Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 March 12

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< 11 March 13 March >

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I Love Money (season 5)

edit
I Love Money (season 5) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pure speculation and guesswork. No evidence of such a season happening, seems to be simply wishful thinking by fans Jamesbuc (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, not a snowball's chance in hell of being deleted. -- Y not? 04:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Itamar attack

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

While I find the subject of the article to be regrettable and certainly a sad incident, I fail to see where this specific incident warrants its own article. Strikerforce (talk) 22:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not surprising that you failed to see how this incident warrants its own article, since you nominated it for deletion about five minutes after it was created. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember to remain civil. This article documents a current event, but that does not establish notability. There are, unfortunately, terrorist attacks of all kinds almost every day in that part of the world. Without establishing notability for this specific event, the article is a valid AfD candidate. Strikerforce (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please acknowledge that you nominated this article for deletion exactly three minutes after it was first created, that it is still being built, that you did could not have researched its topic in those three minutes to a sufficient extent to reach well-founded conclusions about its notability, that your behavior is blatantly contrary to WP:DEMOLISH, and that your insinuation of incivility on my part is baseless and gratuitous. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only part of your statement that I will acknowledge as truthful is the speed at which I nominated the article for deletion, which I stand firmly by. This attack, while horrible in nature, is just another in a long list of terrorist incidents in that part of the world. Unfortunately, it is a fact of life there, given all of the conflicts underway. Notability has not been established, in my opinion, hence my nomination for deletion. The tone of your comment ("it's not surprising...") most certainly comes across as being uncivil, sir, if you step back and look at it objectively from my point of view. If you have a problem with my "behavior" (your word, not mine), then there are outlets for that, if you wish to proceed down that avenue. My view on the article was that it was not notable and was a valid AfD candidate. All you had to do was come here and offer a "keep" statement and rationale that the article was still under development and that would have been that. Instead, you chose to respond directly to me in a fashion that could very easily be taken as confrontational. Strikerforce (talk) 23:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a vote. If you do not provide any reason for your statement it will not be considered when this debate is closed. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a reminder, remember that coverage must occur "over a period of time" in order to be notable under that standard. While emerging coverage since I brought it here to AfD is lending more credibility toward the article's notability status, time will tell whether it holds notability. Strikerforce (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right, which is why nominating the article for AfD so soon after its creation kind of defeats the purpose. Had you waited another few days, the argument might have been easier to make. Tomorrow morning the attack will be on the front pages of all the newspapers in Israel (no newspapers printed on Saturday), and Jewish weeklies will cover and analyze it in depth in the days to come. In a week it may be forgotten; but as of this time, there's really no question the article meets WP:GNG.—Biosketch (talk) 01:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If the same scale terrorist attack happened in United States or Western Europe, nobody would have ever nominated the article about that attack to be deleted. But, when terror attacks happen in Israel, some believe it is not notable enough because Palestinian terrorists attack Israeli civilians, and in particular children quite often. So one more, one less, who cares, does not deserve a separate article. It is a very wrong approach. Each such attack deserves a separate article no matter in what country it happened. Besides the fact that UN condemned the attack makes it a very notable. As it is well known UN usually condemns Israel, and practically never Palestinian terrorists. The fact that other Palestinians celebrated murder of innocent children speaks volumes. --Mbz1 (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Mbz1 has a point.. had this been an american event we wouldnt have this discussion right now.--BabbaQ (talk) 01:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also this massacre can have long going consequences for Palestinians. Israel can justify attacks on Gaza or whatever trough this now. Also a Keep reason.--BabbaQ (talk) 01:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infinite Frontiers

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

Not notable. Google Books, Scholar, News show nothing other than a couple of mentions of existence. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Her Name Is Murder Productions

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

no indication of notability. Google on name produces only 51 hits. References given are all trivial - youtube, myspace, facebook, own website, forum. noq (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Welsh gold. Consensus was not to Keep, there are arguments to redirect to two different pages, Welsh gold and Gwynfynydd. Both targets make sense, I decided to go with Welsh gold simply because it is a better sourced and better developed article. J04n(talk page) 03:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kilogram ingot of Welsh gold

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

no indication of notability outside either the mine or the Queen. No reason for a separate article purely for this. noq (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • You keep getting dragged to AN/I, there's a RFC/U about you, and your interventions are often counter-productive because of this instinctive peevishness. Trivia dragged out and placed into a standalone article is still trivia, and as such is embraced by the spirit of WP:TRIVIA. Eusebeus (talk) 10:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The spirit of WP:TRIVIA is conveyed by its nutshell: "Sections with lists of miscellaneous information (such as "trivia" sections) should be avoided as an article develops. Such information is better presented in an organized way.". The point it makes is guidance on how we best organise information, not to endorse any opinion about the value of such information. The group notice for this discussion explains that "valid arguments citing appropriate guidelines will be given more weight" and so it seems necessary to point out when guidelines are cited in an inappropriate way. The group notice also explains that "commenting on people rather than the article is considered disruptive.". Please therefore retract your personal attack. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable trivia. Far too trivial to be viable as a stand-alone article, and I doubt it would be particularly relevant to the articles on the Queen or Mining in Wales if it were to be merged there. Reyk YO! 02:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be very relevant to Welsh gold as it already contains similar material. That article is tagged as requiring a citation for this topic and we have citations here. By bringing them together, we improve the encyclopedia. Deletion would disrupt this constructive activity and so is inappropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorted. The ingot is now mentioned in appropriate detail at the Welsh gold article and sourced to a reliable source, which makes this article redundant. Since no material was merged from here to there, and this title is an implausible search term, there is no longer any real reason to keep this article around. Reyk YO! 10:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or procedural redirect. This incident itself comes nowhere near WP:EVENT but is worth a mention in an article about the gold mine. However, as there is no article about the Gwynfynydd gold mine, the next best destination is Welsh gold. But since this article is already mentioned there, there's no need for a merge. "Kilogram ingot of Welsh Gold" is not a useful redirect so I would probably recommend an outright deletion, but if it's necessary to preserve the edit history for attribution purposes, a redirect might still be necessary. Either way, a seperate article is the wrong place for this information. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 14:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not the most experienced or skilled of Wikipedia contributors. I created this article largely as a place to upload a photo of the Welsh gold ingot presented to the Queen in 1986. Other editors are probably not as aware as I am of the huge efforts being made by one commercial company to distort the facts to suit their financial plans, built around the forthcoming royal wedding. Claims are being made that this ingot came from a different mine than the Gwynfynydd mine. The photo of the ingot clearly shows the Gwynfynydd stamp. Unfortunately I seem to be having problems uplaoding the photo, owing to my aforementioned lack of Wiki skills. Crefftwr (talk) 20:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I see you've now uploaded the photo. Note that you don't necessarily have to create an individual article in order to put a photo there. As no-one is disputing putting this information about the kilogram ingot in another article (either Gwynfynydd or Welsh gold), it would probably make more sense to put the photo in that article. You will need to clarify exactly where the original photo came from - if you don't own the copyright to it, you may still be able to use the photograph under fair use, but you'll have to be clear where it came from. Finally, be careful about contributing to Wikipedia to prove a point. You've backed up the claim that the ingot came from the Gwynfynydd mine in one independent and one semi-independent source, which is good, but if this claim is disputed and other reliable sources quote that, you find that this also gets added to the article. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 contributions of new and unregistered users have, as is customary, been given a reduced weighting. Stifle (talk) 09:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud Computing Modeling Notation

