Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 June 6

< 5 June	7 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Keep arguments haven't effectively refuted the essential deletion argument that there aren't the sources to expand this beyonga dicdef and its already covered in wikt Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moose knuckle

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

Dictionary definition of a neologism. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. see WP:NOTDICT; Wiktionary has it covered. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visible penis line. Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is the definition of a dictionary definition. tedder (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — tedder (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 200,000 plus google hits including news outlets. For sexist equality, see camel toe. μηδείς (talk) 22:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and Tedder.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~keep~~ - AfD for "Cameltoe" successfully addressed the scope of an encylopedia entry versus that of a dictionary article for a term of dress. Google books sources? check. Scholarly sources? Ditto. News sources? Umm-humn.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See my new !vote below.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Howev, w/concern this term's--"negative," I guess one could say? --connotation/tone: Don't know if deletion would really be tantamount to a net victory or defeat toward achieving the goals of, say, the fat acceptance movement. Still, it's interesting to speculate: would an AfD for a term like handbra, applied solely to photography of BBW's or to homoeroticism be more likely to pass or fail at a AfD, given the editors' predominantly heterosexual-male wp:BIASes?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears they kept Cameltoe soley because it's a widely used word, with mention in some mainstream newspapers. Nobody cited any sources that provided any encyclopedic content other than the definition. Misguided deletion decisions like that make me wonder if they don't just need to decide that Wikipedia is both a dictionary and an encyclopedia. If we can get rid of Visible penis line and moose knuckle, I'd be happy to re-nominate cameltoe, in the hopes of getting away from these dictionary definitions and back on track. Same goes for handbra. On the other hand, trying to delete dictionary definitions of slang terms could easily turn into a full time job, considering how many editors like writing dictionary definitions. Why don't they just go to Wiktionary and define slang terms to their heart's content? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge (a re-!vote, from above; per wp:NEO) with cameltoe or a catch-all that would include somehow camel toe, although I don't know what that might be). The difference between an encylopedia and a mere lexicon is depth of coverage and grouping overlapping entries, I beleive, would help in this regard, if an appropriately descriptive term could be formed for it. (On this note, note the last graf at the guideline on neologisms):
... ... ...
Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy.
Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic, or use the term within other articles.
In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title.
--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete with exactly the same reasoning as my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visible penis line ╟─Treasury Tag►Tellers' wands─╢ 07:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question is what sources are available, not how many are currently cited. There are many sources available. (In any case, the ones included are not all self-published, per your claim).--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for published sources, we've got Vanity Fair and Chuck Palahniuk, as well as a mixed drink recipe, making it kind of hard to claim this is just a dictionary entry. μηδείς (talk) 21:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Popular_Culture#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FMoose_knuckle μηδείς (talk) 23:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The WIktionary entry seems to do an adequate job, obviating the need for this stub. Got to spin a better yarn if this is to be kept. So far, it's just a few trivial mentions of this neologism. Failing deletion, we might find references to Kirk Douglas' chin before long. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, Ohconfucius, what can we do? I'm afraid that unlike "Handbra"--or even "Cameltoe"--the topic of, um, "Mooseknuckle" just doesn't inspire that much passion---.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its obvious from even the discussion above there is sufficient material and references to write more than just a definition. DGG ( talk ) 16:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite this material specifically. We need to see encyclopedic content about the term. Not just proof that the term is being used. That only proves existence. See, again, WP:NOTDICT. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The topic is probably legitimate and notable once it has been widened a bit to include phenomena such as codpiece, koteka, and possibly also tanga (clothing) and cameltoe. I am pretty sure this must be a notable topic with significant coverage including technical information for fashion designers. I just don't know how and where to look for it. As a first measure this article should probably be merged with visible penis line. Hans Adler 17:03, 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. Courcelles 09:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Western Arctic New Democratic Party

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

No such party exists. No references. Riding association is not notable. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG nothing in gnews. LibStar (talk) 10:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no coverage whatsoever in any third party, independent sources. OCNative (talk) 12:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This appears to the be the territorial offshoot of the New Democratic Party, which is essentially one of the three "major parties" in Canada. I'm gonna use an old favorite, the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument: North Dakota Republican Party. Utah Democratic Party. Liberal Democratic Party (New South Wales). National Action Party Jalisco. See the pattern? MAJOR PARTY + PROVINCIAL UNIT = NOTABLE. Yes, there is information out there on the New Democratic Party's activity in the Northwest Territories. That's the subject of this article. Carrite (talk) 05:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

both North Dakota Republican Party and Utah Democratic Party contain members who are/were elected representatives at state or higher level. Liberal Democratic Party (New South Wales) included notable members. Western Arctic New Democratic Party does not meet this. LibStar (talk) 08:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

National Action Party Jalisco easily passes WP:GNG. see gnews. [1] and also has an elected representative. LibStar (talk) 09:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't an argument in favour of keeping an article. It must be kept on its own merits. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure OTHERSTUFF is an argument — just not a very good one. Actually, there is a role for precedent at AFD and we use it all the time. The question here, which I may be wrong about, is whether this is the territorial affiliate of the NDP. If it is, it should be in as a notable per se political organization, end of story. If it is not, there's not enough sourcing and it should go away. Carrite (talk) 03:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unofficial "party", not affiliated with the New Democratic Party. Not a province-wide group like the OTHERSTUFF examples given above; it seems to be limited to a single riding. No outside coverage. --MelanieN (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As a side note, there is only one federal riding in the Northwest Territories. Same boundaries as the territory. Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:05, 13 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. Rlendog (talk) 20:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laurenţiu Brănescu

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

Non-notable youth player. All his league appearances have been in the non-fully-pro Liga II, and his international appearances have been at the youth level, meaning he fails WP:NSPORT. Coverage is all run off the mill publications about his transfer to Juventus. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 12:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:13, 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. Keep arguments havn't actually found any sources that discuss this particular terms so the delete argument that this is already covered in wiktionary and fails as a dicdef hasn't been refuted, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Visible penis line

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

If this deserves coverage at all (which is an open question), it is solely as a wiktionary definition, where it is already covered. See also Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Even the refs here are primarily non-RS, and nothing more than a definition is offered, with most of the article being completely unsourced. Epeefleche (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. —Epeefleche (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Perhaps I've researched this in the past, or perhaps I had to prove this, but there are zero google news hits, zero google books hits, and only one Google Scholar hit (for "Listing eBay masculinity: erotic exchanges and regulation in 'gay'and 'gay interest'underwear and swimwear auctions"). Naturally, there are some Rule 34 hits. tedder (talk) 20:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — tedder (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nomination, It doesn't seem that there are any reliable 3rd party sources of information for this subject. TehGrauniad (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Nobody should waste any more time on this. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are 51,000 hits for the contiguous phrase "visible penis line" on Google - but I am not opposed to merging this into Moose knuckle which has four times as many hits. μηδείς (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So your argument for keeping it is that it has google hits? tedder (talk) 21:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We've got google scholar and 50,000 hits all meaning the same thing - what is the rationale for deltion? Has camel toe been deleted? Odd that we are more afraid of men's than woman's naughty bits. μηδείς (talk) 22:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Camel toe has plenty of available references. A single Google Scholar result doesn't indicate a depth of coverage, and again, counting hits is specious at best. tedder (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google hits is a minor part of a non-policy essay. Why not try WP:NOTPAPER and WP:NODEADLINE. μηδείς (talk) 22:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that all of these thousands of hits don't give you any facts, let alone insight, other than the definition of the term. Some slang terms have colorful, interesting histories which shed light on society in all sorts of ways. You can recognized them by the fact that reliable sources have lots to say about them. Other slang terms just exist: you got the term, and you got the definition, end of discussion. And there is a perfect job for a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. Read all of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and you can't escape the conclusion that slang pages like this should be deleted. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are rejecting it in terms of not being a guideline, I'll invoke WP:OSE: my personal name, in quotes, has 3x as many google hits as this term. I can create an article now? The answer is no, because the guideline is notability, and there are insufficient reliable sources to meet notability guidelines. tedder (talk) 22:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, give us a full first, middle and last name and if in quotes they generate more than the same for the three words visible penis line I will change my vote. But sophistical comparisons of one apple to three oranges hardly helps here. μηδείς (talk) 00:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since it isn't a vote, I'd expect that opinions based on counting Google hits will be ignored, since even millions of hits fail to change a dictionary definition into an encyclopedia article, and no number of self-published sources is equal to one reliable source. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete and merge~~ (per wp:NEO) with ~~Moose knuckle or even with~~ a catch-all that would include somehow camel toe, although I don't know what that might be. The difference between an encylopedia and a mere lexicon is depth of coverage and grouping overlapping entries, I beleive, would help in this regard, if an appropriately descriptive term could be formed for it. (On this note, note the last graf at the guideline on neologisms):
... ... ...
Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy.
Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic, or use the term within other articles.
In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title.
--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
!Re-vote: Keep - Don't think of the title as a neologism. Think of the title as a straightforward description of the style of dress being covered. Historical treatises (eg, I recall an entire section on the subject in the award-winning Albion's Seed) mention the tight clothes of mid-18th C. peasantry and even, to some extent, the upper class, as opposed to that of the era's middle-class Puritans; and, indeed, the style of male dress is on a pendulum from tight to loose, back and forth (skinny jeans, low-riding jeans, etc.) from generation to generation. To combine this concept with female attire only needlessly complicates it. Let's not be so wary of possible male-female inequality that we disallow an appropriate treatment for a topic that is more usually noted among women (well, at least--as I noted above--within our current times; at one time it was men who wore tight breeches and women who never did).--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I just looked up the Albion Seed quote and it doesn't get into a discussion of the crotch area at all.

backcountry women dressed in...a full bodice with deep decolletage, tight-fitting waist, short, full skirt and a hem worn high above the ankle[: white] homespun linsey-woolsey garments, often of exquisite beauty and refinement. ... Male backsettlers...commonly wore shirts of linen in the summer and deerskin in the wintertime. [The...] upper garment was cut full in the chest and shoulders, with broad seems that ran horizontally across the front and back, and was drawn or "cinched" tightly at the waist. The effect was to enlarge the shoulders and the chest. Much as female costume created an exceptionally strong sense of femininity, male dress in the backcountry put equally heavy stress on masculinity. The dress ways of the backcountry were designed to magnify sexual differences. The men of the backcountry wore loose, flowing trousers or "drawers".... The lower legs were sometimes sheathed in gaiters called "leather stockings."

