 09:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now.andycjp (talk) 07:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? And why only for now? –anemone projectors– 09:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Britain's Got Talent (series 5) in line with wikipedia policy: WP:1E. -Andrew (talk) 10:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have no idea who this person is but...there is enough out there about him and if Wiki does not wish to appear stuffy and out-of-touch then it needs articles like this to be kept and expanded not deleted.--Egghead06 (talk) 11:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For sure Keep, there is a huge ammount of press surounding him at the moment. 92.22.17.171 (talk) 11:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because he won a big talent show and he has signed recording contract. --Stryn^(t) 14:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect For now per WP:1E. If he becomes hugely famous and releases music down the line and gains notability away from the show then sure. Right now however, remembering WP:CRYSTAL, he's known for only being on BGT. Aside: Anyone else suspicious of these multiple 92.22.x IPs who've only ever edited Jai's page? Spyka (talk) 16:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I searched for previous winners of Britain's Got Talent and the 2010 winners, Spellbound, have their own page on Wikipedia, so to be consistent, this article should remain.Kklamb (talk) 18:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFF - Spelbound and its members have had success and big careers outside of BGT, like Susan Boyle, Paul Potts, etc. As it stands the same doesn't apply to Jai. It may in the future, but WP:CRYSTAL Spyka (talk) 18:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for now anyway's, BGT is a big showSuperlightoftruth (talk) 18:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)===[reply]
- This isn't about BGT it's about Jai. Remember WP:ITSA Spyka (talk) 18:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Don't need to say much more then that really. This article deserves to be kept. (Ruth-2013 (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- For what reason? –anemoneprojectors– 19:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - As the winner of a major television show for one thing the person is notable. Then for second he will perform at the royal verity show again a major notable show so clearly this person is notable. As far as I am concerned for these 2 reasons it warrants my keep vote (Ruth-2013 (talk) 19:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Comment, this article could now be merged to List of Britain's Got Talent finalists (series 5) (which needs to be expanded). –anemoneprojectors– 20:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, I strongly urge that it is merged there. –anemone projectors– 00:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in these circumstances CRYSTALBALLERY is entirely appropriate, hence look at WP:MUSICBIO item 2 "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart" - and fwiw and purely impo this nomination should be closed iaw WP:SNOW. Springnuts (talk) 21:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- He hasn't released a single or album. –anemone projectors– 00:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination Koblizek (talk) 23:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Of course this should be kept. The winner invariably forges a career, this is a live, and fluid page. The deletion request is vandelism by supporters of other acts in the TV series. I'd say the deletion request is an act of Troll — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.3.47 (talk • contribs)
Keep: when its decided that all contestants to make the live shows of american idol are notable, i think the winner of the UK's biggest show is too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.250.74 (talk) 06:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Another "other stuff exists" argument. And it might be helpful to note that in the case of The X Factor (a British show like this one), only cotestants who gain notability beyond the show get articles. We have lists of finalists for this reason. And we now have a list for the BGT finalists. Unlike The X Factor, the winner of BGT does not release a single on the night of the final, therefore there's no reason for an article to be created right away, and a list entry would be suffiecient. –anemone projectors– 10:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Suspect delete requests are motivated more by opinions about whether or not Jai deserved to win. Fact is, he did win and is therefore almost certain to be a recording artist as well as further live and television appearances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveguy (talk • contribs) 10:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, WP:CRYSTAL. And FYI I am very happy he won. –anemone projectors– 10:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (changed from redirect) to List of Britain's Got Talent finalists (series 5) per WP:1E. - JuneGloom Talk 13:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all of the BGT finalists pages together apart from Jal who should have his own because he is the winner and could do another single plus he is in RVS --Superlightoftruth (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (changed from keep) to List of Britain's Got Talent finalists (series 5). --Stryn^(t) 04:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Since winning Britain's Got Talent he has appeared as a guest on several day-time television shows. Daybreak, Lorraine and This Morning. Whether he makes it or not, he has been asked to perform for the Queen at the Royal Variety show, not many people are asked to perform at this event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markgwinter (talk • contribs) 11:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Being interviewed doesn't make someone notable. –anemone projectors– 12:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But winning Britain's Got Talent and the mere fact that he has been asked to perform for the queen does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markgwinter (talk • contribs) 19:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - much as though my heart says delete, as he was my least favourite competitor in the final, it seems clear to me that he deserves his own page. Tris2000 (talk) 14:43, 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) 03:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Girls Club: Reunion

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

Prod was "contested" (in other words it was removed without a reason). The article contents are located on the individual season pages. This skittle article is not necessary. —Mike Allen 22:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely unsourced and crufty. No other reality show articles have reunion articles like this. Nate • (chatter) 16:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree from above. I had nominated the article for speedy deletion several days ago, however, the creator removed the template. AJona1992 (talk) 19:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you just proposed deletion (if I knew you had already I wouldn't used that). I won't be using the proposed deletion method in the future, it's useless. Either people remove the prod without trying to improve the article/state a reason, or they wait until the 6th day to remove, then you have to start all over with AFD for 7 more days. —Mike Allen 00:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — —Mike Allen 23:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 00:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above per MikeAllen (talk · contribs), Mrschimpf (talk · contribs), AJona1992 (talk · contribs) and Disavian (talk · contribs). JJ98 (Talk) 04:14, 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Hero's Journey

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

Not yet produced play with no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The play has not yet been produced as far as I can tell. There are no reviews, or any sort of coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. The only source provided is self-referential. --MelanieN (talk) 17:01, 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) 03:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywoodn't

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

Newly written play without even a proposed production date and certainly no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The play has yet to be produced, and not surprisingly, has generated no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Two sources are provided, both self-referential. Apparently the play has gotten no outside coverage at this time. --MelanieN (talk) 17:09, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Krakow-info

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

I've looked for sources for this website but the best available are [1] [2] and being mere mentions I don't think the site meets WP:WEB. The Scholar search could have something more, but the articles are behind paywalls - frankie (talk) 20:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I am open to somebody explaining why this website meets WP:WEB. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with Piotrus, the author (User:Krakowski) needs to explain why this website meets WP:WEB. I created this article to attempt to clean up a mess at the AfD for Marek Strzała. Ajh1492 (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The more I look on the web, I find a plethora of primary sources that should used instead of using someone's travel guide. So I'm updating my opinion from weak delete to delete. Ajh1492 (talk) 01:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I have already stated before, 482 Wikipedia articles about Kraków feature Krakow-info website as our resource base.[3] One must acknowledge this fact and adjust their strategy accordingly. — Krakowski (talk) 23:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being used as a source does not mean that the source itself is notable in the manner that WP:GNG and WP:WEB contemplate, and in this case the coverage that could indicate such notability is near non-existent - frankie (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could say the same thing about [www.cracow-life.com www.cracow-life.com] or [www.explore-krakow.com www.explore-krakow.com] or one of many others. I just don't know why those 482 articles didn't use primary sources (like http://www.krakow.pl/english/ or http://www.polska.pl/) instead of rehashing someone's travel guide as the primary source? Ajh1492 (talk) 01:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you mention it, Magiczny Kraków (http://www.krakow.pl/english/) should also have a stub in Wikipedia because it is being used in 410 articles as a credible source of info about the city.[4] Please read what the Primary source stands for. Krakow-info is not a primary but a Secondary source. I see absolutely no reason why we cannot be more thorough in our coverage of the local subject-specific work-horses than Lonely Planet and Frommer's. — Krakowski (talk) 07:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think NONE of them should have a stub. By your logic every webpage cited in an article needs a stub. No, definitely not! Ajh1492 (talk) 12:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of articles that it is being used in has no effect on whether the subject meets notability for an article, which requires significant coverage about the subject to be presented - frankie (talk) 13:55, 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) 03:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael A. Joyce

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

Although previously kept I think our current standards in WP:POLITICIAN would indicate that this is a non-notable local politician. There is not significant press coverage. Tassedethe (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails the general notability guideline.. --Anthem 21:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 00:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:POLITICIAN. His only claim to fame is as a past member of the town council of a medium-sized town. Google News Archive finds a fair amount about the Michael A. Joyce who is an election commissioner in Boston, but only a couple of passing mentions about this guy. --MelanieN (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a local politician who is not subject of substantive coverage in reliable sources. Hekerui (talk) 14:27, 11 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) 04:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vinci Vogue Anžlovar

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

Unsourced BLP from 2006, created by an SPA. Subject is a Slovenian director, Slovenian WP his only slightly more material, but still no sources. Google isn't forthcoming. If reliable sources show up at some point, the article can be recreated, but we shouldn't create biographies and hope notability shows up. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 19:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Google is, in fact, very forthcoming, as can be seen by following the news and books search links above. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Director of Grandma Goes South (Babica gre na jug), one of the best-known Slovenian films and the first full-length film in the independent Slovenia, and has been awarded Viktor Award (the highest Slovenian media award) for his work.[5][6] --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Eleassar, could you add that in the article? Clearly notable. --Tone 20:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 22:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's a quite famous film director and public figure in Slovenia. Viator slovenicus (talk) 11:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability established, per Eleassar ^{my talk}. Evalpor (talk) 16:11, 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) 18:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jón Krosslá Poulsen

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

Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG, and having only ever played in the non-fully-pro Faroese League, he also fails WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 23:42, 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) 18:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Monty Gimpel

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

PROD removed by IP, no reason stated. Fails WP:FOOTY as he has not played at a fully-professional level. Also fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant media coverage beyond the routine WP:NTEMP stuff. --Jimbo^[online] 16:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --Jimbo^[online] 16:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG as the coverage is not significant, just detailing his transfer to Leeds, which fails WP:NTEMP. Also fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 23:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Having never played in a fully pro league, he clearly fails WP:NSPORT. There is insufficient coverage to merit keeping this article under WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:36, 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) 03:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drying of herbs and spices

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

This article consists of How-To information. RJFJR (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The award-winning Encyclopedia of Food and Culture has a section about this topic. Scholarly papers such as Effect of drying on the volatile constituents of thyme and sage seem easy to find. The topic is therefore both notable and capable of improvement per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination seems to revolve around the fact that it's written like a how-to article. This can be fixed; the article itself shouldn't be deleted.KVDP (talk) 11:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTHOW. Any sourceable information about the effects of drying on potency, etc., or about significant methods of drying can easily find a home in Spice#Handling spices or some similar place. There's no such information here, however. Deor (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Would fail WP:NOTHOWTO, except that it's nowhere near good enough for that. This is poorly and carelessly written, although proof-reading could fix that. More seriously though, there's just no content here. "This moment in time [for collecting] is different for each plant." tells nothing useful to the level of an encyclopedia article. We can do better, and we should start by ruthlessly throwing away anything this poor. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is almost a classic case of a badly-written article on a verifiable and notable topic, which can be improved through the normal editing process. Admittedly, it is mostly "hot to" cruft, but that can be fixed. Bearian (talk) 17:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it going to be re-written though? Going by past experience, I very much doubt it. Should it be re-written in some distant future, nor do I see anything in the present article that's worth keeping around until that happy day. In the meantime, we'd be better without. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete–In this case I have to agree that this is not an appropriate article for Wikipedia. If the article were about why drying is beneficial, then that would be a different matter. But it is entirely a how-to guide and would need a complete re-write. There's nothing here to rescue. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not a suitable topic per WP:NOTHOW. The only references listed are a WikiHow article and an article titled "How to dry herbs" from about.com! Neither one qualifies as a reliable source. The only way to fix this article would to make it about the history and use of dried herbs and spices, and that information would be far more appropriately included in those articles directly. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 12:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: blatant WP:HOWTO. That a new article with this title might be created from scratch that is not a howto guide, does not change the fact that this article should be deleted because it blatantly and pervasively violates WP:NOT. I would further point out what that "our [REAL] editing policy" (which CW pipes to only an irrelevant section of) actually states is that such material "is fundamentally inappropriate for Wikipedia". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete please NOTHOWTO. Agree with JimMillerJr that encyclopedic content on dried herbs and spices belongs into those parent articles. Hekerui (talk) 14:32, 11 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) 18:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mehdi Abeid