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

Fractionally better than original research. Total absence of independent references. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep it. The theme of the article is noteworthy, it's just not compliant with Wikipedia standards. I'd suggest get some help from field experts (we have a template for that, but I can't remember right now) to clean this up and add proper references. It could have been the case of deleting it if it was some 90's programming trend, but Cloud Computing is a recent field and it's bound to receive proper attention in the future. ༺ gabrielkfl ༻ (talk) 08:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I totally agree to keep it! It will receive a great amount of attention and also open a dialog for future discussions. Carl presscott (talk) 09:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC) Carl Presscott 09:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)— Carl presscott (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Agree with Gabriel to keep this article because of public interest and the emerging cloud technologies. Richard.McGuire88 (talk) 09:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)Richard McGuireRichard.McGuire88 (talk) — Richard.McGuire88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete? No. Maintain, evolve, and improve. This is my suggestion. The topic is popular and continues to occupy people's minds, especially in the business and IT worlds. AngelaMartin2008 (talk)Angela MartinAngelaMartin2008 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC). — AngelaMartin2008 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.
  • Delete. Article is apparently about making flowchart style diagrams that relate to "cloud computing". Not only original research, but vacuous patter about "new emerging technologies" as well: New emerging technologies and propositions have emerged to widen the scope of cloud computing to enable a standardized life cycle development. The cloud computing modeling paradigm then focuses on three different perspectives: infrastructure as a service modeling (IaaSM), software as a service modeling (SaaSM), and platform as as service modeling (PaaSM). - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am against deleting it. In fact the article is about new modeling paradigms that have been recently established. I do not see any flowcharts, I see a language syntax and vocabulary that is used to describe reference cloud computing environments. Maria C Mosak (talk)Maria MosakMaria C Mosak (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC) — Maria C Mosak (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment: I smell some WP:SPA here as well, but there have been significant improvements in terms of sources since the article was put on AfD, so I keep my opinion on it. Cut the authors some slack, they seem to be doing it in good faith. ༺ gabrielkfl ༻ (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it, please. I must say that I run into this article on Friday while I was preparing to deliver cloud design documents to my company’s management. While I do not recognize any of the names on this discussion list, I can contribute my position here. As early as 2006 I was hired to plan, design, and architect a cloud for one of the major institutions that also offers cloud services to consumers. It was early in the game and the only available modeling tools for such an enterprise effort was UML and some others. I must say that this article is right on the money! This was and will always be a major issue with cloud modeling. The major questions that I asked way back and to a larger extent today are: how do we design and architect a cloud environment? How do we discover services for a cloud? What are the modeling tools? What are the relevant diagrams? How can we create a reference cloud architecture? And many more. This is not “vacuous”. Ask any business or technology person. The great need is there! My suggestion would be to let it mature and also let others add content as Wiki always does bestLisa Murphy AWSi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC). — Lisa Murphy AWSi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: It should be noted that claiming a subject will be more important soon and is the next big thing is generally not considered a valid argument. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge some of this to Cloud computing and redirect. This article focuses on providing overly detailed information that is not relevant to a general audience, and should be trimmed down severely and merged with the parent topic. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep While it could still use more references, I think it has enough now to overcome the reason listed by the nominator for AFD. Monty845 (talk) 04:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The so-called "notation" described in this article is not standard in computer science. This page is a mix of ESSAY and OR. —Lowellian (reply) 11:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Two comments: (1) Has Wikipedia ever published articles that are only "standard in computer science"? Who decides what is a standard in computer science? does the world standard mean anything in the context of existing technologies? (2) The so-called "notation" is widely used world-wide and is of interest to a wide range of readers. See: http://www.sparxsystems.com/somf - specifications for cloud computing notation in Enterprise Architect modeling platform on the bottom of this page Carl presscott (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

— Duplicate !vote: Carl presscott (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.