However, a century or so just-previous, the style throughout Europe was for men to wear tight-legged (or was it just thin-material?) trousers with a cod-piece on top so it's entirely possible that Davy Crockett's, et al's, buckskin or linen breeches (depending on the weather) were somewhat revealing, by Puritan standards--just as the "dandies'" thigh-hugging style was (as in the iconic image of Uncle Sam) of a later era's tailoring.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 00:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete The sources listed are not only self-published but really don't go into this so-called topic in remotely enough detail to satisfy our requirement of significant coverage. Plus it's a stupid article :P ╟─Treasury Tag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 07:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree that this is really more like a dictionary entry. Does not meet significant coverage. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 03:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. At this point, this would seem to qualify for a Snow delete.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are multiple historical references available to the visible effect of thisstyle of dress. I'm not sur,e however, what is the best term for the heading. DGG ( talk ) 16:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you cite these references please? As per WP:NOTDICT, instances of the term being used are not relevant. That only proves the term exists, and existence is not the issue. We are looking for encyclopedic content, about the term. In other words, something more than what you would find at Wiktionary. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not taking the current title as a common term but considering instead the topic of men's dress where the outline of mens' penises are visible, is it possible that applicable references could likely be found by such means as, say, doing an Internet search of the exact phrase penis visible (GOOGLE NEWS ARCHIVE) or visible penis (GOOGLE NEWS ARCHIVE) but then add in the word fashion or style or dress?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't keep articles because one editor thinks it might be possible to find encyclopedic material. We keep articles when editors actually find encyclopedic sources and cite them. It is not constructive to drag this discussion out longer if you don't have a good argument.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

wp:N's wp:FAILN section in my view provides a pretty straightforward rebuttal. "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort. If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself...." IAC, I've added a citation to the 18th C. designer Geo. Brummell here.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 20:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are violations of Wikipedia:No original research. You cite sources that merely mention men wearing tight pants, and then you pretend they're talking about visible penis lines. You should not be putting words into the mouth of your sources this way. Please stop. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your contention that, eg, dandies' style of dress did not accentuate the genitalia is unsupportable. However, Brummell--whose fashion sense, by the way, is the reason (according to fashion scholars) that modern men wear a suit and tie--did in fact popularize this style. Full stop. See the biography, Beau Brummell page 121: "...tight pale breeches, such as those pioneered by George Brummell, accented the crotch."--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The source mentions the "crotch", and your imagination supplies the "penis" and the "line". That is WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:FRANKIE, whatever you want to call it. Wikipedia is not the venue for you to publish these ideas of yours. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Dennis Bratland, how I understand your argument is that you believe an assumption that crotch, in relation to a man, means "penis" is wp:OR, is that correct? (That is, the current Politico newspaper article's lede about a crotch bulge that reads, "First came the crotch photos. Then came the lying and denial. Now, Rep. Anthony Weiner is seeking treatment...." --you believe may or may not refer to the Representative's visible penis and to believe it refers to one is but a synthesis unsupported in this source?) I've opened a discussion of this question of import on the OR Noticeboard, here: Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#visible penis line .--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 16:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments keep wandering further and further from the original subject. I'm not going to waste time trying to refute this new question you've brought up about Anthony Weiner because the connection just isn't there. There is no need for a Wikipedia article that collects together ever single book or news article that mentions of a man's crotch area, and if there was, Visible penis line would not be that article.
There comes a time when one must listen to other editors. A number of editors have tried to get through to you here, but apparently it is not working. The fact is, the more third opinions you solicit, the more editors line up to delete the article. And their comments indicate a growing frustration with wasting time on this. Have you not noticed that? Please stop. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, please wp:AGF. Do you personalize debates whereever you comment throughout the project or is this an isolated case? IAC we're all encouraged to avoid accusing each other such things as "tendentious editing" on article talkpages or on an AfD but rather are encouraged to put our money where our mouth is and raise such accusations at wp:ANI.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've got two AFD pages going on this, and you've added the OR noticeboard. And you want to add ANI. That's called forum shopping. It looks like an attempt to filibuster. It walks like a filibuster. It talks like a filibuster. It smells like a filibuster. Could it be a filibuster? WP:QUACK? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are thousands of articles about topics the title of which does not necessarily match any actual source: New Jersey English dialects,State church of the Roman Empire. Technology of the Dune universe. We don't delete them because they deal uniquely with a real topic. An article is not just its name. The question here is, is this a real phenomenon, and is there some other article which already covers the topic? Obviously this article and Moose Knuckle should be merged. But the topic is separate enough as an intentional effect (Sticky Fingers) that is should not be shoehorned into Cameltoe. Complaining that when authors describe the phenomenon they don't necessarily use the word we have chosen for the article title is merely saying what we really need to do is change the name of the article to visible bulge, not delete it. μηδείς (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Why the FUCK wasn't this speedied??? Original research, for starters. Contains false information, for seconds. Carrite (talk) 03:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 03:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Your command of the English language is exquisite. Yet without specificity youyr claims ring hollow. What lies? What original research? Please be as specific as you can be offensive. μηδείς (talk) 03:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no hits under a google books' search for the term "visible penis line." There are also no hits under a google news archive search. There is one hit under google scholar, which is the 2010 Journal of Gender Studies article already cited. ("mscljocko's fisted hand presses down on his groin, emphasizes his genitals, and invokes the process of masturbating. In other underwear listings, he flexes his well-muscled body and tilts his hips out in order to display a visible penis line (2007a)"). This lack of citation harms the claim that this term is a "common colloquial term." In fact, it appears to be internet slang that hasn't risen to the notability level of other slang. To the extent the concept is noted in sources, it can be noted in other appropriate articles.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The topic is probably legitimate and notable once it has been widened a bit to include phenomena such as codpiece, koteka, and possibly also tanga (clothing) and cameltoe. I am pretty sure this must be a notable topic with significant coverage including technical information for fashion designers. I just don't know how and where to look for it. As a first measure this article should probably be merged with moose knuckle. Hans Adler 17:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So far I haven't had any success with fashion books, but I found "The Book of the Penis" in Google Books. The chapter "The penis in fashion" has 14 pages and begins with descriptions of the kynodesme and the codpiece. As far as I can tell we have no general article on this notable topic yet, and widening this one or the "moose knuckle" article would be the obvious solution. Hans Adler 17:12, 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 Withdrawn (WP:NAC). JJ98 (Talk) 02:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Powerpuff Girls characters

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

Totally unreferenced, this Powerpuff Girls characters lacks a lot of sources and citations. JJ98 (Talk) 19:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Whatever we decide should go for all CN articles like this. If you feel a change is in order, I see three choices here: merge with the main article (not possible without cutting out 90% of the content - it completely cluttered the Courage article), re-shape the article with refs and shorter descriptions (possible, but will take time), or we could always let someone else take care of it. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 20:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, being unreferenced or lacking "a lot of sources and citations" is not an actual deletion rationale; the standard is verifiable, not verified. This is a typical split-off article from a notable television series article. 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 The Powerpuff Girls to incorporate it, so stand-alone it is. postdlf (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs sources Jewishprincess (talk) 21:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has great potential, just needs sources and bg info (such as character ideas, concept, ect..). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per points made above. We would have to make some serious changes to common practices (maybe make a new notability rule for lists of characters) if we were to delete this, though it could use a good trim by someone who knows the series to cut out the characters that are largely unneccesary, Sadads (talk) 01:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I plan on splitting the article when this AfD is done as The Powerpuff Girls and The Powerpuff Girls Z are two seperate series. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:37, 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. Courcelles 09:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Main cities of Italy

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

Referred to community rather than proceeding with previously-nominated speedy. While this article in its current state seems pointless, I do feel that a general overview or summary isn't worthless. Perhaps the community will have an idea about whether there is potential use for this fork. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 17:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unnecessary duplication of List of cities in Italy by population and as an arbitrary list. How without resorting to original research does one decide whether a city is sufficiently "main" enough to include? Harley Hudson (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per the above Badgernet ₪ 15:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably better to keep List of cities in Italy by population instead of this one, selective merging of some content may be possible too. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a useless and redundant list. Delete, merge, smerge, or redirect are all viable options. Bearian (talk) 17:21, 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. Rlendog (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Monipose

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

I'm pretty sure this page is a joke. It's just made up of random associations from the show. There are no citations for it and all references to it in Google refer to the article. Serendi ^pod ous 17:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a clear hoax article. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatant hoax, criteria G3. I've tagged it. Delete Classic. Same delete flavor, twice the number of votes. — chro • man • cer 22:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've had to decline the speedy delete, as one has previously been declined before it was nominated at AfD. But it is a hoax, so Delete -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are no reliable sources (or unreliable either) to presume that this subject is anything different than a hoax. The article does not provide references to presume that the topic even exists. At best it is original research, but all evidences found with a search engine test indicate that the topic is a hoax. Jfgslo (talk) 17:29, 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chronological List of Alabama Baptist Churches and Circuit Preachers in and around Clay County, Alabama 1838-1946

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

Nonnotable and fundamentally trivial topic. This is a topic that is inherently only of limited local interest. The published source cited does not indicate notability, as it is a locally published document of which only 1000 copies were printed. This is a recreation of a couple of articles that were previously nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Baptist Churches in Alabama and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clay County Baptist Preachers 1838-1946. The first of these led to a total rewrite of the article (the current version of List of Baptist Churches in Alabama has no relation to the article that was nominated for deletion) and the second led to deletion of the article. The creator of the current page is asserting (on the new page and on his talk page) that because the AfD debate for List of Baptist Churches in Alabama led to a "keep" result, this new page was kept and is notable. That is an erroneous interpretation of the previous AfD, and anyway notability is not inherited from the other list (the fact that a list of some Baptist churches in Alabama was found to be a notable topic does not make all Baptist churches in Alabama notable). This should be eligible to speedy deletion as a recreation of a page that was deleted through AfD, but for the technicality that one of the prior pages was retained. Orlady (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. --Orlady (talk) 17:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no assertion of notability for the items on the list. Shouldn't be speedy, though -- the previous AfD closed early as author-requests-deletion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out, Sarek. I should have reviewed the history more closely. However, that AfD would have closed as "Delete" if the author hadn't requested deletion first. --Orlady (talk) 17:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:IINFO as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Anthem 19:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sarek and Anthem. Regarding the prior AfDs, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Baptist Churches in Alabama is completely irrelevant to this article, because List of Baptist Churches in Alabama bore no resemblance to this article at any time. The same churches may at one point have been listed in both, but List of Baptist Churches in Alabama didn't include the list of ministers. The other AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clay County Baptist Preachers 1838-1946, is relevant, because at one point Clay County Baptist Preachers 1838-1946 contained a church-by-church chronological listing of ministers, and then in the midst of the AfD, the article creator announced that he had posted the wrong list and replaced it with an alphabetical listing of ministers with years indicated but without their churches indicated. This current version of the article appears to be similar to ~~both of those prior lists combined, one followed by the other.~~ the first list (the second list has since been removed). However, this list does not appear to satisfy the guidelines at WP:LISTPEOPLE. None of the ministers on this list appear to be individually notable enough for their own articles, and the only source used to establish the fact that these individuals were ministers at these churches is an obscure publication. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, at the time it was nominated for deletion, List of Baptist Churches in Alabama did have some resemblance to the current article. --Orlady (talk) 17:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It mentioned the same churches in the same order, but it didn't list any of the ministers. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