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

WP:PROD concern: Player fails WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE. The stats listed are false. He has only played with Lens' reserve team in the French amateur leagues. Meph^talk 15:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 23:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - player fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL, recreate if/when he makes his pro debut. Giant Snowman 23:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 23:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Having never played in a fully pro league, and due to a lack of significant coverage, he clearly fails both WP:GNG, and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:39, 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 Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). User:Russavia ^{User talk:Russavia} 20:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Bondarchuk

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

Appears to be a non-notable actor who appeared in some TV shows. I am unable to find reliable source coverage. But I do not speak Russian, so there may be such sources in Russian. Barring the inclusion of those, the article does not seem justified, as she fails both WP:GNG and most of her roles according to her IMDB listing (which is not a reliable source per se, but all we have to work with) appear to be peripheral bit parts. The only one that may be a bigger role that I can find is this one: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1601883/ But I did a search on that name and her name and didn't find any news coverage, etc. I should also note that show was produced in 2010 according to IMDB, and she died in 2009 according to the Wikipedia article. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. A fairly well-known actress; plenty of sources in Russian exist (here's one for a start).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 6, 2011; 14:57 (UTC)
Comment - Thank you for turning up the Russian source, and for fixing the spelling of her name on the article. With the new spelling I can also confirm reliable sources and as such would like to withdraw the nomination. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 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. (non-admin closure) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move Closer to Your World

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

This page was recently nominated for AfD, but the nomination was closed as "moot" due to sockpuppetry. The article itself is about a television news music theme which has reportedly been used by various television stations. However, the article is predominantly unsourced, and several of the sources are personal or fan-type pages which would not normally be considered reliable sources. The article also appears to violate copyright by including the entire lyric to the theme song. Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google Books and other searches convince me that the topic is notable, and thus an article about it could exist; e.g. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. It seems to have been used for many years, on many TV stations, so I think it's notable. The 'copyvio' is a non-issue here; just remove it. Ditto for the trivia and unreferenced junk. But I think it's quite possible to fix this via normal editing, rather than deletion. Chzz ► 13:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As discussed ad nauseum (so I won't repeat the details), the song has been recorded by numerous notable groups and has independent reliable coverage in several textbooks to demonstrate notability. Sources related to the song (for info, but not notability), such as the production companies and stations, can be used to fill in a few details. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This source certainly seems to indicate that this is notable. Qrsdogg (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - My position from the first AFD remains unchanged. -- Whpq (talk) 16:37, 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 userfied - needs some coverage before this can be hosted in mainspace. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lucifer's Unholy Desire

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

Non-notable film lacking GHits and GNEWs of substance. Film is in development and not yet filming. Fails WP:NOTFILM. ttonyb (talk) 13:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This film is fully completed, having debuted at the Pittsburgh Horror Film Festival on June 3, 2011 as indicated in the article and supported in the reference. Cind.amuse 17:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or Userfy or Incubate without prejudice for a few months, as the reference indicates that it was the trailer for this film that has screened at the festival and that "post-production is scheduled to be complete as early as this fall".[12] The reference is very decent coverage, but as we have only a trailer and not yet a completed film, and as the production does not have persistent coverage, this one does not quite qualify as a possible exception to WP:NFF. NOTE: It is to be granted that because of the writer and director being Pennsylvania's 48th State House District 2010 Republican nominee, the trailer IS getting a lot of genre attention... and I have added them as sources to the article. Fair is fair. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you check the IMDB page, 2 articles have been written on various sites within 1-2 days of screening the trailer at the Pittsburgh, Film Festival. This film was written and directed by a politician who ran for State Rep in Pennsylvania twice. This page is a work in progress and as I have time to edit it and add more things, The notability will show itself. Tearstar (talk) 17:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)*:[reply]
I did more than just look at the IMDB news links... I searched out more articles myself and added them TO the article as sources when I did cleanup for style and format.[13] I gladly agree that the film's production is "beginning" to get decent coverage, and that more is appearing on an almost daily basis. But what must be acknowledged is that we do not yet have the completed film, only the trailer. We then look to WP:NFF to see how to deal with articles on unreleased films... and then decide if its production has had enough enduring and peristant coverage as unreleased film to merit being one of those rare exceptions to WP:NFF. Today and tomorrow... no. But over the following weeks, quite likely. I also agree that the topic will almost assuredly prove its notability and be warmly accepted by Wikipedia some short while down the road. Just not quite yet. I understand that it is a work-in-progress and respect your wish to continue working on it. But the place to do that for articles which are not quite ready for mainspace would be either a userspace or in the incubator. I have some experience with film article, and I'll be quite happy to assist. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. I agree with Michael's recommendation and comment above. As soon as we have significant coverage in reliable and independent sources, we can move the article to the mainspace. Best regards, Cind.amuse 00:15, 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) 18:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED factions

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

This list violates our policy on fictional content, as it is plot only coverage. The political factions within Mobile Suit Gundam SEED is not an encyclopaedic topic as there is no significant secondary coverage in reliable sources about it, resulting it in failing the general notability guideline. Anthem 09:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, thus failing WP:N. Edison (talk) 02:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect with a consideration to merge content to Mobile Suit Gundam SEED and Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny. —Farix (t | c) 01:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Mobile Suit Gundam SEED factions to Mobile Suit Gundam SEED and Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny, I doubt the average reader will use List of when it comes to this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without significant coverage in reliable independent sources, there's no neutral way to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No out-of-universe context or notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:OR. --Crusio (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are no reliable third-party sources to presume that Wikipedia should have an article about the fictional factions. The topic of the list does not meet the criteria of general notability guideline and the list has not been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, failing the criteria of notability for stand-alone lists as well. The subject can only be covered as a plot-only description of a fictional work because it has no reception and significance in reliable third-party sources. Since the subject falls into what Wikipedia is not, it also fails the criteria of appropriate topics for lists. There is nothing valuable to keep since the article seems to rely on primary sources and original research by synthesis to generate the content. The article title is an implausible search term, so I do not believe that a redirect is an acceptable outcome. Jfgslo (talk) 15:13, 11 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) 18:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheyenne Monique

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

Delete. Notability is not yet established for this actress. Does not meet the general notability guidelines or topical notability guidelines for entertainers. Film roles appear to be that of an extra, credited on IMDb as "Girl at bar" and "Juvenile delinquent". Clearly has a lot of ambition, however, notability is not yet established, inline with the criteria accepted by Wikipedia. (As a side note, I've seen this article pass through before, but I can't remember the name under which it was previously created.) Cind.amuse 08:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close. Putting this up for AfD 39 minutes after a new user creates the page is way too early for an AfD. Cheyenne probably is not notable, but lets give the new user a chance and not a stick to the head. Bgwhite (talk) 01:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A few bit parts and some entrepreneurial spirit, but nothing from reliable sources to show encyclopedic notability. (Also, to comment on the recommendation above, there is no indication that any of the conditions for speedy keep apply in this case.) --Kinu ^t/_c 19:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no coverage in reliable sources about her. Her few roles have been decidedly minor. This misses the inclusion guidelines by a wide mile. It doesn't matter if the article has only been created for 39 minutes; when a subject so clearly misses the notability mark, we aren't going be doing anybody any favours by pretending it might get kept by delaying the deletion for a few hours. -- Whpq (talk) 16:44, 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) 18:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tiaminou Moussa-Baba

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

PROD declined. Concern was: Unreferenced. Has not played in a fully professional league team. Fails WP:NFOOTY Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a search of this comprehensive German football site has no mention of him, so he has probably never played in a fully-pro league, failing WP:NFOOTBALL, as well as WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 18:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 23:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as unverifiable. If his appearance for SpVgg Unterhaching were confirmed, he would meet WP:NSPORT since the 3rd Liga is fully pro. As it stands however, he fails all relevant notability guidelines. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:49, 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 speedy delete per G3 by Hadal. (NAC) Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 04:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Marland

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

Not sure this person even exists. There is another Earl of Suffolk at the time when he is supposed to be one. CS Larae (talk) 07:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be made up.--Michig (talk) 10:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this looks like a hoax. Quasihuman | Talk 22:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G3; tagged as such. All I could find after a Gsearch was Wikipedia and mirrors. It doesn't help that the creator hasn't been here in over four years. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 23:30, 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) 18:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Day By Day Armageddon

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

The book fails all 5 criteria of WP:NBOOK and a large part of the article had been directly taken from the author's preface in the book. A Google search did not turn up any awards for the book or the author, and none of the other 3 criteria of WP:NBOOK have been met. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete you beat me to this nomination - I find no evidence of notability for the book, nor for the author. He has been interviewed in Kirkus Reviews, but that's not enough on its own to confer notability - and definitely not for the book. --bonadea contributions talk 05:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 06:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. This states that it was a best-seller and a cult classic, and this heaps high praise on it. However, neither seems to be a reliable source. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Oped News is not a reliable source. And a careful reading of the Oped article indicates that the novel was not a "bestseller" in the sense that we would use to establish notability. It was a bestseller relative to other books published by Permuted Press. It's unclear that antimusic is a reliable source, but in any case, the coverage there is far from substantial, and the assertion that this is has a cult following would need more than just an assertion from this one article. I could not find any such coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 16:56, 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) 18:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

J. Robert Fowler

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

Non-notable secondary character in a movie and book. The article is currently nearly all plot. No real-world commentary on the importance of the character or scholarly discussion of the character. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 07:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The fictional character as a subject does not meet the general notability guideline and, with no reception or significance for the fictional character, the content of the article can only be a plot-only description of a fictional work. The article has no real-world context, it's written from an in-universe perspective and all text is unreferenced, so there is no material to keep. Jfgslo (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No out-of-universe notability, unsourced OR plot. --Crusio (talk) 14:30, 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 Redirect to Gilbert Public Schools. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Playa Del Rey Elementary

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

Doesn't meet the general notability guideline. There's a significant straight-up copy of a press release that doesn't belong too. Raymie (t • c) 05:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G11. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline Now it's been stubbified, the G11 doesn't apply, if it ever did. Ged UK 15:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable elementary school. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gilbert Public Schools. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Schools. That is what we have done in hundreds of AFDs in recent years for random elementary schools: we redirect them to an article about the school district. Edison (talk) 02:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Edison. tedder (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per usual practice. I have already merged and sourced the key content. TerriersFan (talk) 19:31, 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 18:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inverzia

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

Does not pass WP:ALBUM: album was released by non-notable band. (Wikipedia does not have an article for the band) Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding the article "Stanem sa", a single from this album, to this nomination. It asserts to having the most expensive music video made in Slovakia, but I've not been able to verify this. Thryduulf (talk) 09:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete album and single. No evidence of notability for either. Thryduulf (talk) 09:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both album and single "Stanem sa" pages as fail WP:NALBUMS and eligible for speedy deletion under criterion A9. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaela den (talk • contribs)
- Comment. A9 requires both that the band have no article, and that the article about the musical recording make no claim to significance. The article about the single claims it's significance and so A9 is not applicable. This AfD about the album had already been started when I became aware of the article. Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, the album as nom and single per Thryduulf. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, not notable. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per WP:NMUSIC. If the band isn't notable enough to survive a prod (it expired over a year ago), the band's music definitely isn't. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 23:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete both per WP:SPEEDY#A9 as musical recording where the artist's article does not exist. Hekerui (talk) 15:04, 11 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 WWE Money in the Bank. (non-admin closure) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Money in the Bank (2011)

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

Future event that does not yet have significant coverage in independent reliable sources WP:GNG. I tried to redirect it [14] but that was reverted as "vandalism" [15] Chzz ► 04:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I think Chzz is in the right here; it is a future event that doesn't pass WP:GNG just yet. Don't delete the history; we will probably recreate this article after the event happens (or as it is happening). As for the reverter, I'm thinking fish... Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Userfy until such time as there are enough reliable sources to meet the General Notability Guidelines. No reason to remove the history, as currently the article sits as a template that is used for most standard WWE PPV articles. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect That's all I'll say.--Voices in my Head WWE 15:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep due to proximity of event and likelihood of forthcoming sources.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Since no matches are announced yet, this should redirect to WWE Money in the Bank until one feud starts to pop up. 161.130.178.7 (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect--SteamIron 06:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect-- to List of WWE pay-per-view events ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 05:47, 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.