    • First, you already once voted to keep this article near the top of this discussion. You should not be voting twice.
    • Second, regarding your question "who decides what is standard in computer science?": Certainly it should not be Wikipedia, which is what the editors of this article are trying to do with this original research. This article as it stands does not provide a general overview of cloud computing notations, goes off on tangents and questions-for-thought as if it was a guide or exercise for students, and promotes a specific non-notable model as if it was standard usage in the field of cloud computing, which it is not.
    • —Lowellian (reply) 00:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Disagree, this article is not about any general introduction to cloud modeling. It introduces a modeling notation for cloud that is widely used. It is similar to articles in Wikipedia that discuss particular modeling languages, such as Unified Modeling Language, SysML, Energy Systems Language, and Papyrus. Not everything in computer science is about the OMG standards, IBM, or Microsoft. I bet that Wikipedia does not intend to promote these companies' products as well. The intention is to introduce a modeling language for cloud that is widely used. Carl presscott (talk) 13:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a common genre in technology: a discussion of a fairly general subject, oriented around a particular company's product. It's essentially an infomercial, and has no more place here than any other promotional writing. The claim of fairly wide use of the method is not supported by references, except for those produced by the company. DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a fundamental article that offers important content to readers. It focusses on a mehtod of cloud modeling and represents a systematic approch to cloud design. It is not a product and it does not sell anywhere. It is actually opened for public use. Companies teach this method and others implemented the notation in their modeling platform. But the method itself does not sell. Very recommended! AnitaRogel (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC) — AnitaRogel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
This comment (like many others above) completely ignores the actual reason this is nominated for deletion. We need indications of notability from reliable sources. That it is useful or used by people is not in debate. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This comment of mine (like many others above) does Not ignore the actual reason this is nominated for deletion. The problem is that your comment ignores that this article discusses reconition of the topic by the industy. And this indicates notability.
  • Comment: for closing admin. Please see this thread which points to some meatpuppetry here. -- DQ (t) (e) 17:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charles A. Findley

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

There is no evidence of notability for this BLP. Most of the sources are primary, and there is a great chance that User:Dr. Chuck is who the article is about. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 17:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The references cited are not self-published by wikipedia definition--For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information 1.the material is not unduly self-serving; 1. it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities); 2. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; 3. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; 4. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

P.S. I have no knowledge of any connection between a Mrs. Charles A. Findley and the focus of this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.62.40 (talk) 22:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Popeye (chess)

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

Could not locate any reliable sources for this topic (WP:V), so I tagged for maintenance over a year ago. No improvement since then, so I'm assuming this software is unnotable (WP:N). Marasmusine (talk) 16:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. With regards enpassant.dk, do you know of our requirements for self-published sources? I don't think that the site's maintainer, Eric Bentzen, qualifies. Marasmusine (talk) 22:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did find some sources:
Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is the criteria for notability of software? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is a good question, that is not easy to answer. I think the criteria for inclusion in a place such as Software_for_handling_chess_problems#Popeye is low but for its own article without meeting WP:GNG I think that some clear contribution to chess or chess computers is needed. This would mean something like:
  • that other programs have adopted the algorithm
  • it was the first computer to be able to solve a famous problem
  • it does well in a competition such as World Computer Chess Championships
While this is a specialised computer dealing with fairy problems - I think this is not a fact that adds notability. If it was General Chess Playing Program able to play any version of chess could have made it notable problem solving doesn't really. I had a computer in 1981 that would cheat if it got too far behind. Tetron76 (talk) 12:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) -- DQ (t) (e) 17:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Fenlon

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

prod was removed due to him being a "ceo of a major gaming" company. So I brought it here. The company may or may not be notable but that does not automatically transfer personal notability to the CEO. original article authors only appeared to be a SPA account. Only reference shows he was ceo and nothing more. Tracer9999 (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's well-known as the creator of RoleMaster, SpaceMaster and related RPGs, not to mention MERP. His game maps had a distinctive style still referred to as "Pete Fenlon style". I was lucky enough to get to talk to him today; I was writing about it and came to check Wikipedia before linking to it, and found this deletionism in progress... Metamatic (talk) 22:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment although mayfair games is a reasonably large company I would have to agree that being CEO on its own isn't enough. This is another case where there is a very large wikipedia page RoleMaster that doesn't have any RS refs nor a clear message of notability and is now needed to judge if the co-creator is notable. I did find this [[3]]. The Fenlon Style is mentioned here: [4]. The question that needs to be answered is how important / notable are MERP maps.Tetron76 (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep One of the primary authors of Rolemaster and MERP, the former being notable as a 1st-generation RPG that still exists, the latter being notable as the first licensed (Tolkein, since revoked) RPG literary franchise. Jclemens (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • At any rate, we have multiple reliable sources mentioning him, let alone awards for the books and games, which may not mention him:
    • Wired, quoted talking about Settlers of Catan: [5]
    • Profile in the Richmond Times-Dispatch: [6] (pay per view, unfortunately)
    • Book, Digital Storytelling: [7]
    • Book, Video Games and Interactive Media: [8]
    • Paper mention (maps), Fantasy Review: [9]
  • keep there appears to have been enough combined events to warrant notability even with most of the RS so far being passing references.Tetron76 (talk) 16:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on the sources presented by Jclemens. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 02:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Heinsoo