THIS WAS ALREADY DISCUSSED for deletion and the concensus was KEEP I posted that I was looking for a proper title and ___location and reposting the correct article as as above, it was wrongly labelled. It is already KEEP not Delete. WayneRay (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that was a different article. You can see here the way List of Baptist churches in Alabama looked when you last edited it. Notice that there was not one individual minister mentioned on that page. Thus, it bears no resemblance to Chronological List of Alabama Baptist Churches and Circuit Preachers in and around Clay County, Alabama 1838-1946, which is what we are discussing now. The article we are discussing now is basically the same as the one you originally posted under the title Clay County Baptist Preachers 1838-1946, first with the church-by-church chronological listing. (That was later replaced by an alphabetical listing of ministers, which at one point appeared in this article but has since been removed.) That one was deleted at your request because you said you would "put the other one back up under the correct title". The fact that List of Baptist churches in Alabama happened to be kept (after being extensively rewritten) does not prove anything about whether Chronological List of Alabama Baptist Churches and Circuit Preachers in and around Clay County, Alabama 1838-1946 should be kept also. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:49, 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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vermin Supreme

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

WP:NOT#NEWS; simple as. There is no evidence that this person is any more "notable" than any other joke candidate. Ironholds (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:POLITICIAN.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Easily passes criterion 3 which states
although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article.
Supreme has extensive reliable source coverage in a plethora of newsmedia. A simple google search reveals 40,200 results for the term "Vermin Supreme" and reliable source coverage includes CBS, NPR, the Concord Monitor and Boston.com among others. This individual clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN. Basket of Puppies 19:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 19:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See WP:GYNOT for why Google search results are not a valid measure for establishing notability.--JayJasper (talk) 21:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. The majority of the citations referenced in the article make only brief mention of him (which is not "significant coverage"). The rest appear to treat the subject as little more than a novelty news item.--JayJasper (talk) 21:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Fails WP:POLITICIAN, but passes WP:BIO so it doesn't matter. The cited sources are poor, since most of them don't provide significant coverage of him, but the Boston Globe article is good and the little Concord Monitor interview is okay. There's also this in the Washington City Paper, this in the Bedford Journal, and other things on GNews. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If he fails WP:Politician, then what is he notable for?--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's notable for being a joke candidate and performance artist. Read #3 of POLITICIAN: unelected candidates who don't meet the previous guidelines can still be notable if they meet other notability criteria. That's not how the more specific types of biographical notability criteria work - WP:POLITICIAN not being satisfied doesn't negate WP:BASIC being satisfied. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's where we disagree. I don't see many articles where he is the subject, but rather a large number of mentions and/or blurbs in local papers.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is unsatisfactory about the Boston Globe and Washington City Paper? Those aren't local. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After doing a quick search of the news archive, that's pretty much all I can find beyond mentions in blurbs and local newspapers. It was just a quick search so I may be wrong.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that significant coverage in his local papers would not be enough, but those (Concord Monitor, the syndicated story in the Bedford Journal) added to the non-local sources establish notability. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:POLITICIAN. Gage (talk) 03:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Loads of Google News hits. Consider as a piece of performance art/Americana rather than a politician. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At another AFD, you made a good point. I made similar points at the AFD for Jonathon Sharkey (though now I see that Sharkey is notable as an individual), and for this individual below. Please read the comment, perhaps you will agree.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Clearly a notable performance artist, easily passes WP:Notability (people): [2][3][4][5][6][7] Qrsdogg (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Basket of Puppies (talk · contribs) would be advised to read WP:GHITS, which is important here because the majority of those Google links don't cover this person directly and in detail. It's not at all clear that there is sufficient depth of coverage here. ╟─Treasury Tag►First Secretary of State─╢ 17:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Rather than separate articles for such non-notable candidates as Vermin Supreme, Ole Savior, or President Emperor Caesar, perhaps these candidates could be included on an article named Satirical candidacy, which could encompass the specifics of the message and activities of such candidates.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would support that. Gage (talk) 04:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would support that as well.--JayJasper (talk) 05:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, that's okay with me too. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep He is a notable political satirist and performance artist. Apart from the many above-named sources: he was also featured and discussed by Wolf Blitzer, Sam Donaldson, and others in the 1996 documentary, "Why Can't I Be President?" produced for WGBH, WNET and other PBS stations: [8]; he featured prominently in the 2004 documentary "Winning New Hampshire": [9]; he was discussed at length in the print edition of The Economist: [10]; and he was briefly covered on NPR's All Things Considered in 2004: [11]. --Thiebes (talk) 07:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't edited since February, long before this article was even created. What brings you to this discussion?--William S. Saturn (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What brings me to the discussion is that I am familiar with Vermin Supreme's efforts and was able to contribute the above facts. Your personal question seems to imply that I have some vested interest, which I do not. I have never met Supreme and have no particular stake in the matter other than that I value the truth and fairness. I think W'pedia's criteria for notability are fair and Vermin Supreme clearly passes them. --Thiebes (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And yet you started the AFD for Jim Nobles, a figure much more notable than Vermin Supreme.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I strongly disagree tha Jim Nobles is somehow more notable unless you know of where he has been covered by sources like PBS, NPR, or The Economist, as Vermin Supreme has. Regardless, if you wish to debate the notability of Jim Nobles, this is hardly the forum for that. --Thiebes (talk) 02:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you did an archive search for Jim Nobles you'd find four times as many sources. But what the sources you provide for Vermin Supreme show is the notability of the concept of a Satirical candidacy, not the notability of the individual. The individual Vermin Supreme can be mentioned in such an article.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did a search for Jim Nobles back then and as I recall, I did not find nationally distributed periodicals or broadcast television shows talking about him. Vermin Supreme is not merely mentioned in these sources. He is discussed at length, quoted, and pictured repeatedly. You are welcome to your opinion, but my vote stands, as I find Vermin Supreme to be a notable political satirist and this entry to be a valuable inclusion in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thiebes (talk • contribs) 07:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[12] You seem to be more involved than you're admitting.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I received in the last 24 hours an email from Vermin Supreme complaining about the article's mention of his birth name. If my receiving an email from him has a bearing on his notability, I'm very interested to hear how, exactly, that might be. It's interesting to see how you continue to make ad hominem insinuations about me, presumably as a way to distract from the citations I offered above, rather than simply addressing the question of the notability of Vermin Supreme. Do you have some ulterior motive for attempting to undermine my Strong Keep vote? The citations I offered above remain valid and legitimate, you know. --24.20.44.169 (talk) 02:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you have regular e-mail contact with the individual?--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Do you have any relevant points to make? --Thiebes (talk) 03:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So then how did he know to contact you?--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably he saw my comments here, I didn't ask him. --Thiebes (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you report on this page that there is some debate between Vermin Supreme and a dead cult leader named Aleister Crowley, whom you voted for in 2008. Are you still going to deny that you have something to do with this individual? --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have already stated that he sent me an email and that I am familiar with his work. I don't think that these facts change the value of the cited sources which demonstrate his notability. --Thiebes (talk) 10:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Joke candidacy got mentions but this is not substantive coverage. Hekerui (talk) 11:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Have you looked at the references that clearly demonstrate substantive coverage? Hint: Click on any of the links in this reply. Basket of Puppies 02:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When the headlines read "If Elected, No Flying Toothbrush Monkeys", "Running Gag" and "Vermin Supreme grabs three local votes" you know the coverage is humorous, not substantial. Ole Savior got some coverage for running with a vampire, this guy does it for wearing a shoe. Hekerui (talk) 06:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You stated that he has not been subject to substantive coverage. I demonstrated that is incorrect. Is your opinion that his jokster platform makes him unnotable? If so then WP:N will have to be updated to reflect that we don't include joksters, even if they receive extreme amounts of substantive coverage. Basket of Puppies 07:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Has substantial coverage in independent sources, is presumed notable. See wp:GNG. Yes, some of the references are short blurbs that aren't sufficient to contribute to notability, but there is enough significant coverage in sources of high enough caliber to put him over the notability line. Buddy431 (talk) 05:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From GNG: "'Presumed' means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article." See the proposal above. The candidate can be more appropriately discussed at an article on "Satirical candidates".--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:03, 13 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. Rlendog (talk) 20:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Association

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

Notability is not particularly-well asserted here. In addition, I find it hard to believe that this is the primary topic for "Christian Association", in view of the YWCA and YMCA. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Individual college groups are rarely independently notable and this doesn't seem to be an exception, despite the attempt to claim inherited notability from McCracken. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't find any notability. The article could be redirected to University of Pennsylvania#Student life, but I don't favor that because the name of the group is so generic. --MelanieN (talk) 21:44, 12 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Runez

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

A non-notable fighter based on WP:MMANOT. Previous AfD discussion resulted in a "no consensus". I voted "weak keep" then, but I think that was a mistake--I assumed he would keep fighting. He had only 4 professional fights, none with a major organization. Astudent0 (talk) 14:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Astudent0 (talk) 14:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete MMA fighter who fails to meet the notability criteria WP:MMANOT. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 15:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 19:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I nominated this article the first time. Since then he's had no fights and the article hasn't been touched. He still fails WP:MMANOT and has had only 4 minor fights. Papaursa (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject fails MMA notability criteria. Jakejr (talk) 18:09, 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Krasen Belev

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

Clearly non-notable per WP:ATH, no professional experience. — Toдor Boжinov — 14:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 19:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Life^talk 12:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 12:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - without a fully pro appearance or significant coverage in reliable sources, he clearly fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:42, 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Hunter-Clarke

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

Apparently one of the youngest local councillor's in history, so I thought there was a genuine chance he might be notable even though he doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN. However, a search of google and google news shows no significant coverage in independent reliable sources, so doesn't pass the general notability guideline. Jenks24 (talk) 11:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 11:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 11:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - our usual outcomes is to delete the articles of councillors of all but the largest cities. Bearian (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what has been said, but he is one of Britain's youngest Councillors, and one of the youngest in Europe due to his age - 18 ! Therefore, is it not significant ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.247.185 (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 19:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless third-party coverage is found. I'm not convinced being an 18-year-old councillor is that significant. Yes, it puts you on the young end of councillors, but with tens of thousands of council seats through the country there could still be many younger councillors out there. Anyway, my opinion is not important, it's whether this achievement has been written about - Google News seems to think it hasn't, so unless someone can find third-party coverage that GNews didn't pick up, it doesn't meet the notability guideline. In the event notability is proven, the article still needs a serious rewrite - at it stands this article is like his CV. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of younger councillors on much larger council of note. There is no third party coverage at any level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.120.232 (talk) 22:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are more credible Councillors out there. Skegness Town Council is more or less a party political parish Council with no real authority. It is clear that this page is little more than an election address for the elections mentioned in the article! Therefor it is not objective. They are deffeinatly more notable young Councillors as Mr. HC is clearly just one of many! — Preceding unsigned comment added by George Gerald (talk • contribs) 22:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in the absence of reliable sources that show the claim (that he is one of Britain's youngest Councillors, and one of the youngest in Europe due to his age) is notable. - Pointillist (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC) ...and also, I should have said, verifiable - Pointillist (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Page is no more than a personal election address. No objectivity. No source material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.120.232 (talk) 22:54, 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biswatosh Sinha