Rowley Jefferson

The result was Redirect. Previous consensus was to redirect to List of Diary of a Wimpy Kid characters. I see no reason why not to follow the existing consensus as no new arguments have been presented. If the redirection gets reversed without evidence of a change in consensus, feel free to ask an administrator for protection. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article is currently nearly all plot, with a minor blurb that could be merged into the article for the film before deletion. Character does not seem to have received any significant coverage or discussion, and the quality of the sources used in the article does not seem up to our guidelines. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The previous AFD closed as "redirect to List of Diary of a Wimpy Kid characters". Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 07:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close as the nom not asking for deletion, and editorially redirect per the first AfD outcome. I don't see anything here worth merging into the list of characters article, but it should remain as a redirect search term and there's no harm in letting non-admins see the history. Jclemens (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see how nominating this at AfD without explicitly saying redirect or merge qualifies as not asking for deletion. I would assume that if one is adding something to AfD, one need not explicitly write Delete. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Diary of a Wimpy Kid characters: The fictional character does not meet the general notability guideline and the content is mostly a plot-only description of a fictional work, so there is no reason to keep this article around. As most of the content uses primary or unreliable sources, there is no material worth keeping. But, since the fictional character is already covered in List of Diary of a Wimpy Kid characters and since there is no additional description in the article title, which makes it a plausible search term, a redirect is a suitable outcome. Jfgslo (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have a suggestion, why don't we merge and redirect as was suggested last time? Dloh cierekim 00:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rowley_Jefferson&action=historysubmit&diff=398100356&oldid=356063421 This was done by Pyrrhus16 and then reverted 7 months later by an anon. Might I suggest redirecting once again and protecting the thing? Dloh cierekim 00:51, 11 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 Diary of a Wimpy Kid characters. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Heffley

AfDs for this article:

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

Article is currently nearly all plot, with a minor blurb that could be merged into the article for the film before deletion. Character does not seem to have received any significant coverage or discussion, and the quality of the sources used in the article does not seem up to our guidelines. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The previous AFD closed as "redirect to List of Diary of a Wimpy Kid characters". Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need another discussion about it then ? --Anthem 15:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus may have changed. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 07:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With two films and five books, and another one of each on the way, there may well be scope for a decent, referenced article about the main character of this series however this is not it. It should either be redirected or stubbed without prejudice to becoming a proper article if good sources can be found and used. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Diary of a Wimpy Kid characters: While the article is mostly a plot-only description of a fictional work, the fictional character doesn't seem to meet the general notability guideline, the majority of the content appears to be original research by synthesis and only one sentence is properly referenced, the character is already described at List of Diary of a Wimpy Kid characters and, given the prominence of the character in Diary of a Wimpy Kid, it is a plausible search term and an appropriate redirect. Jfgslo (talk) 14:17, 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 18:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diary of a Wimpy Kid: The Last Straw (film)

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

We don't make articles on everything that could be made. Right now this is too soon. If released, it might pass the notability guidelines for films, but until then it is all guesses. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this was merely a redirect until an anon IP began glopping information into it. Propose to revert to a redirect to Diary of a Wimpy Kid: The Last Straw#Possible film as is standard in these cases. Elizium23 (talk) 04:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That would work, but it may need to be protected if this keeps happening. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRYSTAL ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 20:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a borderline hoax. The creator doesn't even sound sure that this book will turn into a film. I couldn't find any such sources either. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 23:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It was redirected to Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Rodrick Rules (film)#Sequel which has one sentence related to a proposed sequel. Bostick said he was "90% sure it would be made". It can easily be created when reliable information about another sequel comes to light. —Mike Allen 07:40, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isocentric technique

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

This page is completely unsourced and nonsensical. It gives little information about the topic. Ryan Vesey (talk) 04:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G1 and A1. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do not speedy delete I have contested the speedy deletion as the topic is not nonsense: isocentre is a perfectly legitimate term in radiation therapy and "isocentric technique" scores 2500 hits on Google Books. The article undoubtedly needs cleaning up, but that's quite different. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 08:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- G1 applies only to the article as is, not the topic. If, for example, I were to write an article on rabbits and only put "hoppity hop hop" that would still qualify as G1. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

G1 applies to "Pages consisting entirely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history." This is not the case here -- I was easily able to determine what the article is about. As I said, it badly needs cleaning up. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 11:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probable keep, possibly expand or possibly merge with Radiation therapy. It was clearly never a G1, as it was in plain English (G1 is for articles which are all gibberish or incoherent text - not articles which may be factually nonsense, but are written in correct English). And, like Sergeant Cribb, I was quickly able to discover what it is about -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could this page be userfied to someone who has the time and knowledge about this topic to improve it? I used Wikichecker to see who have made the most edits to Radiation therapy and I found Graham87 with 82 edits, he appears to be totally blind and doesn't list it in any of his interests. Next was Jellytussle this user had 36 edits and all of his/her edits seem to be related to cancer. I think Jellytussle would be a good candidate, but he/she is a very inactive editor right now. Ryan Vesey (talk) 14:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I didn't have problem understanding what it said. It's stuff being taught to students, so uncertain if it acually requires references per Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines, but a glance at PubMed pulls up hundreds of articles, though largely they just assume the reader knows what it is. Narayanese (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since Wikipedia is written for the reader, would you be willing to rewrite this page in a way that is understandable to everyone. The page needs to define what the beams are, it needs to either describe or wikilink to gantry and collimator, and it should describe the modern linac. Is the isocentric technique the only technique? What is it used for specifically. What is radiation treatment (this is wikilinked, which is ok but the article should show in some way). Does anybody know what the image that was once included on this page was or should the red arrows, blue arrow, etc. be removed. This page will probably be worth something if it can be changed in a way that leaves the reader with more answers than questions. Ryan Vesey (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The medical courses I've taken are few and basic, so I've only briefly heard about this type of techniques. Found the image on a mirror site and tried to work around the sourcing issue. Narayanese (talk) 07:29, 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 redirect to Diary of a Wimpy Kid (series). Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diary of a Wimpy Kid (book 6)

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

Does not seem to pass the guidelines for books. Book has not been published yet, so falls under WP:CRYSTAL. May qualify for a merger or redirect to the series, if something can be cited. Previous deletion debate speedily closed, but the speedy close rationale does not apply here. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Previous deletion debate here. Also, Diary of a Wimpy Kid: The Stress Adventure may need to be deleted as well. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect both to Diary of a Wimpy Kid (series) until more information is known. There's a pretty good chance the book will indeed be released, but right now it violates WP:TOOSOON. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 04:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm totally on the fence on this one. This was only due to no edit summary. Clearly the book will be notable when it comes out. But right now all we have confirmed is a date, no title. Redirect would be a decent idea, but not sure if many people would search "Diary of a Wimpy Kid (book 6)", so that might be useless and the other title is unconfirmed, so we may be misleading people by redirecting that, as if it is going to be the actual title. I'll weigh in more when I get more ideas flowing from others. CTJF83 04:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: For what it's worth, this article has been speedily deleted at least twice and prodded at least once. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Diary of a Wimpy Kid (book 6). There is not enough information for an article.
Speedy delete Diary of a Wimpy Kid: The Stress Adventure as blatant hoax. There is nothing in the "references" to demonstrate that the alleged title is real and not made up the idiots who always write hoaxes about forthcoming Wimpy Kid books. This must not be redirected as that would be to legitimise a hoax title for a real subject. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note. There is already a Diary of a Wimpy Kid 6 which is already redirected. That certainly seems to establish a good precedent for redirecting. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Diary of a Wimpy Kid (series) for now. No reliable sources yet. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:23, 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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Names of Lithuanian places in other languages