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

prod removed, another editor has since expressed a concern of no notability. only external links and no references. working on designing a game does not establish notability any more then being the crew on a movie. no claim of PERSONAL notability Tracer9999 (talk) 14:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable designer and author of best-selling works such as D&D. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per lack of independent, verifiable, and reliable sources with significant coverage to indicate notability. Yaksar (let's chat) 17:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete his main contribution is in producing a 4th edition of a highly notable game. The changes to this game don't seem to have been particular notable with respect to the person described as streamlining the game. Even his wizards profile doesn't seem to add anything to suggest notability. [10]. His addition to 96 page books seem marginal. I think this is not a case of an under referenced RPG article,Tetron76 (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Wizards profile you reference is dated 2000 -- his 4th edition work dates from 2007 onwards, so I think we can conclude that the profile is out of date. While I can't find a current staff bio on the Wizards site, consider this article [11], which states "Rob Heinsoo led the design of the 4th Edition D&D Roleplaying Game and currently serves as the Lead Designer for Wizards of the Coast Roleplaying R&D." Obviously, that's not an original separate source, but I'd hate to see decisions made based on out of date information. Thanlis (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify I was not making my decision based on the profile not mentioning the D&D 4th edition but following up on all the information. Even using a google cached interview from the wizards site (which would be a primary source) and non-RS, there is little mention to support notability beyond that he worked for wizards and was good at his job. I could not find RS to support he met WP:BLP.Tetron76 (talk) 11:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused by your reference to WP:BLP -- help a newbie out? My understanding is that WP:BLP addresses the requirements for content added to a biographical article; it seems meaningless to refer to a person as not meeting those requirements. In any case, I'm interested in your comments on the further references that I found, and perhaps the references that Leadwind has added to Heinsoo's page -- some of them may well be unacceptable, and if you tell me which ones those are I can refine my approach. Thanlis (talk) 12:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Might not have been the best tag to point to I am new to a lot of this too, but from my reading there is merely a stronger focus on ensuring verifiability on a living persons biography. What I could not find is the sources from non-blogs explicitly describing him as important (i.e. it should not require the reader to draw conclusions or articles in something such as newspaper where he is the focus not just a passing reference.Tetron76 (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a brief search in a newspaper article database turned up two hits indicating how the books he worked on have been successful; I don't doubt that more could be found with a bit more dilligence. Although the article does not reflect it, Heinsoo had more of a role with D&D than just a lead designer of the game's 4th edition (debut 2008), but that he has been involved for over 10 years and was also involved in the game's 3rd edition (debut 2000) and a few products since then. This is exactly a case of an under-referenced bio article. BOZ (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is when you look at sources such as thoe is they contribute to the notability of the book but not the author. When you look at [12] credits and he is one of four designers. Clearly it would require original research to realise that this would meet wikipedia notability. If author standards are used then clearly much more subtantial sources are needed or an award.Tetron76 (talk) 15:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you suspect it is an interview and not a book review I could only see top of the page which has the words D&D?Tetron76 (talk) 15:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A snipit view from Google indicated it was an interview with him. Hobit (talk) 18:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Has not been "the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Not notable. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:BIO calls for the subject to have created or played a major role in "a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." D&D as a whole is such a body of work. Rob Heinsoo was the lead designer of 4th edition, which is analogous to directing a movie rather than simply being a crew member. 4e incorporates a large number of changes, as documented on Wikipedia [14] and in reviews [15][16]. I'd agree that Heinsoo doesn't meet the notability standard for, say, his work on the third edition Forgotten Realms book (which Tetron76 refers to above), but when you consider his 4th edition work the picture is rather different. Thanlis (talk) 19:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And while I'm at it -- he has one Origins Award win [17] and two additional nominations [18][19], which may qualify him for notability under WP:ANYBIO clause 1, unless the Origins Award doesn't count. Which is possible, but it's the most important award in English-speaking roleplaying, so the implications would be troublesome for notability of many articles in this category. 12.54.225.20 (talk) 21:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have spent a while following through the awards. The issue for me comes for the following:

The award was given to the book not the authors (This is an important distinction as there is still a question of notability of the author as opposed to the book/game), the category is game supplement (this is a tricky situation but the supplement means that it is neither a prize winning book nor game). Finally it was only the 3rd edition that Rob contributed to which without RS picking up the importance of the award means that the award does not verify his notability as Ed Greenwood was responsible for creating the original game. On an aside the 2010 game supplement had seven named people I think there is a definite case that the award doesn't automatically bestow notability, especially when there is a Hall of Fame category which he and his games are not inTetron76 (talk) 13:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we may have to agree to disagree here. My belief, from familiarity with the field, is that the Origins Awards are earned by the author of the work: e.g., Heinsoo has an Origins Award statue on his bookshelf with his name on it [20]. We might compare this to a Best Screenplay Oscar -- the award is given to the screenplay, and often screenplays have multiple writers, but nobody questions that the writers collectively earned the award. I agree that such an award doesn't automatically bestow notability, but note that Heinsoo has three nominations in disparate categories. Thanlis (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did find that D&D 4e won some awards but Rob is not mentioned, while I found this story [21] probably explains the difficulty in finding any WotC confirmation of importance it still regrettably leaves the key points of notability unverifiable such as his individual contribution to D&D. Tetron76 (talk) 13:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you find the sources calling him a major designer it would still be necessary to show that these changes had a profound effect on D&D. For example the Origins award would appear not to regard it as a distinct game whereas they do accept the difference between AD&D and D&D.Tetron76 (talk) 13:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, gotta disagree with you there! The Origins Awards explicitly acknowledged D&D 4th Edition as a separate game in 2009: it got a nomination as Best Roleplaying Game [22]. (Note Heinsoo's name listed as one of the three authors.) This category is not for Best Roleplaying Game Available; it's for Best Roleplaying Game of the year. New editions are explicitly not eligible unless there are significant differences to the point where it's clearly a different game. I realize I don't have a reference for this claim; I am currently digging one up and will edit this comment when I can provide one. Thanlis (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Arguably he meets #2 as well: 2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. Hopefully some new cites can be found that will show that more clearly.
Anarchangel (talk) 05:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I acknowledge that boardgames still have a major "word of mouth" recognition that doesn't apply in other areas wikipedia still requires WP:V. While there are subjective terms that are not clearly defined I would still expect that sources are produced that support this case. So [[WP:CREATIVE}} #1 widely cited by peers should have WP:RS as would #3 and the major contribution would need to be shown too. Same goes for anybio "significant" award.Tetron76 (talk) 16:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Temple of the Sacred Gift

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

non notable religious venue, refs prove existence, but not notability WuhWuzDat 14:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 01:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Buenz

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

Local stained glass artist with no indications of notability. One of the four provided references is to the artist's own homepage, and the other three fail verification (i.e. they do not mention the artist at all). WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) CTJF83 17:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guru Gaddi

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

This is basically about some celebration that took place one time. Its not the name of a widely celebrated festival that I'm aware of.It uses only references for that one event in the article --Profitoftruth85 (talk) 02:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Timmreck

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

As a high school teacher that has written one textbook, the subject does not appear to meet the notability guidelines at WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. VQuakr (talk) 10:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm glad he is an inspiring teacher and that his students love him enough to create an article about him. But he is clearly not notable enough to be the subject of an article in an international encyclopedia. (For heavens sake, one of the two references is "ratemyteachers".) Maybe they can give him a mention at the article on Cupertino High School. --MelanieN (talk) 03:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Price on Pollution rally