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

Delete. Completely unreferenced, notability not established nor evident, fails WP:CREATIVE, contested prod. WWGB (talk) 08:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 08:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 08:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Not even a single reference provided, cannot establish notability at all Tashif (talk) 12:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete this is a biography of a living person with not one reference. Should be immediately deleted per db-a7. WP:BLPPROD says "Unlike standard proposed deletion, the BLP deletion template may be removed only after the biography contains a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article." The article creator failed to do such and only added yet more unreferenced material. Prods are useless. —Mike Allen 07:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to find any sources as well. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:50, 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Benjamin

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

Delete. Not-notable person. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I second the opinion, fails WP:NOTE Tashif (talk) 12:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. He is an up and coming tenure-track professor, but is not yet notable even according to our general guidelines. Wikipedia is not the place to wage tenure fights and other battles in academia. Bearian (talk) 17:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I share the above expressed concerns. For what it's worth, I found nothing on GaleNet. Dloh cierekim 18:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Bearian. Asteroid1717 (talk) 00:54, 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) 19:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TMF/A-803 LaGOWE

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

Fails WP:GNG, and violates our guidelines on coverage of fiction. Merging of content seems an unlikely solution as the list List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED mobile weapons has been deleted via a discussion. There is no significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Anthem 10:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, notability issues and all plot pretty much cover this article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Restore List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED mobile weapons and merge there per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GAT-01 Strike Dagger. —Farix (t | c) 01:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I've mentioned elsewhere, restoring an article which has been deleted by consensus at AFD requires you to use the venue of deletion review. --Anthem 06:01, 6 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, Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is WP:JUSTPLOT, fails the WP:GNG, and does not admit to notability by any secondary criteria. Not enough coverage in sources indepedent of the subject to expand beyond a stub, once unsourced information derived from WP:PRIMARY sources is removed. — chro • man • cer 16:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nomination. The subject of the article, a fictional weapon, does not meet the general notability guideline and it is a plot-only description of a fictional work. The article is unreferenced and with no reliable third-party sources there is no valid reason to keep the article. A search engine test does not show anything different to presume otherwise. Jfgslo (talk) 23:50, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Italian Martial Arts

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

Pointless list of so-called martial arts, none of which have their own WP articles and many of which can't be found on Google either. Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:RS and WP:GNG andy (talk) 07:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. All of the sources the article cites are Youtube videos with only titles of the phrases used here, and those were largely the only places that I saw that used the phrases in this article. If some of these styles become notable, then maybe this page will have potential. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Many, I'll admit I didn't check all of them, of the martial arts listed are non-notable based on my searches. Nothing in the article is linked to a source. Astudent0 (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a collection of unsourced statements about the skills of Italians in certain battles. It seems like you could make a good article on this topic, but this current rendition needs to be totally scrapped. Papaursa (talk) 20:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This is a very reasonable topic for an article. We have articles like Japanese Martial Arts and there is sufficient material available on traditional Italian methods of fencing and daggerwork, for example, to justify such an article. This isn't that article--not by a long stretch--but the subject of the article itself is notable. JJL (talk) 23:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: references have been added and the internet links have been added. There are wikiarticles on "italian School Of Swordmanship" in the english wikipedia and on "istrumpa" and "Bastone siciliano" on the italian wikipedia: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istrumpa, http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastone_Siciliano. Simply because you guys are ignorant about something it does not mean that it does not exist. You are a very arrogant bunch. proper references to the "skill of italians in certain battles" have been added. Reliable sources are Guicciardini and Macchiavelli who reported these things as they were happening. I suggest you download the art of war by Macchiavelli and you will find the passages describing how italian and spanish soldiers armed with short swords annhiliated the famed Landsknecht and the "Invincible" swiss pikemen. Here is the link: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/15772 Good reading In case you guys have trouble reading the Epub format try the txt format here: http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/15772/pg15772.txt Oh...and about the martial arts being "non notable": From 756 BC (foundation of Rome) until at least 1634 (Battle of Nordlingen) firearms were either non-existent or unreliable and cumbersome and all or most of the fighting was hand-to-hand. Now take Randy Couture, Fedor Emelianenko, Bruce Lee and Chuck Norris and put them in the time machine to transport them at the Battle of Pavia (1525). How do you think they would fare facing 4 men-at-arms skilled in the "Flower of Battle" ( the true italian martial art)? How many Martial Arts Do you know that have a written manual dating from 1410 AD and recording the "moves" in great detail? take a look for yourself: http://www.thearma.org/essays/Fiore/FioreDeiLiberi_StudyGuide.v3.6.pdf If you want to get skilled at hand-to-hand isn't it smart to learn your skill from an art developed when warfare was mostly fought hand-to-hand? So how is this martial art "non-notable"?

Here is what Macchiavelli says in his Art of war: Philip Vicecounte of Milaine, being assaulted of xviii. thousande Suizzers, sent against theim the Counte Carminvola, whiche then was his capitaine. He with sixe thousande horse, and a fewe footemen, went to mete with them, and incounteryng theim, he was repulsed with his moste greate losse: wherby Carminvola as a prudente man, knewe straight waie the puisaunce of the enemies weapons, and how moche against the horses thei prevailed, and the debilitie of the horses, againste those on foote so appoincted: and gatheryng his men together again, he went to finde the Suizzers, and so sone as he was nere them, he made his men of armes, to a light from their horse, and in thesame mane, faightyng with them he slue theim all, excepte three thousande: the whiche seyng them selves to consume, without havyng reamedy, castyng their weapons to the grounde, yelded.

So the "invincible" Swiss surrendered throwing their weapons to the ground....a non-notable Martial art? Maybe for a martial art to be "notable" it has to have been founded in 1957, make you belong to a dojo that chages $ 50 a month and makes you kick and punch the air to earn your black belt. try punching and kicking a renaissance knight in full armor, or even a marine with his helmet and alice pack on and see how long your hands and feet last, Mr Non-notable. I have to agree the italian martial art should not be called "martial art" it should be only called "fior di battaglia", "The flower of battle" as no other name can describe it

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 09:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vegetarian Victoria

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

fails WP:ORG. could only find coverage under its old name in gnews, but it's more a few comments in the media by a member rather than indepth coverage of the organisation itself. [13]. LibStar (talk) 07:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because of lack of sources. When I typed their name into a search engine, I came back with nothing notable. If someone can find a newspaper article or something relating to its credibility then great. SwisterTwister (talk) 03:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not find any outside sourcing about this organization, and none is provided at the article. --MelanieN (talk) 21:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable and reasonably covered - if you bother to look carefully enough Satu Suro 12:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE. Please provide evidence of indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 12:53, 13 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Damián Martínez

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

Footballer who has yet to play at level required by WP:NFOOTBALL. Has not played senior professional match, has not played senior international. Coverage all appears to be sports journalism of a general nature ClubOranje^T 07:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ClubOranje^T 07:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —ClubOranje^T 07:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 07:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 08:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Argyle. Though we are not a paper encyclopedia, we shouldn't list ever player who gets "called up". ArcAngel (talk) ) 10:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Completely fails WP:NFOOTBALL, player is not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia Tashif (talk) 11:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Donnie Kennedy

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

Non-notable individual. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. No independent or reliable sources provided that focus directly on the individual. As one talk page user put it: "smells like a vanity article". Prod removed. William S. Saturn (talk) 07:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 07:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. No significant coverage, non-notable.--JayJasper (talk) 17:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While as a figure in electoral politics he is insignificant, there are a number of sources that talk about his apparently influential role in the neo-Confederate/pro-slavery movement, especially as the co-author of The South Was Right!: these books, these news stories, this SPLC report. But I think this collection of dead-enders can be adequately mentioned in the League of the South and Neo-Confederate articles without needing bio's of each of them. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN, WP:AUTHOR, and WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 08:16, 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) MacMed^talk _stalk 01:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shafiqah Shasha

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

fails WP:BIO. admittedly this person died in 1953, but nothing in gnews and gbooks. google just shows WP mirrors or namesakes. I can't even verify the existence of this individual in third party sources. LibStar (talk) 06:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check whether the source given in the article confirms her existence? --Bduke (Discussion) 22:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 07:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless someone is able to confirm that the cited book does not back her notability. With articles on people that lived and died before the Internet came up I believe we should agf on offline references even if nothing else comes up at Google, even if that book has had only local impact, as evidenced by this catalog search. --Pgallert (talk) 13:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the book might exist but one source is not sufficient to base a WP article on. LibStar (talk) 02:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in principle. However, the reality is that, up to C class, articles with one independent source are generally accepted. Let's concentrate on deleting the unsourced ones first. --Pgallert (talk) 07:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

this AfD is active, there is no point asking for close as keep because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. LibStar (talk) 07:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the valuable link. My policy-based reason was, however, not WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but WP:IAR: For as long as nobody can look up this book, or search in Lebanese, or with other spellings of this name, I would prefer to err on the side of caution and keep the article. Alternatively, as Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. (WP:N, footnote 3) please suggest a possible merge target rather than proposing to remove the content right away, to counter WP:BIAS. --Pgallert (talk) 11:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as well. A source exists and I agree with Pgallert that we should assume good faith that it is accurate until proven otherwise. For non-North American/Western European people of generations ago, it is often very hard to find good sources online. If they exist in print, that is more than fine with me.--TM 11:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

even if the one source is accurate, the claims for notability do not meet WP:BIO. WP:AGF does not apply to assuming notability exists when it cannot be backed with multiple sources. LibStar (talk) 14:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As above, stub articles don't necessarily require a great deal of sourcing, particularly when dealing with content pre-internet. WP:GOODFAITH in regards to the claim of notablity leads me to believe unless someone contests the source the stub should remain. One can hardly argue this is a case of the author including themselves given the individual of focus is long dead. Stevezimmy (talk) 03:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the arguments given above are not convincing to delete - Satu Suro 12:24, 13 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. At the end of the day, no one showed any notability of this fictional substance. Courcelles 09:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mutant growth hormone