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

Wikipedia is not a directory and not a dictionary and this list will probably never be comprehensive. All those various name should already be included in the particular articles and redirects and I see not point in listing them separately De728631 (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a WP:DIRECTORY that is vague in definition (How many other languages? The horizontal width of the screen can only handle ~5, which ones make the cut?). jorgenev 16:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's those languages which have been spoken in the territory of what is now Lithuania (we're not listing the Japanese for Vilnius, for example). The page is a list of alternative local names (present or past) which, I agree, ought to be listed in the individual articles. Unfortunately in the past certain editors have tried to suppress this information by removing it from the articles (I won't go into why, though it's a motivated by a kind of nationalist sensitivity that seems to afflict Wikipedians of various nations). Once all the information is included in the individual articles, and we can be sure there isn't going to be another campaign to remove it, then I agree this page might be considered redundant. But until then we should keep it - there are plenty of similar lists around, and the information should not be destroyed just because it's imperfectly presented.--Kotniski (talk) 17:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And where do we draw the line? How far back do we go in time? By your logic we would need to include all the different placenames of all populated places in Lithuania that ever existed from probably back in the Dark Ages until today; which would make this list overly long and eventually senseless. And how are we going to be sure that there won't be any more editing campaigns to "clean" the individual articles? We can't ever be sure of that. It's the nature of Wikipedia that certain editors are biased and will unconstructively remove or change content and such edits with an agenda can be dealt with. But having a central register of names won't change the behaviour of those editors and we don't destroy information that can be presented where it really belongs, i.e. the articles. De728631 (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we delete this page before moving the information into the articles, then we will have destroyed the information. And no, of course we won't be including all the names back to the Dark Ages and beyond, only the recorded ones (which is presumably not much more than we have on this list already).--Kotniski (talk) 17:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then where are the sources for the recorded names? I won't challenge them but so far there's only one single reference. And after all this is the English Wikipedia where the English rendering of placenames is the most relevant criterion. De728631 (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - essentially per Kotniski. I'll add that this list has been quite helpful to me personally when doing translation work from other Wikis, particularly since spelling in the sources can vary so much; this provides a useful benchmark. De728631, these names can be easily sourced (in fact in many cases some of them are actually the most common names used in English). Deleting this article would just result in a loss of encyclopedic information, but yes, the names should also be added to the articles themselves. Incidentally there are many articles like this, for example List of German exonyms for places in Latvia, List of German exonyms for places in Slovenia, List of German exonyms for places in the Czech Republic and List of German exonyms for places in Poland, which even has 6 blue linked (9 total) subpages [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], as well as List of cities and towns in East Prussia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't confuse exonyms with this topic. The exonym lists are each based on a single language and any notable placename that appears over here should also be found in those lists (which doesn't make them any more useful in my eyes). And on a related note: why is there even a list of streetnames from Vilnius in this article and not e.g. from Kaunas or Klaipéda? Streets are generally non-notable unless they meet the criteria defined in Wikipedia:Notability (streets, roads, and highways). So even if there are no other records of non-Lithuanian names of streets that is no reason to include the existing ones to Wikipedia. The more I think about it and the more I look into it the more I find this article to be totally arbitrary and mostly based on OR. De728631 (talk) 18:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why the distinction of exonyms is relevant here. Anyway, I agree that probably most of the streets don't belong in there - there might be a couple major ones that do - but that just requires article clean up, not deletion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you prefer lists based on a single language, then the solution is surely to split this one into five separate pages, not to delete it? Though in this case I actually find it more helpful to keep a single table, e.g. so people can compare the German form with the Yiddish, Polish with Russian, etc.--Kotniski (talk) 23:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree that streets should probably go and that the list should and could be cleaned up and sourced, but it is needed. Whenever I research something, translating placenames is one of the biggest challenges. Renata (talk) 19:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and userfy until the information is properly stable on the individual pages. Ma^t_chups 01:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kotniski's and Volunteer Marek's reasoning. Worthwhile presentation of information.--Arxiloxos (talk) 02:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Complies with WP:USEFUL - frankieMR (talk) 02:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, essentially per WP:NOTDIR. And WP:USEFUL is a poor argument since there are "so many useful things that do not belong in an encyclopedia"—Chris!_c/t 04:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That it complies means that this is one of those things that do - frankieMR (talk) 04:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Frankiemr: And how do you think does it comply to WP:Useful? Why do you think that the article is in fact useful in its current form? De728631 (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep per Kotniski and Volunteer Marek. WP:NOTDIR does not apply as this is not a "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics" or anything of the like and it is discriminate.--Oakshade (talk) 05:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Copy to Wiktionary seems like something Wiktionary should have, whether or not it exists on Wikipedia. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 06:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does Wiktionary do place names? I wasn't aware that they did. But alternative toponyms are most certainly and very commonly presented here on Wikipedia - it would be going against extremely widespread practice to claim they don't - the only question is how best to present that information (and as already noted, having lists similar to this one is quite common practice).--Kotniski (talk) 08:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I understand that for some people this article looks futile, but for me it is useful and interesting. It gathers a lot of information otherwise difficult to find individually elsewhere and also give a general view to the subject. Not to mention that adding different translations in other (historical or minority) languages in articles about places is often ostracized. I also don't like the idea of copying it to Wiktionary. I'd like it instead to have a written section about the historical and linguistic developement of the country in question. --Lindwurm (talk) 07:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per core WP policy WP:NOTDIR, M.K. (talk) 13:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why WP:NOTDIR has any relevance to this. This isn't directory stuff.--Kotniski (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it wasn't just a table listing different names (i.e. a directory) the article would include encylcopedic information like etymological analyses or reasons for the renaming of particular places from old name X to new name Y. Up to now it's just a simple and ill-defined table and the argument that it may be useful for research doesn't count even because WP is not meant to be a directory. De728631 (talk) 20:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't meant to be a directory but it certainly is a work of reference. There is a clear encyclopedic rationale for inclusion on the table, the topic being the link between the different variations of the names, pertaining a limited set of regions which share a cultural and linguistic bond - frankieMR (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no. In its current form the article is simply unencyclopedic because there is no explanation whatsoever for the different variations of the names nor does it say anything about the origins of the names in the respective languages, etc. And such analyses can't be done in a single article for dozens of placenames but are better off in the main article on the individual town. De728631 (talk) 21:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are countless pages in Wikipedia that are just lists or tables (including many like this, of "exonyms" - if that's really the right term). I don't see any reason to single out this one for destruction.--Kotniski (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I for one would love to single out all of the exonym lists for deletion. —Tamfang (talk) 06:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you said such analysis is better done at the respective entries, but the point of this article is not to provide an analysis of the differences but instead to list those differences, in a manner that pieces of information that have an underlying relevant connection may be found next to each other, and not dispersed over a number of separate articles - frankieMR (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An exonym is the name of a place in a foreign country in the language of another country (e.g "Copenhagen" in English is the exonym of the Danish "København") and personally I don't see any encyclopedic merit in those lists either; there's already been a mass deletion discussion for them with no consensus. At least though they are well-defined and also it doesn't make sense to list all existing names in languages of the world in the article for one specific ___location. In this case however there is a list that arbitrarily combines the various names of places in a single country which are not exonyms per definition so you can't really compare these types of lists. And such a list is better suited for Wiktionary than for this place. De728631 (talk) 21:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already pointed out, these languages are not combined "arbitrarily" - they're languages which are or have been spoken locally, not just five randomly selected languages. And Wikipedia has much, much more information of this type than Wiktionary does (and I'm sure people wanting to know about places would be far more likely to consult an "encyclopedia" than a "dictionary"). --Kotniski (talk) 22:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Linking the names in response to geographical circumstances breaks a dictionary's scope because it provides an academic approach (namely, the interest to link those places in particular with those languages in particular, relying on cultural significance to discriminate) rather than a technical, definition-driven one - frankieMR (talk) 22:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the languages I'm criticising, it's the apparently random selection of places in this list. Listing single neighbourhoods of Vilnius and Kaunas even if they have proper articles is on the verge of WP:Overcategorization. And why are there rivers but no names for prominent hills or lakes? And what is the academic benefit of linking the placenames to their geographical circumstances in a list? A list that consists solely of tables with names is still just a look-up table, directory-style. Doing this encyclopedically would need a proper article and even such an article would quickly become overly long and unfeasible. De728631 (talk) 23:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with and I share what I understand is a concern of the content being potentially indiscriminate. I am not familiar with the subject so to say where the line should be drawn, but certainly I don't think that everything that has been named in these places and languages should be included, and an editorial criteria must be applied by involved editors to resolve that. For what it concerns to the validity of the article, and in response to your second question, an academic benefit of having the names linked according to their geographical ___location could be, for instance, that a concerned researcher may have a reference table where to rely while looking for relevant literature, ever since the geographical and linguistic circumstances make it very possible for such literature to be readily available under a number of different denominations which are not necessarily obvious, even for the instructed. That intention, that exercise of discriminate presentation of content on a subject basis is what makes it encyclopedic, and I would dare to say that it also makes it unsuitable for a standard directory, which is meant to list facts with no other criteria but their mere definition - frankie (talk) 09:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And again you didn't get my point: I'm not questioning the linking of the various names, I am questioning the practice of linking those names in a simple table without any further explanation beyond "these are the names of places in LT in a number of different languages that have been spoken or are still spoken in the country". A reference table like that will still fail WP:NOTDIR because it is still just a naked list that only serves the purpose of presenting those very names. And that alone is not enough for an encyclopedia. Like I said above, an encyclopedia would go into details here, it would provide background information for each of the placenames like e.g. for how long was that name in Yiddish in use and which language version was first recorded in history, etc. De728631 (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe in the future it will, thus making the page even better. But we don't delete pages just because they're not the perfect encyclopedia article they might be. (If you get your way and the page is deleted, that will greatly reduce the chances of a good article coming out of it some day. Meanwhile some information is better than none.)--Kotniski (talk) 17:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point where we disagree. I do see the encyclopedic value of a look-up table when its components have been selected in response to an academic perspective of the subject, rather than just listing any potential item indiscriminately, which is what a directory would do. An extra analysis of the subject would be useful and welcome, although as said before this article might not be the best place to hold such analysis - frankie (talk) 19:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note: if this does somehow get deleted (though I don't think it should) can someone userfiy it in my namespace so that I can add these names to their respective articles so that the information itself won't be lost?Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a copy in my userspace: user:Kotniski/Names of Lithuanian places in other languages. I've also started adding some of the names to the relevant articles - hopefully we won't now get the mass reversions of such additions that we've suffered in the past.--Kotniski (talk) 20:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep. It seems useful as are other articles in Category:Exonyms, but I'd like to see a better rationale for the encyclopedic value. Still, usefulness counts. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I've argued so far is actually all I got, and I concede that it isn't waterproof - frankie (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A real life example: Look at any map of Europe from the 1920s and 1930s and you'll see a city in northeast Poland called "Wilno." Here's an example. Unless you had encyclopedic knowledge of the language variances of these place names, you might not have any idea this is referring to Vilnius, the capitol and largest city in Lithuania. All maps, even English language ones, called it "Wilno" because Poland was the governing body of the city at that time and therefore it was designated the Polish name. The transfer of cities and towns between nations were very contentious issues and knowing the official names at various times in history highlights those important issues. This list is a very encyclopedic tool in the Lithuanian names alone.--Oakshade (talk) 00:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then why doesn't the list tell us anything about the timelines or about which was the official name of which period? And for finding information on ancient placenames like Wilno we've got redirects. De728631 (talk) 18:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This list could give some kind of "timeline," but then again some contemporaries in fact refer to these places in their own language even if not internationally recognized as such, particularly in English (this is English Wikipedia so English readers would be the primary consideration). In Poland, Vilnius is still considered "Wilno." The re-directs are nice, but the names in them are hidden from an overall presentation of this encyclopedic content. That's where this article comes in. --Oakshade (talk) 19:51, 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The main points I get from the above discussion are:

- (PRO) that the article contains useful, factual information of real value to some readers, and

- (CON) that the content should be better sourced and the coverage should be more consistent.

IMO the PRO trumps the CON. If we were to delete all Wikipedia articles that should be better sourced, a significant chunk of Wikipedia would be gone. An article such as this one, being geographical & historical & multi-lingual, cannot be easy to edit. Gradual quality improvement can happen but not rapid transformation. Patience is required. Also the content is going to accumulate gradually so consistent coverage across the board is a pipedream. IMO. Wanderer57 (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - violates WP:NOT#DIRECTORY; only argument for retention is the to-be-avoided "it's useful to me", which is listed among the arguments to avoid! --Orange Mike | Talk 21:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As already mentioned, this information is not the sort of thing you'd find in a "directory". And I can't understand the mentality of people who think "it's useful" is an argument to avoid - what's Wikipedia for if not to be useful?--Kotniski (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

many useful things do not belong in an encyclopedia and are excluded.... A list of all the phone numbers in New York would be useful, but is not included because Wikipedia is not a directory (we have Yellowikis for that). A page simply defining the word useful would be useful, but is not included because Wikipedia is not a dictionary (we have Wiktionary for that). A guide to the best restaurants in Paris would be useful but is not included because Wikipedia is not a travel guide (there is a Wikitravel for that). --Orange Mike | Talk 21:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi OrangeMike: I was not making an "it's useful to me" argument. I'm unlikely to ever personally use the information.

Here is the beginning of the first pillar of Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Five pillars.

"Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers."