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

Non-notable public rally. Article created on same day as rally so yet lacks historical significance. If it was a spontaneous public reaction, it might be notable, but it was actually organised by political pressure groups to promote their cause. LordVetinari (talk) 09:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no claim of notability. This rally's probably over-estimated attendance is perhaps notable for being so small and insignificant but I doubt that's a criteria for inclusion. MLA (talk) 09:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Far too quick to slap the tag on this one. It was tagged before I even had a chance to add references, so what do you expect? Content is extremely notable here in Australia, that is by no means in dispute. Attendance (see note below). Was organised in a matter of days by community groups, was entirely non-political. It now has images, is well referenced with quality verifiable sources and has plenty of room for expansion. Hasty deletion is counter-productive to the goals of WP. I move for the removal of the tag immediately. Nick carson (talk) 10:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note on attendance: Estimated by SMH (a conservative newspaper) to be 8,000. Some attendees estimated around 10,000. Victoria Police estimated 6,000-8,000. Independent crowd-estimators estimated 7,000, building to 7,500 by event end. 7,500 appears to be a very accurate and reasonable estimate, perhaps even too low, if anything.
Comment Whether 13 minutes after article creation is too quick is debatable as is whether the entire article could have been created first in a sandbox or outside Wikipedia. I agree that the content may be notable here in Australia (at least, by the criteria of the Sydney Morning Herald, Indymedia and Yahoo7) but is it notable in an encyclopedia? Why is this particular rally historically significant that it should have its own article? In other words, what sets this rally apart from the hundreds of other rallies that take place each year? I also question the significance of a rally that, as the article and its sources admit, was organised by political pressure organisations for the purposes of promoting their causes. I also note that one of the cited sources has used the image from the wikipedia article (if one follows the copyright claims from both locations). This raises questions of the reliability of that site as source for Wikipedia. LordVetinari (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let's sort out a few facts: The image used was one I took and have given permission for it to be uploaded to both WP and Indymedia under Creative Commons, what is wrong with that? The community groups are not political pressure organisations. It is not up to us to question the significance of any rally's inclusion in a free, public encyclopaedia. The article meets all of WP's policy requirements. I again request that the deletion tag to be removed immediately as all justification for deletion was passed prior to the completion of the article in it's present form. Not creating the article in sandbox does not provide justification for deletion. Nick carson (talk) 11:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, thank you for explaining about the picture. As you may understand, it isn't at first clear to a casual reader who happens to see both pages. Regarding Greenpeace & co., however, I question their characterisation as "community groups". They're hardly in the same calibre as a weekly sewing circle or a meetup, especially when considering their degree of organisation (as described in their respective WP articles) but perhaps we just have different interpretations of the word "community". I won't press the issue. As for notability, significant coverage in reliable sources does not imply that everything those sources significantly cover is worthy of an encyclopedia article. As I understand the article's topic, the government proposed a policy, some people said nay, then some people said yay. Why does people saying yay justify a separate article? Is there an article on the opposition's campaign? I would have thought that the price on pollution rally, if it were mentioned on WP at all, would only consist of a sentence or two here. Even that may be too much, as people oppose or support their governments all the time. Nonetheless, significant coverage does not guarantee notability, it merely presumes notability unless community consensus determines otherwise. Incidentally, regarding the sources, I suggest removing the Indymedia references as this source demonstrates that Indymedia is not independent of the subject as required by the GNG. Finally, as the AfD tag itself states, the tag cannot be removed until the discussion is closed so I guess we're both going to have to wait and see who has provided the strongest arguments. By the way, Nick, I added the "sandbox" comment solely to balance with your "too fast" suggestion. Anyway, I'll try to avoid commenting on this topic now and instead leave it up to the community. Although I respect you for presenting clear and civil arguments, it's plain we disagree with each other and I see no need for us to continue our little tiff. I look forward to editing with you in the future, preferably under different circumstances. LordVetinari (talk) 12:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The reliable sources concluded that this topic is notable by giving significant coverage to it. As for historical significance, that takes time and those above requiring historical significance can be understood as agreeing to give this article more time so that the topic's historical significance can be properly evaluated. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Baruch College student organizations

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

unsourced with no indication of WP:notability. Violation of WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 08:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 12:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 12:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 12:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12, keep the rest. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Various Alberta place stubs

edit
Various Alberta place stubs - (View AfD)

All of these articles were very recently created with absolute minimal content. Aside from the thought process that any place with a name is notable (which only applies to identified places), there is absolutely no rationale behind creating these several dozen stubs with the sole content of "Foo is an unincorporated community in Alberta." These can be recreated when there are sources, and more information, and not be created en-masse with basic information. Surely these are better suited in the List of unincorporated communities in Alberta?

Not to mention that most of these place names sound like developer names for cookie-cutter neighbourhoods designed to sell. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'll note that I'm not sure how to properly manually template these articles with the afd tag. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had some initial observations on the articles that either of you may have already made yourselves. 27 of the 32 places appeared to be within Athabasca County (all with same lat/long), while the remaining five appeared to be within MD of Bonnyville No. 87 (all with same lat/long).
I've since briefly reviewed land ownership mapping at the official web sites of the two municipalities and noticed that some of these appeared to be country residential (aka rural or acreage) subdivisions, while others appeared to be lakeside subdivisions (seasonal recreation properties). I then researched each in detail at StatCan and the CGNDB and found the following.