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

Delete - completely non-notable fictional item. Has no real-world significance and no reliable sources that discuss it in any detail, let alone the necessary significant coverage. Has been tagged for reference improvement since September 2007 but that's impossible because references don't exist. Note that there is a real thing called "mutant growth hormone" that has nothing to do with the comic book concept and there are reliable sources for that, but they are not to be confused with sources about the fiction. This should be deleted and redirected to Growth hormone in the hope that someone will write an article about the real thing. Harley Hudson (talk) 00:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim/indication of out-of-universe notability. -LtNOWIS (talk) 01:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage in third party reliable sources. --Anthem 18:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of comic book drugs, which seems to be the exact sort of list it should be in. Mathewignash (talk) 00:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's already on that list. Harley Hudson (talk) 01:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and/or Redirect to List of comic book drugs.--Crazy runner (talk) 06:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's already on that list and redirecting a real thing to a list of fictional items is inappropriate. Harley Hudson (talk) 08:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, for the moment there is no mention of the real mutant growth hormone in Wikipedia. So a redirection to the only entry real or fictional seems appropriate. Pages that link to "Mutant growth hormone" contains only comic articles. Harley Hudson, I understand your concern. I propose the same solution that BOZ in addition a section about the real mutant growth hormone should be written in the article Growth hormone.--Crazy runner (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Almost 200 of the pages that link to MGH do so because the article is included in the X-Men template, which generates a link from each templated page to each templated page regardless of whether MGH appears in the actual text of the article. Another 20 are redirects, user pages or project pages (including this discussion page) and should not be considered. Harley Hudson (talk) 05:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I put it in a nutshell, you can not say how many pages are linked to this pages due to the X-Men template and there is 0 link for the real growth hormone.--Crazy runner (talk) 06:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Really? You really think that the articles on Stan Lee and Jack Kirby contain links to MGH outside the template? Ridiculous. Take the article out of the template for a day and see how many links remain. Regardless, the point still stands uncontested that there are no independent reliable sources that attest to the notability of this fictional concept. Harley Hudson (talk) 07:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... and always 0 link and 0 definition in wikipedia for the real growth hormone. It is not enought notable to have its own article so I vote for a merge and a redirect.--Crazy runner (talk) 22:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Google news can help to provide some refs on the fictional one. (just to check some information) --Crazy runner (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And once again, the number of links to or from an article is not relevant to whether the subject matter is notable. A non-notable article linked to ten thousand other articles is still non-notable and a notable subject that has no links to anywhere is still notable. The handful of Google news hits do not support the notability of the concept because they do not offer significant coverage of the concept as required by the general notability guideline. Harley Hudson (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And once again, I am not saying that we have to keep the article so why are you talking so much about Notability ??? Since when a redirection has to require the notability of an article ? There is an entry in the list of comic book drugs, some articles about comics in wikipedia use this notion, it makes sense to have a redirection to the list. Futhermore some content can be added for example the Banshee in the Marvel ultimate universe. Conclusion for me, it is a merge and a redirection.--Crazy runner (talk) 12:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge and redirect~~ per Mathewignash and Crazy runner. BOZ (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, seriously. There is a real thing called "mutant growth hormone". Real things should not be redirects to lists of fictional items. Harley Hudson (talk) 19:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page for growth hormone does not mention mutant growth hormone that I can see. Additionally I don't think it's a valid arguement for deletion that a fictional thing should be deleted because shares a name with a real world thing. If it's true we would simple rename the page Mutant Growth Hormone (Marvel Comics), not delete it. Mathewignash (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting it should be deleted because it shares the name of a real thing. I'm saying it should be deleted because the comics concept has zero sources supporting its real-world notability. Because mutant growth hormone is a real thing readers should not be misled with a redirect to a list for unreal things. Harley Hudson (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amending my !vote to: Move to Mutant growth hormone (comics) and create redirect or disambiguation page at Mutant growth hormone, and then Merge and redirect as per above. BOZ (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please indicate the independent reliable sources that demonstrate the real world notability of this fictional concept as required by WP:GNG and WP:WAF? Harley Hudson (talk) 05:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain why you are speacking about WP:GNG and WP:WAF ? BOZ vote for a Merge not a Keep and he proposes the perfect solution to take into account the real and the fictional growth hormone with two redirections.--Crazy runner (talk) 06:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BOZ is suggesting moving this article to a new title. Under either the existing title or the proposed new title there need to be independent reliable sources that attest to the notability of the subject. There are no such sources for the fictional hormone, which means that no article should exist under any name, including BOZ's proposed name. No sources means no article. Harley Hudson (talk) 07:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the end, it is not anymore an article, it is a redirection. --Crazy runner (talk) 22:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you need to have full notability that a stand-alone article would require to merge this into a list. The LIST needs notability, but the individual item on the list needs only a reliable source, even a primary one. Mathewignash (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the list article already has a source so there's no need to merge one from here. Harley Hudson (talk) 22:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why ??? Where is the rule that tell us to write only one source by notion in a list ? We can improve the definition in the list. --Crazy runner (talk) 12:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The. Names. Of. Real. Things. Should. Not. Redirect. To. Things. That. Don't. Exist. Not really sure why that statement is such a problem for you. Harley Hudson (talk) 13:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a problem for me. The answer of BOZ takes into account that statement. And my question was why did you think "the list article already has a source so there's no need to merge one from here" ? I do not understand I am asking a question about sources, you speack about real and fictional. In my opinion, a section about the real MGH should be written, the MGH direct to it. A merge should be performed and MGH (comics) direct to it. It solves the notability problem and every user can access the information real or fictional.--Crazy runner (talk) 06:00, 4 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, -- Cirt (talk) 02:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and/or Redirect to List of comic book drugs.

"The. Names. Of. Real. Things. Should. Not. Redirect. To. Things. That. Don't. Exist. Not really sure why that statement is such a problem for you."

Because "Mutant Growth Hormone" is not a term that exists in the real world. "Growth Hormone" is a common term in the real world and sometimes the adjective "mutant" is put in front of it when it is an abnormal GH, so in the literature you will find the phrase "a mutant growth hormone" (hence Google finding the phrase). However, they will never actually refer to the mutated growth hormone as "mutant growth hormone," but will instead use a specific name/term for that specific mutated growth hormone. Spidey104 14:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why this should be deleted and then re-created as a redirect to Growth hormone since mutant growth hormones are real things related to real growth hormones. The already-existing Mutant Growth Hormone, which currently redirects to Mutant growth hormone, should be retargeted to the list of comic book drugs. Harley Hudson (talk) 15:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But since it doesn't exist no one would be looking for it on Wikipedia and having Mutant Growth Hormone or Mutant growth hormone redirect to Growth hormone would be confusing to the people looking for the MGH comic book concept that will be in List of comic book drugs. We could put a link to Growth hormone in the list article similar to Selucia/Seleucia Spidey104 15:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little unclear as to how, when you acknowledge that there exist and there is scientific literature about mutant growth hormones, you can continue to assert that they do not exist. A simple hatnote on the growth hormone article will lead anyone confused between the real thing and the fictional thing to the fictional thing. Harley Hudson (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The term does not exist as something people would search for. "Growth hormones" obviously exist and there are mutated forms of growth hormones, but "mutant growth hormone" is a phrase in the literature and not a term. Having an article about "Mutant growth hormone" would be like having Red automobile be a separate article from Automobile. All mutated growth hormones would have an actual name that people would search for. Spidey104 18:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Growth hormone: Non-notable fictional drug that does not meet the general notability guideline and its article is a plot-only description of a fictional work. The article is referenced exclusively with primary sources, nothing to presume that the fictional drug is well known outside of them or to warrant a merge. A quick search engine test on Google shows some mentions in unreliable sources such as fansites and forums. However, the same search in scholarly articles and books shows exclusively the real-world hormone. By adding -marvel to the regular Google search, the results refer to the real-world hormone, roughly 58% of the total results without -marvel. With this in mind, I believe that a redirect to List of comic book drugs would only cause confusion to Wikipedia users since the real-world hormone has much more notability than the fictional drug, which does not show any notability beyond fan-related web sites. Given the notability of the real-world hormone, a redirect to Growth hormone could be a good alternative to deletion. Jfgslo (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of significant coverage in independent sources to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jfgslo, I redirect you to my previous comment. Look closer at those results in the Google search and you will realize they are not using "mutant growth hormone" as a term but rather using "a mutant growth hormone" as a phrase. For example those sentences your search is finding all have this same general structure: "ACDr is a mutant growth hormone of the growth hormone ACD." People would look for "Growth hormone" and not "Mutant growth hormone" when looking for the real-world growth hormones, so it makes no sense to have a fictional term redirect to a real-world subject. Spidey104 14:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added a section parallel with the reality and some sources. What do you think ? --Crazy runner (talk) 16:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a few sentences out of a blog interview about a story arc that deal with a variant iteration of the fictional concept don't establish the independent notability of this fictional concept itself. Harley Hudson (talk) 17:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but that stuff can be kept when it is Merged and Redirected to List of comic book drugs. Spidey104 17:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All the interview of Comic Book Resources is about the story arc with the Banshee. I took only a few quotes, a paragraph can be write to show the social commentary these comic book drugs give. I have answered the problem of only primary sources and "impossible because references don't exist". It is not the case anymore.--Crazy runner (talk) 17:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are about the story arc. Exactly. Harley Hudson (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no redirect. It's clear that an actual "mutant growth hormone" does not exist, but persons searching for a mutant growth hormone, which is a phrase common to scientific literature, should not be redirected to a list of fictional drugs or substances. No valid, policy-based arguments have been made to assert the individual notability of the fictional concept. If consensus does not support a full deletion, the principle of least harm would suggest any redirect would have to go to the real-world article, as "mutant growth hormone" would be a valid search term to growth hormones in general. — chro • man • cer 20:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And why are you against a move to Mutant growth hormone (comics), an edit on Mutant growth hormone so it redirects to Growth hormone and a merge of Mutant growth hormone (comics) into List of comic book drugs ? Can we try to have a consensus on this solution ? Real word redirect to real word, fictional word redirect to fictional word and we have not the full deletion. --Crazy runner (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because that's an extremely complicated solution to a trivial problem. If you would like to add some of the sourced information from the article onto the entry that already exists on List of comic book drugs, I have no problem with that. — chro • man • cer 22:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We can not just copy, attribution has to be given to the original author see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. I do not see where is the difficulty. There is no need of an administrator to move the page because the page Mutant growth hormone (comics) is not used. And there is a need of a redirection for the articles about comics. The only ones that speack about the Mutant growth hormone for the moment.--Crazy runner (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not suggesting you copy. I suggested you add information using the same sources as found on the current article. The overwhelming majority of information on the page is plot summary from primary sources, and badly written to boot. I see no viable need for a redirect at this time. — chro • man • cer 23:30, 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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scarbarians F.C

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

PROD removed by article creator, who seems be a SPA with a COI. This is a non-notable amateur soccer team that has not competed at a high enough level to merit an article. Giant Snowman 02:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable group. tedder (talk) 02:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — tedder (talk) 02:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — tedder (talk) 02:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 02:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete. User page. I believe as a user I can have my own page and title it as I wish. Isn't that correct? From my understanding it is, and I have had this page for over 2 years now.Untitled F.C. (talk) 10:12, 6 June 2011 (EST)