The article in question fits reasonably well under the second sentence. Wanderer57 (talk) 22:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wanderer57. WP:NOTDIR seems to be used as an argument in everything that seems vaguely list-like. In this case, these are tables with genuine information being presented in addition to the list. You would not exactly find this information in a dictionary, nor in a travel guide, an etymological dictionary, or even in the respective articles of the places themselves. To put it in another way: you can not transplant the information presented here in any other wikiprojects or merged into an existing article. Nor can the list be transformed into a category, where most lists should be (but not all, I would argue). The aggregation of information itself is educational, the structure it is presented in should not be used as a basis for determining encyclopedic content.-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 13:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. On the whole I think this is a useful article and not a directory, but a collection of information of use to anyone interested in Lithuania and its history. There's nothing indiscriminate about it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:23, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buster Martin

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

Not WP:NOTABLE. - Kittybrewster ☎ 03:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Thinly veiled advertisement for a plumbing firm. Kittybrewster ☎ 03:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are mentioned twice in a 14kb article. Ceoil 11:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 07:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - very well sourced.-- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 08:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Notable as the most notable member of The Zimmers, and in his own right. Fairly good sources, lots of coverage. Ceoil 11:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources already provided demonstrate that the subject is notable. Warden (talk) 21:38, 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 speedy keep. I am withdrawing this AfD nomination - I hadn't found those BBC refs. I hope that between the editors here and myself, we can get this article properly referenced (although I'll need to work on it in a few days when I am next off work) PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shane McNally

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

Does not appear to meet the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Rugby league - he has played 2 games, none of which meet those criteria (see QRL player profile and Rugby League Project Matches played. Although his name appears a lot on GNews, the coverage is basically confirming his position as coach, but does not appear to indicate meeting notability criteria, or the significant coverage as required by the general notability guidelines. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His playing in career in pre-NRL era Queensland is borderline - google news does not cover Australia well in the 80/90s - and the rules on "fully pro league" are difficult to apply to the "everyone is semi-pro" eras of the past. But, his coaching of a English Super League team surely is enough to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS. The-Pope (talk) 05:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rugby league club competition in "Pre-NRL era Queensland" produced national team captains so is thus clearly notable. I guess the wording of those guidelines needs improving to avoid further nominations like this. Plus Super League coach. Easy pass.--Jeff79 (talk) 06:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe that as the coach of Wakefield Trinity Wildcats in the Super League from August 2002 until June 2005, being mentioned in 148 articles at bbc.co.uk, he is notable. Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 06:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 07:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I must admit that I didn't check the BBC's website - and didn't see them on the websearch I did. I notice, however, that the articles I checked out only verify some of the facts in the article - it would be nice if some of you would perhaps look at some of the BBC coverage and cite facts as necessary, and then remove any unsourced facts from the article. I am back at work soon, and as I have 14+ hour days (including travelling) when working, I do not tend to do much Wikipedia work when I'm at work (I need to eat, spend some time with the kids, and ... what was that other thing?... oh yeah, sleep!). In a few days' time, when I am off work again, I am happy to continue doing referencing - and when I have saved this comment, I will in fact close this AfD, as the consensus is clear! Thanks for your input - this is one of those where I made a mistake - and as I say, if you could start referencing the article, then I will continue in a few days if necessary. Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:49, 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) 18:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Todd David Hess

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

There is nothing here that shows notability. The bio is copied from a US gov-PD, source, like a great many military bios; many of them have been for arguably notable people, but this is not--"the .. to perform a cataract extraction via phacoemulsification in the history of the RAF Lakenheath hospital " is very far from it. DGG ( talk ) 03:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I applaud the doctor for his service, but after a good-faith Gsearch I could only find his name in passing. And it doesn't help that the Hess and LRMC section is about the hospital he works at (which there's already an article about), not him. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 04:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 07:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage found in searches, therefore does not meet WP:GNG. Does not meet any criteria set forth in WP:SOLDIER. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per RightCowLeftCoast. Anotherclown (talk) 10:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources just do not establish notability to pass WP:GNG. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 02:49, 11 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. No quorum; no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro e Thiago

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

Notability in question, reference provided is hard to understand if its a blog or news. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 04:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 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) 00:01, 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, Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 07:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Seems to be from O Globo. Other than that I can't help. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reference is about the duo placing in the beach volleyball finals. No mention of their music. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 02:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searching both English and Portuguese sources, I am only finding mp3 downloads, lyrics, social media, and non-notable reviews. The one source listed in the article is about the duo's placement in the beach volleyball finals. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 02:25, 11 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malls in Chandigarh Capital Region

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

Unreferenced article with no obvious notability Sitush (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are numerous articles for list of malls in other regions also, like List of shopping malls in India, List of shopping malls in the Philippines, List of shopping malls in Canada, List of shopping malls in Toronto, List of largest shopping malls in the United States. So there is consensus that list of malls can be made. I would try to improve the article with references.Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 15:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prominent cities in India have smilliar lists, Chandigarh should be allowed to have one.

Dear Sitush, I would be thankful if you stop personally attacking my articles, I would love if some other admin or user review my articles, instead of you. I hope you will co-operate. Thanks. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 15:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, admins don't have any special powers or abilities really then do other experienced users, except that they enforce the consensus of the community on deletions and blocks. See WP:MOP, Sadads (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maheshkumaryadav, please read other stuff exists. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 16:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of shopping malls in India (or one of its sublists if there is a more appropriate one). Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge with List of shopping malls in India, which I've been looking after for a while. I'd be happy to babysit said section, in its rightful place. No need for this to be standalone. Doesn't server visitors. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom or merge, no proof of notability and unreferenced with no serious attempt at trying to prove verifiability, Sadads (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Show me refs and it can have a home at List of shopping malls in India. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Nom comment - I am content to see this merged as per above comments as I am confident it will be in good hands. Wasn't aware of the Indian list, for which my apologies. - Sitush (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Struck out because the primary proposed list maintainer is now unhappy with the content as it stands - Sitush (talk) 16:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is, quite simply, minutiae of the smallest possible kind. Time to have another talk with this user; he has been really trying the patience of the community at large for the past several days. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 12 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:13, 19 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, Sandstein 06:10, 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, Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as per WP:NOTDIR. these lists do not contain hardly any notable entries so having a list of non notable entities is hardly worth it nor notable. LibStar (talk) 02:42, 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 merge to My Gym Partner's a Monkey. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of My Gym Partner's a Monkey characters

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

Only 19 sources. This article does not have enough notably, and no real world or third party coverage to provide it. JJ98 (Talk) 01:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge after a massive trimming. Notable enough to be part of the main article, My Gym Partner's a Monkey, which is not long enough to warrant a separate article for its characters. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that per WP:NNC, notability does not apply to portions of a list or article. Jclemens (talk) 19:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 1) Notability of lists is derived from the list topic, and no one has argued that My Gym Partner's a Monkey is NN--nor would it appear to be. 2) V is met through the use of primary sources. 3) Precedent exists for large lists of NN characters from notable fictional franchises; if nothing else, it's a cleaner alternative than a bunch of tiny character stubs--if we start deleting character lists from notable shows, there will be appropriately increased resistance to merging minor characters into lists. Jclemens (talk) 19:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and 4), since the list article is already a WP:SS breakout of the main series article, per WP:ATD it would be moved back into that article in preference to deletion unless some policy-based deletion rationale had been advanced, which none has yet been. Jclemens (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —JJ98 (Talk) 20:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per our guidelines on plot only coverage. This list is of no encyclopaedic value, and there's no evidence that the characters listed are notable. --Anthem 19:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Plot-only article sourced entirely to primary sources, and overflowing with original research and excessive fannishness. The idea that presenting this stuff in list form gives it a free pass regarding our content policies is absurd. Reyk _YO! 20:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete violates WP:JUSTPLOT because there isn't significant information about reception here. Lists are also expected to meet the general notability guideline that all articles should have someone independent to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article relies exclusively on primary sources and, as such, a great deal of the content appears to be original research by synthesis. The text is written with an in-universe perspective that lacks real-world perspective so it is a plot-only description of a fictional work, material unsuitable for Wikipedia. The list appears to be an unnecessary split of My Gym Partner's a Monkey as the content of the list does not meet the general notability guideline. As the list has not been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, the list does not meet the criteria of notability for stand-alone lists and, since it falls into what Wikipedia is not, it does not meet the criteria of appropriate topics for lists either. Since it is a redundant content fork and all material in the article is taken from primary sources or with original research by synthesis, there is no content that deserves to be merged. Jfgslo (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to My Gym Partner's a Monkey after trimming. I agree with all 4 points presented by Jclemens, but it is true that the target article is not too long, and the list is a bit too detailed. Outright deletion is not a real practical option, since the article contains a good amount of content that corresponds to the standard coverage given to a subject of this kind - frankie (talk) 18:58, 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 keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in Camp Lazlo

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

Clearly, this article does not have enough notability, and no real world coverage to provide it. JJ98 (Talk) 01:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is a typical split-off article from a notable television series article, so insisting on the notability of the characters apart from the series is missing the point. Obviously the characters of a series need to be described in order to have comprehensive coverage of that series, so the only options are to keep as a stand-alone list or to merge to the series article, not to delete outright. It's clearly too long for Camp Lazlo to incorporate it, so stand-alone it is. postdlf (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above - frankie (talk) 17:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —JJ98 (Talk) 20:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there is real-world coverage of some of the characters, and it is currently included in the article. --Malkinann (talk) 23:46, 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 no consensus. There is certainly no way this can lead to a delete outcome. There is some support for merger, but this should be taken further on the talk page. Stifle (talk) 08:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Season 6B

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

Yes, I'm a Doctor Who fan, and yes, I know what this is talking about - but I'm in bafflement as to why there is an encyclopedia entry about what is ultimately one fan's theory about a minor continuity issue (and the paltry reference bears witness to that). The fan himself actually talks about it on the talk page and is amazed himself that this article exists. The whole thing is about something that isn't real and was never made - it exists only in some Doctor Who fans heads. This article may have been there a while, but maybe it's time for some of these over-zealous fans to wake up and smell the coffee? --Tuzapicabit (talk) 01:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this has no indication it is anything to do with Doctor Who. "Season 6B" could refer to any TV programme's second half of season 6. 184.144.168.112 (talk) 05:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although if you read the article rather than just the title, things soon become clear... ╟─Treasury Tag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 10:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete due to sourcing concerns. Whether this exists "in some Doctor Who fans heads" or not is irrelevant to whether or not it deserves an article. The real problem seems to be a lack of references to establish notability under WP:GNG. The Discontinuity Guide could be considered a primary source in this case since its co-author inventend the idea. Searching online gives only one hit that could be deemed reliable, this book mention, which isn't exactly significant coverage. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also support a merge to somewhere relevant (The War Games or The Two Doctors would seem to make the most sense). Alzarian16 (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note:Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who notified Alzarian16 (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There is certainly a great deal of OR in the article, but this is a fan theory that is talked about in the citable Discontinuity Guide source and the BBC's own website. And it is a "time-frame" in which some Who novels etc. are set. However, there is admittedly very little that isn't OR to say on the subject, and really it would need someone with the Discontinuity Guide in front of them to clear up what is citable and what isn't. U-Mos (talk) 00:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because "a popular fan theory" needs way more direct, significant coverage in order to save it from being classified as something that someone made up one rainy afternoon. ╟─Treasury Tag►Syndic General─╢ 10:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per U-Mos; the Discontinuity Guide is a reliable third-party source, although it is the originator of the theory, and the adoption of the theory by the writers of Players and World Game would lead it to be a little notable; if not keep, then merge into The War Games Sceptre ^(talk) 11:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Discontinuity Guide is a reliable third-party source, although it is the originator of the theory – could you run that by me again please? ╟─Treasury Tag►consulate─╢ 12:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Argh, my mind totally dropped on that. It's a third-party RS for Doctor Who things, but not third-party on its own theory. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment if it helps at all, BBC has a page on it 188.221.79.22 (talk) 19:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Calling this "just one fan's theory" is an unfair assessment. As the article mentions, there are two tie-in books set in this hypothetical period, written by one of the script writers for the TV show itself. There are other examples on tardis.wikia that show that it has been adopted and used by multiple authors for different media, including not only the two books, but comics, short stories and an audio book. Regardless of whether this may "only exist in some fans heads", I'd argue that this is a significant and notable example of fanon. fraggle (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to an appropriate place - Doctor Who coverage on the project is huge, the theory sounds notable enough that its existence should be mentioned somewhere, whereever best makes sense among the slew of these articles.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge somewhere The sources currently used are nice enough, but I'm not sure they provide enough coverage to warrants a whole articl. I'm at a bafflement to where it can be redirected/merged to, though. – Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 14 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intel Other Products

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

Delete as an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list, and I don't think its a viable redirect either. Some of the individual products may be article-worthy, but not a list. Nolelover^Talk^/^Contribs 01:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per above. Monterey Bay (talk) 02:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a random list that might as well have been handwritten on scrap paper. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 04:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If delete it it's OK for me.. Thanks..Mustafa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mustafa1702 (talk • contribs) 11:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 18:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Davis