Place Alternate Name StatCan
[23][24]		 CGNDB Lat/Long Municipality
Athabascan Acres, Alberta Athabasca Acres Y     Athabasca County, Alberta
Balay Estates, Alberta Balay Subdivision Y     Athabasca County, Alberta
Bank Bay, Alberta   Y Y 54° 34' 14" N 110° 14' 05" W Bonnyville No. 87, Alberta
Beacon Corner, Alberta   Y Y 54° 10' 47" N 111° 09' 09" W Bonnyville No. 87, Alberta
Beaver River, Alberta   Y Y 54° 22' 12" N 110° 15' 58" W Bonnyville No. 87, Alberta
Big Coulee, Alberta   Y Y 54° 52' 44" N 113° 17' 00" W Athabasca County, Alberta
Big Meadow, Alberta   Y Y 54° 23' 31" N 110° 39' 42" W Bonnyville No. 87, Alberta
Blue Heron Estate, Alberta         Athabasca County, Alberta
Century Estates, Alberta   Y Y 54° 35' 12" N 113° 34' 45" W Athabasca County, Alberta
Coolidge, Alberta   Y Y 54° 35' 12" N 113° 34' 45" W Athabasca County, Alberta
Deep Creek, Alberta   Y Y 54° 57' 20" N 113° 12' 30" W Athabasca County, Alberta
Deer Ridge Estate, Alberta         Athabasca County, Alberta
Durlingville, Alberta   Y Y 54° 16' 50" N 110° 39' 17" W Bonnyville No. 87, Alberta
Golden Nodding Acres, Alberta         Athabasca County, Alberta
Grosmont, Alberta   Y Y 54° 51' 52" N 113° 33' 55" W Athabasca County, Alberta
Jumping Deer Estate, Alberta         Athabasca County, Alberta
Kinikinik, Alberta   Y Y 54° 35' 20" N 113° 00' 39" W Athabasca County, Alberta
Lahaieville, Alberta   Y Y 54° 47' 59" N 113° 33' 54" W Athabasca County, Alberta
Lincoln, Alberta   Y Y 54° 40' 32" N 113° 30' 40" W Athabasca County, Alberta
Meadowbrook, Alberta   Y Y 54° 29' 38" N 113° 39' 38" W Athabasca County, Alberta
Mystic Meadows, Alberta         Athabasca County, Alberta
North Bay Estate, Alberta         Athabasca County, Alberta
North Skeleton Beach Estates, Alberta         Athabasca County, Alberta
O'Morrow, Alberta   Y Y 54° 55' 14" N 112° 51' 44" W Athabasca County, Alberta
Paxson, Alberta   Y Y 54° 40' 54" N 113° 00' 22" W Athabasca County, Alberta
Pelican Beach, Alberta         Athabasca County, Alberta
Perch Cove Estates, Alberta         Athabasca County, Alberta
Pickerel Point, Alberta         Athabasca County, Alberta
Pleasant View, Alberta   Y Y 54° 56' 13" N 113° 04' 03" W Athabasca County, Alberta
Richmond Park, Alberta   Y Y 54° 53' 58" N 113° 10' 59" W Athabasca County, Alberta
Sawdy, Alberta   Y Y 54° 51' 00" N 113° 23' 47" W Athabasca County, Alberta
Spruce Valley, Alberta   Y Y 54° 51' 45" N 112° 48' 05" W Athabasca County, Alberta

Those recognized by StatCan are referred to as "localities", while those in the CGNDB are listed as "unincorporated areas".
I've since reviewed Athabasca County's 2009 Land Ownership Map, and have the following observations:

  • of those that do not have a Y in both the StatCan and CGNDB columns above, all but one of them (North Bay Estate) appear to are rural country residential or lakeside residential subdivisions (North Bay Estate could be the same as the rest of these, I simply have yet to find it yet on the map)
  • of those that do have a Y in both columns above, all of them appear to be localities or named locations and not communities, except for Century Estates that is a country residential subdivision.