This was an article, not a userpage. See Wikipedia:User_pages. Second, even if you left it on your user page, you can have a draft in your userspace but not something masquerading as an article- it's meant as a temporary home. Wikipedia is not a web host. You can use Google Sites, Squarespace, Facebook, or hundreds of other places for unencyclopedic content. tedder (talk) 02:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Explain to me why it has been running no problem for the past 2 years? In addition how would you know if it a notable group or not. Have you been in the city of Scarborough and seen this club yourself. I highly doubt it! (talk) 10:29, 6 June 2011 (EST)

For age of the article, see WP:ARTICLEAGE. General notability is discussed at WP:GNG; roughly, an article needs to have sufficient coverage in reliable sources. The local nickel paper doesn't suffice. A single article doesn't suffice. That doesn't mean it isn't important to you, it means it doesn't pass the threshold of encyclopedic notability. tedder (talk) 05:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as this team fails to meet the criteria for notability, per WP:NSPORT. It probably "has been running no problem for the past 2 years" because no one outside the team has seen it in the past two years. OCNative (talk) 02:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then why is it a problem now there are hundreds of individuals using their user page as a personal page rather than for something useful even tedder who is proposing this page should be deleted uses Wikipedia as a personal page. Why is there no consistency why is his page not being deleted? (talk) 10:37, 6 June 2011 (EST)

I think you're having trouble understanding the difference between a user page and an article. All user pages are preceded by "User:" in their title, which this page does not. OCNative (talk) 02:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or userfy -- see below). Given that Wikipedia doesn't even have an article about the league that this club plays in, it seems unlikely that this club would itself be notable enough for an article, and I can't find any proper sources about the club myself. I would also note that nobody here is talking about deleting the user page User:Untitled F.C. which happens to redirect to Scarbarians F.C, the page under discussion for deletion. Only Scarbarians F.C, a page in the main encyclopedia, is up for deletion here. (However, if it is deleted, the link on User:Untitled F.C. will become a broken redlink.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been using my user page to edit and change everything I do not know how an article was created in the first place. My teams name has changed and it may have changed unintentionally. But even then there should be some consistency. (talk) 10:52, 6 June 2011 (EST)

You've actually been working on it since 2008 in the main article space. There are millions of articles, so it probably got overlooked. The best place for it would be in the Article Incubator where other editors could help you out. tedder (talk) 05:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If User:Untitled F.C. wants to have this page userfied to be a subpage in their userspace, I would not object to that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I am understanding correctly these seems like a reasonable solutions. (talk) 7:21, 6 June 2011 (EST)

Metropolitan90, I would object to it. Userspace is decent for entries that could become articles that are being actively worked on. It "should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles". This is a case where it will clearly never meet notability guidelines, it would be best hosted on a web hosting provider, not part of Wikipedia. To quote further, userspace is for "short term hosting of potentially valid articles and other reasonable content under development or in active use". tedder (talk) 23:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what is the solution here? talk) 10:34, 7 June 2011 (EST)

Use any of the options listed at Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. tedder (talk) 03:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So I cannot even use my user page? talk) 07:38, 8 June 2011 (EST)

This is not a personal website/blog - this is an encyclopedia. Giant Snowman 12:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that but why can't I have it as a User page, so many people even people that are voting for deletion here are using their User page for personal reasons. talk) 6:17, 8 June 2011 (EST)

Delete, fails notability guidelines. What User:Untitled F.C. has got is a user page that redirects to the article, and my advice would be to take a copy of the article and save it under a name something like User:Untitled F.C./Scarbarians F.C. PK T(alk) 21:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what is the solution here? talk) 10:34, 7 June 2011 (EST)

Might I suggest Wikia? OCNative (talk) 08:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a host website that will use the same templates and will not require having to put all this work to waste? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Untitled F.C. (talk • contribs) 22:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article doesn't belong on wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't a free web host service. If the user wishes to keep it they need to move it to a different website, perhaps create their own website for their local team. Delusion23 (talk) 15:47, 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 keep. -- Cirt (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Beckingham

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

fails WP:NSKATE. whilst he has won a national championship in pairs, Australia is not a country that regularly sends multiple skaters to Winter olympics. LibStar (talk) 07:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes criterion 3 of WP:NSKATE: "Won their country's senior national championships, with the exception of those countries that do not regularly send multiple skaters to the Olympic Games (consult this Olympic athlete tally to check whether the country qualifies)." If you go to the national championships article, you will see the Australian championships and if you go to the Olympic athlete tally article, you will see that Australia does regularly send multiple skaters to the Olympics. Jenks24 (talk) 07:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:16, 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) 01:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:NSKATE, Australia does contribute to Olympic skating. --Anthem 06:10, 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) 19:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mauiva

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

I have searched for reliable sources to establish notability and all I was able to turn up were an article that sounds like a press release located in a small regional paper [14], a press release [15], a passing reference in the Daily Mail [16] about a similarly named company called Mauiva Air Tours (likely the same company?), and a blog post [17]. This does not appear to be enough reliable source content to establish notability. It seems it is too early to have an article - perhaps later if they build notability for their company? ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 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) 01:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Even with these two [18] [19] notability is minimal - frankie (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Qaya Quartet

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

This article was prodded under A7, and the prod was removed without any explanation as to why it met the A7 prod criteria. I've performed a wp:before search, and cannot myself find indicia of notability under wp standards. Others are welcome to try. Epeefleche (talk) 01:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 23 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) 00:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agreeing with nominator, clear A7 violation. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 02:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The usual search didn't turn much but these two items [20] [21] made it seem like they were notable, so I checked the RU and AZ articles with Google translate [22] [23], and then a couple of hits from a search in Russian [24] [25] [26] (note that Google translates "Qaya" as "Gaya" or "Gay" or "Guy"). It seems to me that this is a case of WP:FUTON, and of course I'd be great if someone who actually speaks Russian or is from the region could review the case - frankie (talk) 02:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Can you point us to substantial RS coverage? If it exists in what you pointed us to, I am missing it. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:19, 6 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) 01:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what I can see the quartet had a celebrity status on the 70s, so it just has to be verifiable. The same can be seen here [27], and this is their discography [28]. Also this scholar search [29] is very interesting, but following the hits is complicated - frankie (talk) 23:03, 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) 19:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soldiers of Allah

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

Not Notable, no sources for any of the information — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ookladamot (talk • contribs) 02:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient coverage in secondary sources to meet the general notability guidelines. —C.Fred (talk) 02:46, 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) 01:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any non-trivial reliable source coverage of them, other than an article on an Indonesian site of questionable reliability. (Although since their name is a common phrase, I may have missed something.) Qrsdogg (talk) 18:20, 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. Courcelles 09:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

National Centrist Party

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

Non-notable organization that has no coverage whatsoever from independent, reliable sources. OCNative (talk) 01:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —OCNative (talk) 01:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —OCNative (talk) 01:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm tempted to say speedy delete per G11 and as a possible copyright violation, but I can't open the website to be sure. Does not seem to pass our guidelines for organizations. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable organization not covered by reliable sources. Dosen't help that the article reads like a brochure--JayJasper (talk) 04:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't seem to find any reliable sources covering them. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I found one reference, from the Des Moines Register, and added it to the article. However it still lacks the required MULTIPLE independent sources. Maybe the party will expand and become more notable, and the article can then be recreated. I hope so; it sounds like my kind of party. --MelanieN (talk) 22:49, 12 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) 19:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adil Omar

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

Subject non-notable and article is poorly sourced, most sources point back to self-website, facebook, or myspace. -- Ookladamot (talk · contribs)

Nomination made at 02:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC).

Keep Besides the facebook and other dubious sources, there are plenty of reliable sources such as the Guardian, Tribune, MTVDESI, and MSNBC.--v/r - T P 02:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As noted by TParis, there are multiple secondary sources, including some major TV networks and newspapers. —C.Fred (talk) 02:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As noted by Honeymarmite, there are plenty of reliable sources and his notability as a public figure has been proven with the amount of album, television, film and radio appearances he has done. 12:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Honeymarmite (talk • contribs) 07:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:16, 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) 01:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. The AFD tag was improperly removed from the article. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't believe in procedure for procedure's sake, I do note that the AfD tag was removed on 30 May, and there were no comments after that date—so it might have skewed the results. I agree with a week's relisting. —C.Fred (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I noticed that did look to see when it was removed. If it were just done yesterday I would have punched it "keep" and told Honeymarmite not do do it again. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the less reliable sourcing can be fixed through the normal editing process. Bearian (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because I believe the article has potential to make itself better. It already has good strong sources such as The Guardian and The Express Tribune. SwisterTwister (talk) 06:17, 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 keep. . Two !votes for keep, with only the nominator voting for deletion. As SatuSuro indicates, having coverage (including a profile written about someone) is indicative of them passing the General Notability Guide (non-admin closure) Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Giannoni

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

fails WP:BIO. simply being the first Italian to settle in South Australia does not grant automatic notability. at best this fact is covered in 3 books [30]. but we really do not know anything else about him. LibStar (talk) 06:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 05:55, 4 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) 01:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment my my, afd really has gone to some depths if indeed fails WP:BIO. simply being the first Italian to settle in South Australia does not grant automatic notability. - that comment in itself should require a response - however WP:AGF and WP:Civility require that I say no further. Satu Suro 11:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep - the very reason for afd as provided by the nominator should in fact be the retention of the article - however slight or flimsy the record! - Satu Suro 12:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it does not grant automatic notability. Similarly does the first Fijian in South Australia grant automatic notability? My my. LibStar (talk) 12:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep coverage in two books published 5 years apart, bust and statue of the person in SA show he's recognised character in the History of SA. So while the being the first itself may not engender notability, being written about and having public sculptures made of does. Gnan garra 13:12, 13 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. Courcelles 09:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Benny Aboud

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

I don't think being named one of the region's top CEOs by South Florida Business Journal is really enough to establish notability. —Chowbok ☠ 01:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 07:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because I do agree with the fact that it's trivial to mention him supporting only one South Florida Journal source. There's always the chance articles can improve, I don't quite see it but who knows. SwisterTwister (talk) 06:20, 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) 19:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rishloo

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

Band does not appear to meet notability standards. Albums independently released. No charting or major awards. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. None of sources provided are independent reliable sources. Nothing but listings found. This should be deleted for the eigth time. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:14, 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) 01:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete as I thought last time if I recall, (not sure if I said it or not) there are NO sources to attest to their notability. WP:Ilikeit is the only keep criteria I ever see. HominidMachinae (talk) 05:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

on further review of the evidence, can we salt this? it keeps coming back. HominidMachinae (talk) 06:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what research you're doing but it seems incomplete as this band appears to have tracks downloadable on Rockband 3 Xbox. This seems to be a notable and recent development that would qualify as sufficient criteria to end discussion of deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.187.29 (talk) 17:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How does having a DLC track meet any part of WP:MUSIC? HominidMachinae (talk) 04:51, 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. Courcelles 09:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aurora magazine