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

This MMA fighter has competed in only a handful of professional fights, none for a notable organization. His biggest "claim to fame" is appearing on an MMA-based reality TV show in which he injured both his eyes such that he said he will never be able to compete again. Google search provides links to his own web page, fight records, and some videos, but no/few notable pages. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —TreyGeek (talk) 01:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 07:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MMANOT. Papaursa (talk) 19:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As discussed at the talk page of WP:MMANOT appearing on TUF is not sufficient for notability and he clearly fails to meet the criteria of WP:MMANOT. Astudent0 (talk) 14:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the previous comments. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 15:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley Murch

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

MMA fighter with no notable fights with no notable organizations. His only "claim to fame" is an appearance in a MMA related reality TV show in which he was injured. Google search provides fight records and not much else. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —TreyGeek (talk) 01:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 07:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He is an up and coming fighter who owns and coaches at a well respected MMA Training camp in the UK. Also I will be adding much more and will keep in very up to date. Please do not delete. --Dargla (talk) 08:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an unsourced BLP of a fighter who fails the notability criteria at WP:MMANOT. Papaursa (talk) 19:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fighter who fails to meet WP:MMANOT. "Up and coming" doesn't make him notable nor does running a gym. Lacks reliable sources to support any claims of notability. Astudent0 (talk) 15:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nn fighter and article needs reliable sources. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:N. Aside from an interview, the article doesn't gain much notability for his matchs. SwisterTwister (talk) 06:12, 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 keep. Please do some WP:BEFORE next time, not a hoax (non-admin closure) CTJF83 00:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diary of a Wimpy Kid: The Stress Adventure

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

This article seems like a hoax, the reference says nothing about the title. Baseball Watcher 00:38, 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 delete. Oops, first hit the relist button by mistake Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moxietype

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

No independent coverage. FuFoFuEd (talk) 06:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent secondary sources to establish notability per WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Msnicki (talk) 13:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreferenced, no indication of notability. Dialectric (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like it fails the WP:GNG. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:28, 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) 00:36, 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 merge to Michael Lerner (environmentalist) . T. Canens (talk) 06:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Smith Farm Center for Healing and the Arts

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

Not encyclopaedic, reads like an advertisement, no notability and unreferenced. Benny Digital ^{Speak Your Brains} 10:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 11:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the nominator makes a case for fixing not deleting (and I have made a start). Notability seems to be the issue. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 20:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As above, indeed I do! Always much happier to see a good improved article than none, and if it's notable and has sources, so much the better. As such, I won't !vote until the end of the week, to see what happens. Benny Digital ^{Speak Your Brains} 09:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, you are deemed already to have !voted delete. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 10:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to be notable. The only linked Reliable Source cited at the article, a Washington Post obituary of the founder, does not mention the center (at least not in the abbreviated free version linked to). Google News Archive finds many mentions by the Washington Post (which is, after all, the center's hometown newspaper) but they are just that, mentions; none provide significant coverage. --MelanieN (talk) 20:36, 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) 00:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. Since the nom seems to be waffling a little, let's give this a few more days. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

waffling? I'd be offended if it wasn't very true... I'd now say keep under gf with the new refs. Benny Digital ^{Speak Your Brains} 11:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
merge Nothing that cannot go in the bio article' insufficient separate notability. DGG ( talk ) 17:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no notability worth speaking of. Happy to merge per DGG as a second choice. Stifle (talk) 08:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per DGG and Stifle - no reason to lose attribution and some good work done here. Bearian (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge at best. I don't think the subject itself is notable to have its own article. –BuickCentury Driver 20:34, 15 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. The consensus below is that Stea meets the applicable notability guidelines. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Stea

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

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

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

While he's had plenty of jobs none of them seem to reach beyond the level of background player or minor parts (e.g. "passenger on plane"). Eeekster (talk) 00:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable enough yet for WP:ACTOR. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon, but "WP:ACTOR" is a Wikipedia Project and not a notability guideline. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 07:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's a talk page note that says one movie he was in (Newsies) has some cult status. Thought that should be taken into consideration. Cloveapple (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But how big was his part in the movie? Eeekster (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain. I thought he was part of the core group of actors, but as I keep searching I'm getting doubtful. The movie was nominated for outstanding young ensemble cast in a motion picture at the Youth in Film Awards that year but he's not listed among the group of actors nominated. If there is any coverage of him in the movie it would probably be under the character name "Swifty." When I checked Google's news archive for "Swifty Newsies movie" there was a Toronto Star and a Buffalo News article on the results list, but I would have had to pay to read them so I don't know if they actually talked about him or were only mentions of the name.Cloveapple (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I teach in the Theater/Dance Department at Anoka Middle School for the Arts in the the Minneapolis area. This is a large program with nearly 600 students in the theater/dance program. We actually use Kevin Stea as an example with our dance and theater students on the importance of being a well rounded artist and as an example of an artist with longevity. Though he may not be a "super star" his career would fall under very successful from his winning on "Star Search" to his work as a choregrapher with some of the biggest names in American Music. My students may not all know his name but many of the recognize his work. His work in dance alone shows a credibility. I think an issue here is that not all his work is in the U.S.A. so it is dismissed by some for that. I don't think it is fair or accurate to base someone levels of success based on its country of origin. Work outside of the USA shoud hold the same weight. Simple online research of Mr. Stea's work and it is more extensive than some of the actors that are popping their heads up in this fall's new sitcom line up or this summer's Hollywood Blockbusters. Also, I would like to add that Newsies has more than simply a cult following. I know for a fact. That it is development to open on Broadway as a stage show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfietek (talk • contribs) 15:32, 6 June 2011 — Jfietek (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment Wait a minute, someone is suggesting that Madonna's Dance Captain and one of her choreographers on "Blond Ambitiion" who is also an international legend in the world of dance is up for deletion, while every single "Real Housewife" whose never done anything in her life but be cast on a reality tv show is worthy of wikipedia? This is bizarre, and contrary to the whole concept of Wikipedia. Kevin Stea is a piece of global dance history. Do people have any idea what it takes to be one of Madonna's dance captains, and tour the world with her? What does it take to be a Real Housewife? Kevin Stea is part of global dance history. Wikipedia should recognize that. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aethlos (talk • contribs) 19:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like he doesn't meet the criteria at WP:ENT. If he has choreography work that qualifies under WP:CREATIVE I would reconsider, but I haven't found any evidence for reliable sources supporting that. Cloveapple (talk) 21:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe the listing does meet the criteria as I have read it. I believe removing the Kevin Stea article is inappropriate because his acting career is such that he is listed in several other Wikipedia articles about movies he was in. These articles all link to the Kevin Stea article under the cast listings.

Austin Powers in Goldmember: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin_Powers_in_Goldmember

Newsies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsies

Naked Boys Singing in which he had the starring role: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_Boys_Singing_%28film%29

To remove the Kevin Stea linking would break the linked information chain that Wikipedia is famous for and would deprive users of information of interest on the Kevin Stea article. (After reading a lot about Wikipedia protocols, I hope this is the appropriate place to make this comment.) Gmccombs (talk) 22:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Greg McCombs[reply]

Comment Kevin Stea deserves to keep his Wikipedia page. He has fans that recognizes all his hard work throughout the years which is more than what I could say about some other people in the industry. He has directed and choreographed for various artists and projects! He is already credited in the following Wiki articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin_Powers_in_Goldmember abbyluna —Preceding undated comment added 00:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Following the example of "Cloveapple" above I have spent the past 4 hours researching further, using the guidelines of WP:ENT. Kevin Stea is a distant cousin (our grandmother's were sisters) and I became aware of his prolific international career last year while researching my extended family's genealogy. I do not believe this is a conflist of interest because I have not actually met Mr. Stea. However, this helped me with my research as to where to look for information. I found that he is an actor in another huge cult movie "Showgirls" as the character Daryl (from the IMdb listing for that movie). I also note that under the definition of WP:ENT (Model) that he is an international model too and he can be found on the cover of "Cosmopolitan", and in articles in numerous fashion journals such as "Harper's Bazaar," "M4s," "Asiance," and several magazines I could not read because they are in Italian from Milan, etc. He has modeled for such famous designers as Theiry Mugler, Exte, Jean Paul Gaultier and many others. I also found under the definition of WP:ENT (television) that there is a big tv career in Italy as part of the trio Kevin Stea, Luca Tommassini, and Lorella Cuccarini in Rai2 shows like "Buona Domenica" and "Spazio delle Dente." Apparently this trio had so many fans that they had to hide from the more avid crowds when they went out. I also saw reference in the US to his TV work on "Dancing With The Stars" with Carmen Electra. Following the wikipedia guidelines, I do not believe this article warrants deletion, but rather, should be marked as something called a "Stub" because, according to my research a great deal is missing. 69.181.192.117 (talk) 01:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Greg McCombs[reply]

Comment I met Kevin Stea in college and he was marvelous then. His talent and beauty show in all his work since the early Eighties. He has a huge fan base with over 2000 likes in Facebook alone. http://www.facebook.com/#!/KStea There are over 400,000 views of Kevin Stea on YouTube. http://www.youtube.com/user/kevinstea http://www.youtube.com/user/kevinsteadancer In addition to the large magnitude of successful commercial work http://www.kevinstea.com/about/, he has two solo artist releases as That Rogue Romeo, “Can’t Help Myself” and “City of Glass”. He directed the show at the Avalon Theatre in Hollywood, California. http://openartistmovement.com/kevin-stea/ Jimoon2011 (talk) 03:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC) — Jimoon2011 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Subject does not have significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and I can't find any. If others add sources, please give me a shout and I'll revisit this. Chzz ► 13:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC) Struck; see below Chzz ► 18:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources Additional Sources:

Times of India http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-04-19/news-and-interviews/28146572_1_indian-dance-auditions-ar-rahman

Disney Pictures: The Tempest: Kevin Alexander Stea as Star Dancer http://www.disneydreaming.com/2010/05/10/touchstone-pictures-the-tempest/

Kevin Stea stars in Naked Boys Singing http://gaydarnation.com/UserPortal/Article/Detail.aspx?ID=19990&sid=64

Feature article on Kevin Stea, Asiance Magazine: http://www.asiancemagazine.com/node/3627

Kevin Stea filmography, IMDb http://www.asiancemagazine.com/node/3627

Filmography: movieplanet: http://www.moviesplanet.com/names/913/kevin-alexander-stea

Kevin Stea credits: movieweb http://www.movieweb.com/person/kevin-alexander-stea/credits

Fashion work: Nu-Riders 2 collection http://vizeau.net/?p=12

Fashion work-FantasticsMagazine http://www.fantasticsmag.com/node/2772 Gmccombs (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC) Greg McCombs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmccombs (talk • contribs) 15:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clear keep @Crisco. He is not an actor, he's a choreographer and dancer!! I think as a choreographer this guy is extremely notable. He has worked with most of the biggest names in pop music!!! His case against Madonna in 1990/91 is most certainly notable and is covered in a wealth of different books. I've ousted the crappy sources and added reliable sources of which there are plenty, certainly enough to pass. His track record indicates to me this is one sought after choreographer and is most certainly notable in his field.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:HEY Chzz ► 18:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Questions I was asked to comment, although the subject works in a field where I have little knowledge or interest. My immediate reaction on reading the above comments would be delete, as most of the arguments amount to ILIKEHIM. But even without special knowledge,except perhaps for a special knowledge of what we usually do at AfD, I can compare this with standards used in other article discussions. We have consistently said that playing a minor role in notable shows does not amount to notability, but that it can be different for very famous shows. The Madonna tour was certainly a very famous show, so it is possible that his being a dancer in it is notable. It's asserted above he was the chief dancer, but I see nothing in the article to that effect. If there is an actual RS for it, it might mean something. If he was just one of the chorus, I have my doubts--I see the other dancers in the show do not have articles. That he is mentioned in cast listings is irrelevant--everyone is mentioned in cast listings. What I'd want to see is that his performance in it was reviewed, not just listed. The other roles are none of them major. We have repeatedly said that minor named roles in ordinarily notable pictures does not amount to notability, even if there are a quite a number of them, though it can be different for particularly famous character or voice actors. Five times less-than-notable is not notable. To make an analogy where I'm more familiar: being assistant professor in 5 colleges does not make one notable; holding a named full professorship in just one, does. His choreography is asserted as notable --that he was one of the choreographers for major performers is not significant, because there are normally a number of people who participate in this. If he was the choreographer for a particular star in a famous show, or consistently the choreographer for a famous star, that can be different. I do not see that even asserted--if there is 3rd party documentation that this was the case, he's notable. As for modeling, having been on the cover of a notable magazine has never been accepted as notability; I might be prepared to argue otherwise, but the community has not accepted it.

there's one argument above i want to specifically deny: that he is linked in other articles proves absolutely nothing. It's routine for people to write an article about someone and insert his name everywhere possible, regardless of significance. As for the "chain of links Wikipedia is famous for ", one of the things Wikipedia is unfortunately famous for is the extent of spam. I don't need to specifically deny the argument from Facebook friends or Youtube views--these are classic non-criteria. Again, I might be prepared to argue otherwise for some exceptional cases, but the community has not accepted it.

there's one aspect that does interest me: he might be more notable in Europe and Asia, and the brief article in Times of India suggests this may be the case. We find it very difficult to document performers from India and some other areas, and I've often suggested we should be less demanding of the evidence for people in general with careers in such areas. That one of my arguments has been sometimes accepted by the community. DGG ( talk ) 23:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While not automatically notable, an "assistant professor in 5 colleges", might indeed be found notable if for some reason he receives the attention of the press and has significant coverage in nultiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Same for a choreographer and dancer. If such usually-less-than-notable individuals become the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and over an extended period of time, they meet our most basic guideline for determining notability and be seen as "worthy of note" for some aspects of their lives or careers. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Aditional Sources that might bolster the article as outside, independent sources for work of kevin Stea:

Michael Jackson’s “Blood on the Dance Floor” -http://www.youtube.com/user/michaeljacksonVEVO#p/u/32/c3_NntYhzV4

MTV 10th Anniversary Special Michael Jackson Black or White/Will You Be- http://www.youtube.com/user/alexbism#p/u/8/zxKvN44wGqg

Blond Ambition Tour Japan – MitsubishiSpecial channel – http://www.youtube.com/user/MitsubishiSpecial

Videos Television/Classes/Other – Kevin Stea Video Pakistan- http://pktube.onepakistan.com/Kevin+Stea/

United World College Alumni Profile – pg. 6

Cover of Ms4 magazine http://www.uwcsea.edu.sg/uploaded/foundation/files/Publications/Alumni_Magazines/One%C2%B0North_June2009.pdf

Seiko Matsuda – Japan – Back for More - 松田聖子 w/Kevin Stea- http://www.youtube.com/user/godoronn#p/u/21/CPnvHFkOXgs Gmccombs (talk) 06:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)Gmccombs[reply]

Keep Agreee fully with USER:Dr. Blofeld. This individual is NOT an actor and the article does not assert that acting is why he is notable. It is as a dancer and choreographer that he has made significant contributions in many notable productions. The sng WP:ENT declares itself set up for "actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makerss, models, or television personalities", and does not address dancers and choreographers. He merits inclusion through application of the governing WP:BIO and through WP:GNG no matter that his career is not one addressed by any of the many sngs. And a choreographer and dancer should not be judged by incorrect criteria, tempting as it might be. We do not use a notability criteria for actors to judge articles where notability is not asserted for acting. We also do not use SNGs to declare individuals automatically non-notable simply because they may fail an inappicable SNG when the most basic guideline for determining notability IS met. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe the introductory paragraph could be further amended to establish that: 1) That Mr. Stea was the assistant choreographer and dance captain for Madonna, 2) Include more factual particulars about the lawsuit including that not just Madonna was named in the suit but Miramax itself , and 3) note that the lawsuit was withdrawn after amicable settlement. Below is an attempt at revision, and below that I have listed sources for the information. I hope one of the editors on this discussion page can help, since I do not have the wherewithal to use the codes to attach references, should they be determined to be acceptable:

Kevin Alexander Stea (born 17 October 1969) is an American dancer, choreographer, actor, singer, director and model. At the age of 20, he became widely known as the Assistant Choreographer and Dance Captain for Madonna’s Blond Ambition Tour and in the documentary about it, Madonna: Truth of Dare in 1990/1. On January 21, 1992, two dancers from the tour, Oliver S. Crumes, III and the late Gabriel Trupin, sued Madonna’s production company Boy Toy Inc., Miramax and Propaganda Films in Los Angeles Superior Court for fraud and invasion of privacy. When Stea, as Dance Captain, joined the suit, it became an item of international notoriety, to the extent that Stea appeared on the Maury Povich show to talk about the issue. The suit was withdrawn and settled amicably. [1][2][3][4][5]

SOURCES:

Sources pertaining to the lawsuit:

- Information about the lawsuit: http://absolutemadonna.com/?p=7726

- Source for those named in the lawsuit and its dismissal – Hartford Curant: http://articles.courant.com/1994-10-02/entertainment/9409300079_1_madonna-gabriel-trupin-oliver-crumes

Sources pertaining to the role of Assistant Choreographer and Dance Captain for the Blond Ambition Tour:

- Movie bio listing kevin stea as associate choreographer, dance captain and dancer for Blond Ambition tour… http://www.darkbluefilms.com/wildcat_bios.html

- Resume AMCK London – listed as assistant choreographer for Blond Ambition http://www.amck.tv/includes/pdf/artist_cv.php?id=380

- DancePlug professional site for dancers. Stea bio lists him as associate choreographer, dance captain and dancer for Blond Ambition tour… http://www.danceplug.com/kevin-stea

- IMDb database (other works) lists him as assistant choreographer and dance captain for Blond Ambition tour: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0824084/otherworks

- Listed as dance captain and dancer for Blond Ambition by this organization: http://sharetv.org/person/kevin_alexander_stea

Sources pertaining to when Mr. Stea joined the lawsuit and additional discussion:

- Asiance Magazine (this is already listed as a reference on the page) - http://www.asiancemagazine.com/2009/04/15/dancer-kevin-stea

Sources pertaining to the notoriety of the issue:

- Allusions to episodes of Stea’s appearance on two Maury Povich shows pertaining to the issue now part of a DVD collection about Madonna - http://www.ioffer.com/i/MADONNA-SEX-BOOK-1992-SNL-BARBRA-STREISAND-1991-DVD-176142363

I am impressed by the research, writing and editing abilities of USER: Dr. Blofeld, USER: DGG, and am grateful for the discussion of Schmidt, because it has furthered my education on how wikipedia works and how the policies have been developed by the community. Gmccombs (talk) 03:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Gmccombs[reply]

Always look first in google books when approaching a topic. With the exception of recent topics and web bios or the developing world google books is usually the best way initially to gauge notability. If multiple publications make the decision to write and print work discussing an individual or subject, this for me makes it notable, unless the subject is obviously an unencyclopedic one.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposed change to the article lede is worth consideration. But please read WP:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources to beter understand how a source is determined as reliable enough upon which to source an article. While the sources you proffered have information on the subject, some of them are not considered WP:RS. However, in following up on information in non-relable sources, editors are quite often able to find the reliable sources upon which that information was originally based, and so then actually use the found reliabe source itself as a citation. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you USER:Dr. Blofeld and Schmidt,, this has been very helpful in guiding me to finding the best possible sourcing. I must note, however, that I found a book entitled "Kevin Stea" for sale on Amazon ( http://www.amazon.com/KEVIN-STEA/dp/6131772045/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1307641021&sr=1-1 ) and was very excited until I did further research on the publishing house to find that this is a "publish-on-demand-book" which reprints all the wikipedia pages and the links to that page concerning the subject. This stunned me. I now realize research on line is fraught with pitfalls, and am going to continue my research in the San Francisco main library this weekend. I think that will help me get the most reliable sources possible. I now realize how important the editorial corps for wikipedia REALLY is in this information age. Without them, we could be reduced to meaningless babble. As I am retired and I would very much like to join this group. I believe it is important work. I want to study all that I can find on the wikipedia site to train as one of the contributors. Is there a course or curriculum section where I could begin this process somewhere on wikipedia? Gmccombs (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Gmccombs[reply]

Its a learning curve, you gradually become developed at researching and writing articles. The best way is for you to get on with editing, expand existing articles or create your own and ask one or two editors how to reference fully from google books and web sources. Best thing is to browse some articles on topics you are personally highly interested in and then look on the talk pages for wikiprojects which care for them. You can then join whatever project takes your fancy and they may help you if an active project. If you need any assistance in this feel free to contact me on my talk page. I will also show you how to add a automatic google book url into a full citation at the touch of a button.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want something formal there's also WP:ADOPT Cloveapple (talk) 04:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If there isn't a concensus of notability at the end of this Afd discussion, the article could be incubated since I believe it meets the criteria for WP:AI. That would give time for what looks like a slow research project. I don't think the sources found so far quite add up to notability, but comments Gmccombs made on the article talk page make me strongly suspect that Kevin Stea may be notable in India, Italy, or Japan. Unfortunately the time period when he may have been generating news doesn't seeem to be well represented on the internet in English. I asked a university librarian in my city for help and they found a mention in an index of a Japanese news source, but I don't yet know if it's a minor mention or serious coverage. Cloveapple (talk) 04:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article has 18 sources for heaven's sake!!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many of which barely mention Stea. If he's notable for suing Madonna and his association with her tour then the notability's in no doubt. When I look at what's here I'm trying to see what we've got beyond Madonna (and her Truth or Dare movie) and beyond the original creative works that he participated in (ads, tours, videos, modelling, dance) to see if there's any reliable secondary sources with review or discussion or bio. Three sources are Screen World. That's an illustrated listing of movies for the year. All movies get in it. Then there's the online bio from his agency (AMCK). The book Fiasco includes Stea's name in a long list of names. Then there's his own website. So that's 6 footnotes. Then 9 of the footnotes reference the Madonna/Truth or Dare situation.

So I was focusing my attention on the three remaining sources: [22] TheaterMania.com's announcement of an upcoming performance, [23] The Los Angeles Times review of a jazz piece he stars in, and 3 the Times of India article. Cloveapple (talk) 11:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Following examples and encouragement from Cloveapple, Schmidt,, and Dr. Blofeld I’ve studied guidelines on how to vet references & use the best independently verifiable sources. Studying formatting guidelines, I’ve made my first inclusions to the article. I hope that editors will check my work and offer additional guidance as to both the strength of the reference and its formatting. I have added information in the following areas:

A) (Introduction) Expanded the 1st paragraph to describe the lawsuit, Mr. Stea’s role, the notoriety that accompanied the suit, and its final resolution. I referenced from newspaper sources, catalog information, professional directories and articles in edited publications.

B) (2nd Paragraph of: Career) Added a reference from a Public Television transcript further establishing Stea’s work with Michael Jackson, & added stars A. R. Rahman (India) and Seiko Matsuda (Japan) to the roster.

C) (3rd Paragraph of: Career) Referenced publications from Italy that allude to the television shows that were listed in the first sentence and added info about the fashion career that began in Italy, appending appropriate references from outside sources and bringing the it up to date with inclusion of recent work in the U.S.

D) (4th Paragraph of: Career) Introduced a 4th paragraph of info pertaining to photography modeling, bringing it up to the present with appropriate references.

E) (5th Paragraph of: Career) Added an appropriate reference for That Rogue Romeo.