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

Non-notable local magazine. Author is probably its publisher. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:03, 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) 01:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —AllyD (talk) 07:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject appears non-notable. References provided are insufficient - one is from the magazine's publisher, and the other is a directory listing, which is not 'significant coverage'. Dialectric (talk) 03:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I searched on Yahoo! just to be safe and didn't find anything either. How can we be certain this magazine exists for a encyclopedia article? SwisterTwister (talk) 06:17, 13 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) 19:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Venema

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

Dutch trumpeter. Author himself admits: "I've done my best to look in English sources and found absolutely nothing that would qualify as a reliable source." — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Melissa Venema is a young artist, however, her achievements were noted by multiple reliable sources. She has performed in South Africa, USA, Europe, and collaborated with artists such as André Rieu. You can find a lot of sources (in English and Dutch) here or in the G-News archives. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as creator. While Wikipedia-quality reliable sources were sparse, there were numerous lower-quality sources citing the awards she's won and performances that she's noted for. Easily the most reliable English source of information is her own web site, which is allowable (if undesirable) according to WP:NPF. As Vejvančický mentioned, there are also numerous Dutch sources on her website but not speaking Dutch or having any familiarity with Dutch publications, I was in no position to judge their reliability. I was also unfamiliar with Google News until today, but it looks like there might be some mentions of her in reliable sources there (update: unfortunately, I found nothing I thought would be helpful for the article). Looking at the information available from these various sources, I believe she fulfils multiple criteria of WP:MUSICBIO, including 2,^[31] 5, and 9. If the Dutch articles displayed on her website are considered reliable sources, then she clearly fits criteria 1 as well. I'll be the first to say, the article needs more work, but I believe she readily fulfils the notability requirements and my hope was that by putting a stub there and marking it as such, I would attract people who are better at content creation than I am. – RobinHood70 ^talk 21:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:13, 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) 01:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep English sources aren't required. Cloveapple (talk) 04:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep as cloveapple notes, sources do not have to be in English to be WP:RS — Preceding unsigned comment added by HominidMachinae (talk • contribs) 06:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously there may be some persons looking for this entry, English sources or not. Jewishprincess (talk) 21:38, 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) 19:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lerpong Wichaikhammat

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

Contested PROD - fails WP:BLP1E -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you for serious? This "one event" is part of a continuing reign of terror imposed by a tyrannical (and unchristian, pagan) monarch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.212.206 (talk) 21:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not about the King of Thailand, it is about one person who has been arrested once for one alleged crime. There is a section at Bhumibol_Adulyadej#Lèse majesté for the Thai lèse majesté issue, where this event has been covered, and I don't see how Lerpong Wichaikhammat has any individual notability outside of this one event. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than delete it outright, I suggest moving it to a new article devoted to the alleged criminals, lest they clutter the king's. --Pawyilee (talk) 15:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it for now, move when appropriate - Yes lets keep if for now. then move it to another article about this suppression, when made.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be clear that the King of Thailand did not have anyone arrested: it is already noted that HM has alluded to the alleged crime as not being a crime. Perhaps the whole of lèse majesté with respect to the kingdom should bee moved to the politics of Thailand. --Pawyilee (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One relatively minor incident does not make for notability despite the context. (We don't have an article for everybody held in Gitmo either despite the circumstances of their detention being at least as controversial). Content can be merged as appropriate. Bob House 884 (talk) 14:35, 4 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) 01:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BLP1E. There is sufficient coverage of the event in lèse majesté. Location (talk) 15:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also vote for deletion. The material, if need be, can be edited and added to the existing lese majeste article. There is also a First Amendment violation question here and I encourage others to explore this aspect of the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank G Anderson (talk • contribs) 6 June 2011 Note: preceding comment moved here from talk page of this AfD in accordance with AGF. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:13, 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. Courcelles 09:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Meade's Guide to the McGowan Boys

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

Nominated for deletion because of non-notability. Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 17:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable novel. Neutrality^talk 03:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:NB - no coverage outside of booksellers, etc. Nolelover^Talk^·^Contribs 17:42, 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

D-Ceased

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

Non-notable performer, sourced only to his own website. No hits Google news, no sources found in other locations, no real assertion of notability that's not promotional. The creator has repeatedly removed speedy deletion templates (placed by another editor, not myself) so I have no faith in a PROD. — chro • man • cer 01:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree' If there aren't any reliable sources other than his website, then there's no way of knowing if it's encyclopedic. SwisterTwister (talk) 06:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability; unreferenced BLP Chzz ► 12:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - should have been speedied per A7. Where is the concept of a "premature" speedy deletion discussed? ukexpat (talk) 13:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7.--Breawycker (talk to me!) 14:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I suppose the problem with 'underground' artists is that there's often nothing tangible to indicate their notability, which is the case here. TehGrauniad (talk) 21:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — ukexpat (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — ukexpat (talk) 15:11, 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 redirect to American City Business Journals#Forty under 40 Award. Favonian (talk) 22:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Business Journal's Forty Under 40

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

Contested PROD, No indication that the "Business Journal's Forty Under 40" is a notable list or award, all ref's are either self-published or from associated publications. Fails WP:GNG Mtking (talk) 12:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This doesn't seem very notable. It is not like Time magazine's Person of the Year honor. And Adoil Descended (talk) 22:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A major magazine and so a major list; widely cited;. Not famous like Time's person of the year, but it doesn't have to be famous, just / n DGG ( talk ) 14:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Actually, I am pretty sure these lists are local lists that the various American City Business Journals pump out for each market they publish in. E.g., the list currently in the article is the San Jose list for one year. I would recommend we just redirect to American City Business Journals which already covers this feature.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And please don't tell me this article was created to shore up Paul Dorian's notability? (As he appears on the random San Jose list)!--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:53, 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) 01:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Milowent. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Business Journal. The list, although long would belong better in the magazine's page. SwisterTwister (talk) 03:26, 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. The consensus below is that the subject lacks the coverage in independent, reliable sources to justify an article. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas P. Caruso

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

This fellow has done a lot, but I'm not sure it meets the criteria of WP:BIO. It just looks like the life story of a regular guy who got his Ph.D., wrote some articles, and worked for a living. (I'm not saying it's not impressive, just that it doesn't meet the specific criteria.) All of the references are to his works, but not any third-party analysis establishing notability. ... discospinster _talk 14:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, maybe it doesn't meet the specific criteria of "notable". However, his works are peer-reviewed, and one is in Science which has a notable requirement for publication, so this is, through the acceptance in the article, particularly notable. Furthermore, he won a Bacaner Award from the Mayo Foundation of the University of Minnesota Medical School for his PhD thesis work. The question comes down to what is really "notable"? Who makes the decision about what is notable? I've seen some fairly insignificant people listed in Wikipedia who played some role in a particular scientific discovery which was considered notable. Is the purification of the opiate receptor considered notable? Are the hundreds of citations of his papers considered notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcaruso2 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this could go in some biographical ___location? Is that Wikibiographies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.159.254 (talk) 13:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: According to Wikipedia:Alternative outlets, there is WikiBios and BiographIcon (although neither are affiliated with Wikipedia). However, I would suggest waiting until the present discussion has run its course, because consensus could be towards keeping this article. ... discospinster _talk 14:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First of all, it needs to be pointed out that the article's creator and the article's subject appear to be the same person, in which case, I draw his attention to WP:AUTOBIO and WP:COI.

Regarding notability, the requirement is for the person to be the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. In other words, the person must have made a widely recognised contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. This is not evident in either Google or Google News. In fact a google search for "Thomas P. Caruso" + Business Ambitions reveals only 2 or 3 pages of results, most of which are either false-positives or are unreliable sources.

Reference was made to a Baconer Award. This may satisfy the additional criterion that the person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times. However, this requires us to ask two things: is the award significant, and is that claim for notability sufficient to carry the whole article. As the article currently stands, the bulk of it seems to describe the subject's busness career and the aforementioned award isn't mentioned anywhere.

A claim for notability should be that which forms the opening sentence or paragraph, for which the rest of the article acts as support. The opening sentence currently refers to the subject as an entrepreneur, pharmacologist, biomedical informaticist, research program developer, software project manager, and management consultant. It therefore needs to be established that the subject is notable in each of these fields. The material currently available suggests the subject's research may be worth mentioning on a specific article relevant to the field. However, considered independently of such research and, more importantly, considered as a BLP, this article seems to fail the criteria for notability. ~~I won't vote Delete yet, though, until someone familiar with Google Scholar can check up on whether the subject fulfils WP:ACADEMIC.~~

Incidentally, for the article creator's reference, the decision about what is notable is made by the Wikipedia community precisely for occasions such as this where notability is in question. Also, I must emphasise the importance of WP:AUTOBIO and WP:COI, mentioned above. Few Wikipedians are lenient as regards conflict of interest and may question your reasons for creating an autobiography. Just a friendly FYI. LordVetinari (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:14, 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) 01:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not established in article. Appears to be autpbiography. Only three of the listed refs are not written by the subject. Of those three, at least two don't directly mention the subject and only indirectly support the article. LordVetinari (talk) 03:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable CV in paragraph form. Often I take some exception to nominations starting with some variant on "He's just another... " , but this time, it's a reasonable comment. DGG ( talk ) 17:03, 13 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) 19:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nsoft

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

Fails WP:N and WP:ORG insufficient coverage found to allow it to pass. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 16:07, 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) 01:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I cannot find anything notable enough about the company, it does not meet WP:NOTE and should not be included in Wikipedia Tashif (talk) 11:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another manufacturer of IT Solutions. Probably speedy delete candidate as no minimal significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:07, 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) 19:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jillian York