There are 4 areas, that perhaps other, more skilled editors could investigate to obtain properly recognized references:

A) Career in India – The Jai Ho World Tour of A. R. Rahman began in India where Rahman is a singing star and travelled to other cities in Asia, the UK, Canada and the US. The article from the Times of India is an interview with Mr. Stea at the tour’s outset. Resources for this are a video Thank You to the UK, and a Promotional video about the making of the Tour, both of which include Stea, but do not seem to make for a good reference.

B) Gay advocacy – The “invasion of privacy” in the 1992 Madonna lawsuit is the “outing” of the dancers as gay in Truth or Dare, one of the first such instances of “gay outing” to reach the courts. (This was mentioned in the first comment to appear on the article’s discussion page.) Mr. Stea was publicly “outed” again in Japan in 1993, before the Madonna suit was settled in 1994. Evidence of Mr. Stea’s current gay advocacy lies in the NOH8 Campaign against California’s Prop 8, Open Artists Movement, and work with “white parties” and appearing in Europride 2010, and Long Beach and Zurich Pride in 2011. Referencing this has proved difficult. (Or perhaps I'm just squeamish.)

C) Career in Japan – The Glorious Revolution Tour of Japan’s singing star Seiko Matsuda, travelled through Asia & Australia with Stea as singing & dancing partner. They made a commercial for Takano Yuri salon which received heavy media play. Matsuda had separated from her husband and the commercial showed the two naked and kissing. This caused a furor in Japan and ended with Japanese newspaper’s “outing” Stea as gay. Referencing this is beyond my skills and in the US only blogs & videos are available to cover the Japanese portion of his career.

D) Newsies – There may be more to Stea’s appearance in the Disney movie Newsies other than it having a cult status for the past 20 years. (I have good references for cultism in articles saying the the movie is the #1 requested "theater book" for a Disney property.) Stea’s character Swifty was one of the first instances of an Asian actor/dancer in a non-stereotyped role, making him a role model. However, I can only find social media posts and gossip about this so far. I note that there seems to be an informal social group called Team Yellow made up of young Asian actors in Hollywood which holds occasional informal dinners, which Stea seems to be an important part of. This began 20 years ago & is well before internet documentation. Yet, I am surprised by the theme showing up in social chatter today.

Gmccombs (talk) 06:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Gmccombs[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted as hoax/vandalism

Yours For The Asking Tour

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

Tour for a band that doesn't have an article on here (the band, The Company, does not appear to have any relation to The Company Band). Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 00:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a hoax. The listing is for a Bob Dylan tour according to the taxobox. Speedily deleting said nonsense. :) PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:13, 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 redirect to Peter Haynes. (non-admin closure) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Angels 2200

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

Unsourced, does not appear to be notable and has little content beyond plot details Jac16888 ^Talk 00:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Peter Haynes, the creator of the webcomic (although that article is unsourced as well, and he has questionable notability himself). The only info I could really find on this comic after a Gsearch are all blogs. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 03:00, 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) 00:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

redirect per above. Hobit (talk) 00:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Erpert. --Crazy runner (talk) 05:16, 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) 18:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John E. Walsh

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

Non-notable political figure. Only claim to fame is being chairman of a Democratic Party in Massachusetts. Rainbow Dash 00:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of passing the GNG in his own right - I'd wager that all the print sources anyone could find from him are quotes from him on various party issues, something WP:N explicitly disallows - and fails WP:POLITICIAN. Ravenswing 10:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject has received significant coverage from reliable and independent sources, including The Boston Globe and The Patriot Ledger. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 14:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Those sources would be nice if linked... Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[24], [25], [26], [27], [28] --Hirolovesswords (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with the sources added by Hiro showing notability. Could an interested editor ensure that they are used in the article? Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources added to the article indicate that he meets WP:BIO. Qrsdogg (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His position as state chairman does not provide automatic qualification, but he meets WP:GNG through substantial coverage in the Patriot-Ledger, Boston Globe, and Enterprise-News. Nice rescue job, Hiro. --MelanieN (talk) 17:37, 11 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) 03:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Debra Jean Rogers

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

No sources given in a BLP, and I can't find any to satisfy WP:V. Even if there were sources to verify the roles, I can't see if they would meet WP:ENT. Not opposed to keep if someone has better reference-fu than me, but as it stands, it should go. Courcelles 05:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — Courcelles is travelling (talk) 05:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Courcelles is travelling (talk) 05:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Her roles in animated films as well as video games, clearly show her to be a notable person. Her official website links to the IMDB to show her credits, so surely she has verified it. Her name is in the credits of the things she was featured in, no reason to doubt the primary sources on that. You can also see videos on her site of various video game characters she has been, there a lot of dialog in these things nowadays. Dream Focus 09:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete video game voice contributions do not count as significant acting roles. fails WP:ENT. LibStar (talk) 07:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Isn't that the same as voice acting for an animated film or television show? Takes about as much work as a regular actor would, you having to get the tone of voice and delivery just perfect. Dream Focus 13:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

significant voice actors in animations and films get mentions in third party coverage like movie reviews. There is no evidence of significant third party coverage of this individual. "Takes about as much work as a regular actor would, you having to get the tone of voice and delivery just perfect" is irrelevant, same is required for people that do audio for instructional websites, train station announcements, inflight safety videos. LibStar (talk) 13:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ENT is what you mentioned and what I was commenting about. It meets that guideline, so doesn't need to meet the general notability guideline. "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Dream Focus 14:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ENT - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:08, 11 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) 02:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ginx TV

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

The station has only recently received one mainstream news article on it (and even that article [29] only talks about the subject providing shows for another station, not the station itself. Other than that, the only coverage this station/company seems to have received is on gaming websites, and most of that appears to be from self-published sources. Therefore, it is my belief that the subject fails the notability of WP:BROADCAST and WP:COMPANY Inks.LWC (talk) 05:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 05:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose this article been erased. This article should be kept on wikipedia because: Ginx TV have a number of tv channels in various countries so are quite a significant channel. They broadcast programming on challenge tv on saturdays and are now offering on demand services via bt vision. The reason most of the coverage this channel has got is from gaming websites is simple its because all of the content they make is about computer games so clearly all news coverage is going to be targeted at people who are interested in the channel. User: Jasmeet 181 cleaned up the article yesterday to remove the conflict of interest because of the company rep who was editing the article editing it called user:sarahginx. But considering the amount of tv channels they have live and other services they do they are very significant and the article is no different to any other article for a tv channel on here. So I strong oppose it been erased. The sources Jasmeet 181 added to the article yesterday are from reliable sources as well ofcom was one sources for example. Here is another article from the same website that mentions another of there channel launching http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2011/03/21/ginx-tv-launches-in-adriatic-region/ (Ruth-2013 (talk) 06:33, 28 May 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) 15:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Under WP:BROADCAST "most television stations that produce original content should be presumed notable for Wikipedia purposes." Ginx appears to make all of its shows.[30][31][32] Eurogamer and Market for Home Computing and Video Games are used in the article's references and they are clearly not self published. I don't see why gaming websites shouldn't be considered for a gaming channel, you've linked to a broadcast website's article about a TV channel, which is pretty much the same thing. Here are some more articles about the channel itself that I was able to find very easily: The Guardian, Digital Production Middle East, C21Media, Joystiq and Wall-Street. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 12:30, 29 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, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. International channel that creates its own programs. Easily passes WP:BROADCAST. Sources found by Jasmeet can be used to help improve the article. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As this a new discussion I am saying keep again. My reasons are listed above in the old discussion(Ruth-2013 (talk) 08:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Comment It's not a new discussion. Your old !vote is still "counted". Inks.LWC (talk) 09:09, 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 merge to Vernio. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mercatale di Vernio

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

Below stub standard, not in English. DBaK (talk) 06:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Vernio - As far as I can make out, it's small collection of buildings within the town (comune) of Vernio. [33]. The Italian Wikipedia article of Vernio has a section for this part of town and a "Mercatale di Vernio" serch merges to the Vernio article. [34] --Oakshade (talk) 04:19, 29 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, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Vernio, of which it is a frazione. HeartofaDog (talk) 07:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Oakshade. Qrsdogg (talk) 16:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Vernio. Mercatale di Vernio is part of the municipality of Vernio.User:Lucifero4

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The discussion, and in particular most of the "Keep" votes, was of fairly low quality but overall I cannot find a consensus to delete. While pointing at a google search is neither recommended nor sufficient it is not simply ignorable if the search contains the sources that it is alleged too. Thus despite the wording of the comments I see a basic dispute about whether the sources that can be found via google news are sufficient for an article or not. That is a straightforward no consensus close. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Southern (evangelist)

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

I cannot find sufficient RS independent coverage of this person to satisfy wp's notability requirements. Nor does he appear to satisfy wp:author. Others are welcome to seek indicia of notability. Tagged for lack of notability since 2010. Epeefleche (talk) 06:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There appears to be just enough GNews coverage to support an article, and I suspect there is significantly more coverage in older evangelical media that aren't accessible or indexed online. I absolutely have no idea os how to interpret the result that, just before 2PM today, my GNews Archives search on "Daniel Southern" reported precisely 666 hits. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We disagree as to whether the GNews coverage is sufficient, which is fine. As to your difficulty interpreting your Gnews Archives search results, a look at the articles themselves indicates that they are largely fall positives -- such as articles that mention AFL Western Bulldogs player Daniel Southern, and that mention the tag line of liquor producer Brown-Forman Corp., which makes "Jack Daniel's, Southern Comfort", and other liquor and wine brands.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was the significance of the 666 figure that I was referring to, not hardly seriously, regarding an evangelist . . . . Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

;) ... understood ... after I hit "save" and re-read our exchange, I was wondering whether I had missed your point ... A good one, given the nature of this fellow's life work. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rather more focused searches than the ones linked in the nomination or that get (still at the time of writing) 666 results: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I searched GNews for "daniel southern" + Christian and got lots of reliable news stories. The article needs sourcing, not deletion.I.Casaubon (talk) 22:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Simply saying there were g hits is not sufficient in an afd discussion. Can you point us to substantial coverage in RSs? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:55, 3 June 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, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A google books search brings up references to his early career. Definitely notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kthapelo (talk • contribs) 05:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Simply saying there were g hits is not sufficient in an afd discussion. Can you point us to substantial coverage in RSs? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable independent content about specifically in regard to him. There has been no article improvement that asserts notability since it was nominated - The currect externals fail to even assert the minimal wikipedia notability levels. I suggest userfy to the user that says they got some results or delete and then redirect to Billy Graham Evangelistic Association because he worked on that and it seems his main claim to fame. Off2riorob (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Off2's suggestions of deleting and either userfying or redirecting are thoughtful suggestions that make sense to me as well.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:56, 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PeRColate

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

I doubt this Max/MSP plugin is notable enough for a separate article in Wikipedia according to WP:GNG. Academically, it re-implements stuff that introduced elsewhere, and reviews of Max/MSP at best briefly mention it, e.g. [35] or not at all. [36] FuFoFuEd (talk) 08:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete no independent notability. W Nowicki (talk) 20:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep But useful. If you delete it, it will just get stubbed again. Edrowland (talk) 20:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 07:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should be deleted each time until there is any evidence shown of notability. Are threats of disruptive editing are valid reasons to keep an article? W Nowicki (talk) 20:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the discussion above: I think that a redirect to Synthesis Toolkit (STK) is probably sufficient to prevent this from being recreated. We can note there that it's not a straight port. I'm not sure what else needs to be said. There are certainly a fair number of ports of STK, and many were done by academics, so the authors' of these ports have written some paper about their endeavor, as it's customary in academia. I don't think that justifies a separate article for each port, although they certainly add notability to STK itself. FuFoFuEd (talk) 10:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete don't see evidence of it meeting WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 07:52, 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.