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

Notability,Conflict of Interest Primecoordinator (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC) This page is little more than a vanity page for the subject and should not have been created in the first place. Original author of the page appears to be in a personal relationship with the subject and thus creation of the page was done so in a direct Conflict of Interest. The subject lacks notability in that while having written for several publications, this is not in and of itself notable. Working for groups such as the EFF is also not notable per se as it is just one doing their job. The wording "She has been featured in" is also misleading as it infers that the subject has been verified to be notable via third party sources when in fact she has just contributed articles to these publications. This page should be deleted on these grounds as there are many who fall within these bounds, especially in San Francisco (activism, writing, academics) and they are not all notable. Primecoordinator (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Boston Globe profiled her on April 28, 2011, and several other reluable publications have discussed her, rather than just quoting her "doing her job". Cullen328 (talk) 05:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. Would be curious to see additional publications you mention. Also, would like to hear other user opinions as this profile piece you cite would indicate that any type of overview (such as of a restaurant, product, or person) in a notable third party source would make the subject notable for a Wikipedia article i.e. a review of Mom & Pop's Hot Dogs appears in the Boston Globe, but only there, would that make it notable from a Wikipedia vantage? There is still also the issue with this article in that it was created with a conflict of interest, although apparently Notability trumps that for your vantage? Primecoordinator (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response The Boston Globe story here is 22 paragraphs long, and is entirely devoted to this person. That's in depth coverage. I think that it would be a rare hot dog stand that would merit that degree of coverage from a major newspaper. Conflict of interest can be a problem, but is not a reason to delete an article on a notable topic. Instead it is a reason to edit the article to reflect the neutral point of view. Cullen328 (talk) 23:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for "additional publications", she was the subject of a lengthy interview on National Public Radio, a transcript of which is available here. New Scientist discussed her research here. ABC News described her as a specialist in "free expression, politics, and the Internet, particularly in the Arab world" in their coverage of Tunisia here. The Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz quoted her as an expert on blogging by Iranian opposition forces here, as did the Globe and Mail here. PC Magazine quoted her on the internet shutdown in Egypt here, as did Reuters in a report here. The New York Times reported on her knowledge on the internet in Bahrain here. Al Jazeera reported that she had detected the blocking of Facebook in Egypt before Facebook itself had here. Cullen328 (talk) 23:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. These should have been included originally lest the article drift in to Uncited territory Primecoordinator (talk) 04:10, 01 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:12, 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) 01:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Person has been subject of several news stories. Jewishprincess (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Always interesting to see new users pop up out of nowhere for living person deletion requests Primecoordinator (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and hopefully clean up a bit. This article and this article contain fairly clear indications of notability. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it needs a good deal of work and heavier reference citation. The lack of citation was the main reason I put it up for deletion as it smacked of a vanity page. Primecoordinator (talk) 23:57, 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

YPFDJ

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

Fails WP:CORP. Only source is a primary source. v/r - T P 21:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject has received some foreign-language news attention [32]. The article will likely need careful attention to maintain NPOV, but this is not a reason for deletion. After closure (if the article is kept), it should be moved to Young People's Front for Democracy and Justice. VQuakr (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Simple db-org case. The dude that wrote this simply has not got the idea of providing references. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article has more than one source and includes independent sources, as of today. Ericandude (talk) 06:07, 1 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) 00:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: References only include coverage of the conferences of the organization, no reliable sources to establish the notability Tashif (talk) 11:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If there is coverage of the conferences, this is sufficient. What else would one expect to be covered, in an organization for which running conferences is the principle activity? DGG ( talk ) 14:41, 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. Stifle (talk) 08:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delaware Valley Rails: The Railroads and Rail Transit Lines of the Philadelphia Area

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

Fails all five criteria at WP:NB. Subject is an out-of-print book about rail transport in the Philadelphia area, published in 1979. According to Amazon.com,[33] it is the author's only publication and the author, himself, does not appear to have any notability. –Dream out loud (talk) 00:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki: - In spite of all that's wrong with it as an article, I don't see why it can't be used as a Wikisource. ----DanTD (talk) 02:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It can't because it's not free content. The book was published in 1979 so its copyrighted material. Besides, that wouldn't be a transwiki. I don't understand what you mean by using the article "as a Wikisource". Wikisource is an online library, not a collection of information about books. –Dream out loud (talk) 07:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you have a point regarding the copyright. But the book seems like it has info about the railroads that can still be useful for a lot of articles. I'm not looking for information about the book as much as I'm looking for the book to be used as info about the railroads. ----DanTD (talk) 13:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The book is notable as it remains the definitive source on the topic of railroads in the Delaware Valley region. I believe this is stated in the article. There have been no publications of this level of detail since then. There is really nothing else on the market quite like. The author is alive and well and can answer any questions wiki might have. The author is a noted transporation expert in the U.S.Oanabay04 (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the book has tons of useful information, but that's irrelevant to this discussion. I've nominated the article for deletion; I'm not saying it shouldn't be used as a source for other articles. If the book is as notable as Oanabay says, than we need a source to prove it. I haven't found any. The fact that the author is alive is also irrelevant here. There's no reason to contact him for anything because this discussion has nothing to do with him. The book fails all the crtieria listed at WP:NB#Notability. If the book is notable, then it has to satisfy at least one of the criteria with proof (saying it's "definitive source on the topic of railroads..." doesn't count). So far there have been no valid reasons stated to keep this article. Using statements like "There is really nothing else on the market quite like" [sic] as an argument is like saying "I like it" or "It has valuble information". See WP:ATA. –Dream out loud (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whether the book itself is useful or can serve as a reliable source on a relevant topic is immaterial to a discussion on its notability. I see no significant coverage to satisfy WP:BK or any other relevant guideline. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to fail WP:NBOOKS. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources to back of claims of notability. Of course, the work may very well be an excellent source itself on its topic, but that is a completely different issue. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:47, 13 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. -- DQ (t) (e) 17:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Lurie

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

Musician of minimal note - falling below the requirement for a wikipedia biography - no objection to a redirect to any WP:NOTABLE band she may have been in - currently seems to be The Billy Tipton Memorial Saxophone Quartet Off2riorob (talk) 22:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per music project guidelines for notability this musician has made several national tours as a leader of her own ensemble (some of the musicians included in these tours have been Grammy nominated, or have been associated with Grammy winning projects). She has also had reviews written of her work that amount to more than just club calendar listings. I'll throw in that there is an Allmusic biography written as well. These things alone should be enough for notability. - Steve3849 ^talk 20:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:11, 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) 00:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite It has potential, but I can't see it surviving long the way it is right now. Asteroid1717 (talk) 23:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article needs improvement, but subject appears at least minimally notable due to sufficient press coverage and membership in more than one group receiving press coverage, such that a redirect is probably not ideal outcome. E.g., [34] (mynorthwest.com - this is a Bonneville International media website, seattle radio/TV, etc.), see also press sources listed on her website[35].--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 14:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed up the article some and added some better references, which I think goes a far way to establishing notability beyond how it looked when nominated.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At this point it looks like she satisfies basic notability. Good job, Milowent. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY - the diffs before and after show a classic rescue effort. Still needs improvement, but it passes for me. Bearian (talk) 17:24, 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A2Billing

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

Advertizing. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from the Software Lead developer : The content of this page is quite accurate and most of it can be verify on our forum at forum.asterisk2billing.org and the community is very active and it's in correlation with Asterisk Software. User:Areski 22:53, 01 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been edited to remove all links and references to any commercial organisation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.208.208.23 (talk) 13:13, 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) 00:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks significant coverage in reliable 3rd party refs to establish notability. PR news releases and forums are not sufficient. Created by an SPA, so possibly promotional/spam. Dialectric (talk) 16:54, 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. Rlendog (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

South High Marathon Dance

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

Non-notable student group. While this is a good cause, not all good causes are notable enough to be encyclopedic. OCNative (talk) 00:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —OCNative (talk) 00:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —OCNative (talk) 00:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails notability criteria at WP:NEVENT. –Dream out loud (talk) 01:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very good cause and fairly well-sourced, but unfortunately it does not pass our notability guidelines for events. No national scope and possibly no lasting impact. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Dream out loud. Asteroid1717 (talk) 23:13, 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. There is a consensus below that the sources provided are not sufficient to support the claim that he was "the earliest known Chicago mob boss" or was otherwise notable. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mariano Zagone

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

The Mariano Zagone article does not pass WP:BIO (Crime). Vic49 (talk) 00:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 07:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- --Vic49 (talk) 14:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The "earliest identified Chicago Mafia boss" would seem to me to be notable for curiosity value if nothing else. In any case, is the Mafia not somewhat important in Chicago's history? I would have thought that the heads of the organisation would meet notability criteria - the fact he is not such a well-known one is irrelevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I could not find any references to prove Zagone was "boss of a Mafia group in Chicago", he is mentioned in ref "First in violence, deepest in dirt: homicide in Chicago, 1875-1920 By Jeffrey S. Adler" pg.190 as a 40 year old cigar maker that was shot. (he could have been involved with the black hand ? But no mention to him as a boss). Another ref The Black Hand: Terror by Letter in Chicago By Robert M. Lombardo pg.36, 86 again he was a cigar maker, killed. --Vic49 (talk) 16:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Vic69 first of all you nominated the article for you to then do a delte argument is not correct, change the name to a comment. Saying keep Per the fact that he was The "earliest identified Chicago Mafia boss".--BabbaQ (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I cant find any reference to prove he was a Mafia boss in Chicago. He was just a cigar maker, that was killed. --Vic49 (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, it seems that a 2006 book would identify him as the "earliest identified Chicago Mafia boss" rather than a cigar maker if that were true, I cannot indentify the publication cited in the article to support this fact. That book is the only reliable source that I can find about this, i'm open to changing my !vote if a reliable source to the contrary can be produced. Quasihuman | Talk 21:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Informer reference devotes one paragraph to him on page 40 stating that he "appears to have served for a time as a leader... on the Near North Side." One paragraph in one reference that isn't even certain of the claim fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO, etc. Location (talk) 21:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - also, leader does not necessarily mean the same as boss, boss means head of an organisation, while leader could mean head of a section of that organisation. The source as quoted by Location does not say that he was the earliest boss, this claim looks like synthesis of published material at the least.Quasihuman | Talk

Delete Sadly, I agree with the deletes. He only has 75 hits for GTest with his name in quotes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd like to say "keep" but I can't find any WP:RS to back it up with. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 12:52, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ecessa

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

Non-notable business. Media references are trivial or press-release reprints. —Chowbok ☠ 00:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You will not learn from this business's meaningless name that it is a provider of Wide Area Network optimization products installed in datacenters and remote sites to provide link failover and load balancing across multiple WAN links to avoid network downtime and reduce network congestion. they are intended for Small and medium enterprises (SME) relying on the Internet. Yet another tech business advertising on Wikipedia. Only references are to tech spamblogs with tiny audiences, and none outside the IT department, to stories announcing or reviewing new releases or versions. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:43, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Integrated Environmental Solutions

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

Non-notable company. Media mentions are trivial. Previous deletion discussion was speedily closed due to being nominated by a banned user. —Chowbok ☠ 00:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another back office software firm, this one selling to architects. Note also that the page reads like advertising and, as is typical, promises vague benefits without specifics: a company that develops software simulation tools which assist architects, engineers, facilities managers and all those involved in the development and management of building design, in creating healthier built environments.... provides step-by-step navigation that defines different sustainable design analysis processes by weaving a workflow through IES’ <Virtual Environment>. The software allows users to undertake complex environmental performance analysis without the need of expert knowledge.... taking designs to a more detailed level, with highly graphical outputs. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:37, 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.