In the M.D. of Bonnyville No. 87, I could only find Beacon Corner on its 2010 Land Ownership Map. It also appears to be a locality or named ___location and not a community. Hwy43 (talk) 05:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question is, if these were all incorporated into the two county articles in which they are located, could there ever be enough information on them to justify forking them out? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt any of these could ever have enough referenced information to warrant their own articles unless they have any significant ties to history like Amber Valley, which is also in Athabasca County. Hwy43 (talk) 07:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would certainly agree that in principle, any named community is valid as a potential article topic, regardless of size, but you're also correct that there's little to no value in keeping an unreferenced stub whose only verifiable content is the statement that the place exists. WP:HEY definitely pertains here (and I didn't even realize there was actually a named principle which encompasses the way I've already approached a good many AFDs in the past!), but I should point out as well that is often a third way between keeping crap and deleting "notable" topics: what I've often done with poor/unreferenced/unexpandable articles about unincorporated communities in Ontario is to redirect them to the article on the incorporated municipality that they're actually located in. I'm not knowledgeable enough about municipal government in Alberta to simply jump in and impose that solution myself, but it's certainly preferable, wherever possible, to just deleting an article (even a bad one) about a named community. So I guess my question would be: is Athabasca County the primary unit of local government here, or are some or all of these communities part of another municipal unit within the county, such as a city, town or other form of municipality? Generally, these should be redirected to whichever entity, be it the county or an incorporated town or city within the county, is actually responsible for providing their primary local governance — although if there are any that can't even be verified as existing at all (i.e. not listed in any of the geographic or statistical directories that we typically turn to), then those stragglers should obviously just be deleted. Bearcat (talk) 17:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Outside those that are rural country residential or rural lakeside residential subdivisions, I'm hard-pressed to believe that any of the balance of these places were ever communities that were populated or settled without any reference confirming otherwise. I've never been fond of redirecting a place article to its administrating municipality unless the article on the administrating municipality provides at least some sort of information on the redirected place... this is a personal preference though where I'm not sure if any WP policy/guideline would support this preference. I am recommending below immediate deletion of the stragglers that are not in Canada's geographical directory (the CGNDB). Hwy43 (talk) 07:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 12 (Athabascan Acres, Balay Estates, Blue Heron Estate, Deer Ridge Estate, Golden Nodding Acres, Jumping Deer Estate, Mystic Meadows, North Bay Estate, North Skeleton Beach Estates, Pelican Beach, Perch Cove Estates, and Pickerel Point, and Pleasant View) as they are unnotable, low density country residential and lakeside residential subdivisions developed in rural areas within rural municipalities that are not recognized by NRCan in its Canadian Geographic Names Database. If we start creating articles for these, then are we going to start creating articles for every named three or four-storey walk-up aparment building in Edmonton, or every named townhouse development in Calgary?
    WP:HEY for the balance. If no response to WP:HEY and these unreferenced stubs are not referenced and improved to an acceptable starting point for a stub, then I say delete. If kept and improved, these articles should refer to these places as localities (per StatCan), unincorporated areas (per CGNDB), or even named locations instead of unincorporated communities as all do not appear to be communities at all (except for Century Estates). Also note that is unknown if anything has ever existed at these places, or if they were ever populated. Again with the one exception, they all could simply be places that were named/founded but never settled. Hwy43 (talk) 07:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC) Revised (providing clarity with official position below).[reply]
    Keep the remaining 20 as StatCan recognizes them as localities and the CGNDB recognizes them as unincorporated areas (not unincorporated communities). If these 20 survive, I will request the original editor to improve these (in line with the intent of WP:HEY). If not improved, and if nominated a second time, my position would likely be different the second time around. Hwy43 (talk) 06:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the 12 identified by User:Hwy43 above. (Note below-- keep the other 1920). These are described by some of us as "kittens", articles that are created in mass quantity and then abandoned. In this case, all apparently created by one editor [25] based on the premise that every place identified on the map is an unincorporated community. WP:NPLACE describes a common outcome to the effect that if you wish to write an article about a populated community and can demonstrate that it is or was at one time a community, it will usually be kept. It's not a subject-specific notability guideline, hence it's not in the class of articles where all one has to do is make a stub and walk away. The distinction is necessary to make, mainly because WP:NPLACE is so often misused by people who want to pretend that their neighborhood or subdivision or trailer park is kind of like their own little town all its own-- or, in this case, who create articles en masse and think that an important contribution has been made. Some of these probably are thought of as their own communities, perhaps with their own post office or local grocery or gas station and located many miles away from the closest incorporated town. And some places, especially those that end in "Acres" or "Estates" are clearly a real estate development, and their residents would laugh out loud at the idea. Hence, I agree with Hwy43's approach. The others can be dealt with later. Mandsford 23:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC) Never mind After reading the rest of the discussion, I don't agree with anyone's approach.[reply]
Just noticed another created by the editor – Academy, Alberta. It shows up at StatCan as a locality within Calgary and at the CGNDB as an unincorporated area. Should this be added to this AfD as well? I also notice it has been deemed or assumed a "ghost town". I often see new articles created on Alberta places that have also been deemed or assumed the same, but with no verifiable references and no confirmation they were ever populated in the first place. Hwy43 (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it'll confuse things further, and it's already confusing with delete these, keep those. It can be nominated separately, citing to this argument. For the record, I think that you're saying to Keep 1920 of these (Bank Bay, Beacon Corner, Beaver River, Big Coulee, Big Meadow; Century Estates, Coolidge, Durlingville, Deep Creek and Grosmont; Kinikinik, Lahaieville, Lincoln and Meadowbrook; O'Morrow and Paxson, and Pelican Beach; and Pleasant View, Richmond Park, Sawdy and Spruce Valley; and on the other hand, Delete 12 others Athabascan Acres, Balay Estates, Blue Heron Estate, Deer Ridge Estate, Golden Nodding Acres, Jumping Deer Estate, Mystic Meadows, North Bay Estate, North Skeleton Beach Estates, Pelican Beach, Perch Cove Estates, and Pickerel Point, and Pleasant View. It would help if the nominator would take some of these off the table. Of course, it would have helped if somebody hadn't decided to slap up 32 articles without any remote interest in the subject matter... Mandsford 03:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC) Never mind. Mandsford 14:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes to deleting the above 12 as I just amended (originally indicated Pleasant View when I meant Pelican Beach). I would prefer the 20 (including Century Estates) also be deleted as well if the editor or someone else doesn't offer to save these articles. I don't intend to adopt or feed these kittens. (Note that Academy is neither within the 12 or the 20 as you suggested. If all 32 are deleted, I'll nominate Academy separately.) Hwy43 (talk) 05:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC) Revised (see below).[reply]
Yes to keeping the remaining 20 (refer to my revised comments above that clarify this position). Hwy43 (talk) 06:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to leave all of them up so that any newcomers to the discussion can see the others, in case they have an opinion on what to do to them. The way I see it, its best to improve the one large list of Alberta communities by sourcing it and clearing up the list, then to merge/redirect those 19/20 articles to the list and delete the other dozen. In Ontario, most communities of even considerable size (ie Midhurst, Ontario) redirect to their parent municipality, which are far more comprehensive articles on the area at large. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 05:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notwithstanding my preference on the 20 in my last comment, I do agree with Mandsford that these could be dealt with later. Hwy43 (talk) 17:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. At this point I support deleting the dozen listed above, but am leaving the others on the list in case somebody else feels more belong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Floydian (talk • contribs) 17:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC) [reply]
Not much comment has been received yet. Could it be that the large size of the nomination is discouraging others to comment? Hwy43 (talk) 06:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It appears I have unnecessarily muddied things by originally providing a position on the 12 (delete), and stating a preference on the other 20 (delete if they aren't improved) instead of an outright position. To be more direct, my official positions are delete the 12 and keep the 20 (see above). Hwy43 (talk) 06:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of 12

edit

For reference, here are the 12, I think I'm seeing a consensus to continue the AfD only with these:

Unscintillating (talk) 23:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete those 12. No opinion on the others. Some of those others may really be unincorporated communities, but I don't see that any effort was put into making articles about them. Mandsford 20:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, including the ones not mentioned in the list immediately above. At this point it appears that no effort will be put into expanding them beyond "X is a community in Y", and so these are pointless placeholders. No prejudice against recreating them with something more than just where the place is. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 00:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the 12 (and keep the 20)  I worked on "Balay Estates" finding that a multiple listing service was listing undeveloped real estate in "Balay Estate" near Rochester, AB.  Following the road directions there was a street that on Google was called "Spruce Close".  But the realtor service had not set up their mapping with Google to properly show the ___location, nor did they know that someone was calling the street "Spruce Close".  I checked all of the 12 names to see if Google knew about them as places, but I found none.  On the contrary, when I checked one name from the original list, "Spruce Valley", Google knew that it existed.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the 12 per comments on previous iteration of this AfD above. Hwy43 (talk) 03:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete these. I take a very broad view of geographic notability , but I agree that mere housing subdivisions that do not actually amount to communities are not usually notable. (Especially when there's almost no information available) DGG ( talk ) 03:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all 32 to a list. We're getting a little too detailed; would someone please try to write about large places somewhere other than North America rather than tiny non-places? Stifle (talk) 09:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No joke, there are many decent-size governmental subdivisions in places like India and Indonesia that have no articles, and many other such articles in horrible shape.--Milowent • talkblp-r 21:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the 12 on the understanding that subdivisions, which these apparently are, are not inherently notable. No prejudice to recreation of actual content articles on actual communities, I am not a big fan of mass stub creation like this though sometimes it may have some value.--Milowent • talkblp-r 21:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this deletion is without prejudice.  I found another listing that shows that Balay Estate or Balay Estates or Balay Subdivision is populated, and populated areas are generally considered notable.  This one can't be adequately/reliably identified currently, so is not notable, but I think it would not take a lot for it to qualify.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In some cases, they would not be worth covering in the article of the corresponding community. Mentioning every named estate residential subdivision in a rural municipality's article would provide similar value to mentioning every named 3-storey walk-up apartment building within a city. Hwy43 (talk) 04:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also believe that more than just notability determines whether an article is worthy of continued existence (in its current state). The article should actually tell us something about the topic. I not only gain no more than I could from a atlas index, but I see nothing that couldn't be discussed in the manner that an article such as Unorganized Algoma District is arranged (which, I note, is a beautiful example of how we can take two dozen two-sentence stubs, a couple of pictures, and make a pretty decent article). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 04:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Spanish football transfers summer 2009

edit
List of Spanish football transfers summer 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list is referenced and probably complete. However, I don't think it has a place on wikipedia. Transfers in one of the largest leagues in the world are notable, but I do not see the point of having anything but a short article discussing only the notable transfers. Nergaal (talk) 07:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep WHAT? ARE YOU SERIOUS? After all the hard work I've been doing every day for more than two months during the summer and you want to remove it? This type of transfer articles are found on Wikipedia for almost every European football league. Why only the Spanish one? And by the way... what is "notable players" for you? Kaka and Cristiano? What a lack of respect for the other La Liga and Segunda División players who don't have a limitless salary like these two... Qampunen (talk) 09:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 12:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 12:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 12:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. If anyone is desirous of creating a larger article to which this might be merged, feel free to contact me and I will help and faciliate same. Stifle (talk) 09:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity Lutheran School (Kaukauna, WI)

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

Non notable school, only 71 students, and up to 8th grade CTJF83 23:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just point out that while 'outcomes' is true and that the precedent is generally followed, it is not policy. There is no inherent non notability for primary and middle schools, but they must, like any other subject, assert their notability per WP:N, supported by reliable sources that can be verified. Kudpung (talk) 00:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
and Kudpung sums it up correctly, it's not policy, and there's no absolute right to high schools or absolute bar to lower level schools. "General result" probably should have been described as "usual outcome" with a reminder that it's not a policy or guideline. Mandsford 04:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sovereign Communications

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

no assertion of notability WuhWuzDat 19:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ypsilanti Food Co-op

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

non notable food co-op WuhWuzDat 19:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) -- DQ (t) (e) 17:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Backes

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

Non notable mountain climber. Online search for references shows only that A: He exists B: He has a website C: He climbs mountains D: His climbing buddies mention him on their websites. WuhWuzDat 18:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability in mountaineering is achieved by completing extremely difficult climbs and first ascents throughout the world, and having these climbs documented in reliable sources for mountaineering. In the United States, the foremost modern reliable sources are the annual American Alpine Journal and books published by The Mountaineers Books. There are other reliable journals and publishing houses, but these are the cream of the crop. Scott Backes is a notable mountaineer because he was a world class climber whose accomplishments are well documented in the very best sources. I've added quite a few references to reliable sources. By the way, his "climbing buddies" as described by WuhWuzDat are all notable mountaineers as well. I was once a climber myself. To use a baseball simile, I was like a Little Leaguer and these guys were like World Series winners by comparison. Cullen328 (talk) 05:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article now has nine reliable sources, and the five major climbs mentioned each have two references. Cullen328 (talk) 15:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 20:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Latent Anxiety

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

No reliable sources to meet notability for a musical act.

Plenty of sources have been given, but here's a rundown:

  • Allmusic counts as a review. This is good.
  • ASCAP, proves the band exists, but doesn't contribute towards encyclopedic notability. It does, however, elevate the band above the normal WP:GARAGEBAND level.
  • Reviews that don't exist online, such as Dark Spy Magazine. These are hard to verify, and when a magazine doesn't have a wikipedia article, it's hard to gauge its verifiability.
  • Independent Music Awards has a page, the specific link is a 404, but the quote given suffices as counting towards reviews.
The link http://www.independentmusicawards.com/ima/2010/latentanxiety/ shows an interview entitled: "Discover Artists Submitting to 10th IMAs: Latent Anxiety" --KDSRRGurl (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • celebrity-link is completely useless in terms of being a reliable source.
  • the label page is good because it has quotes, but they look suspiciously cooked, like there was a "review exchange" done. In any case, those reviews aren't sourced, they are effectively peer-to-peer reviews- different than having Spin or Rolling Stone doing a writeup.
  • last.fm is a fansite.
The Last.fm wiki/bio cannot be used for Wikipedia purposes; however, Last.fm fans CAN NOT upload albums to the site. Albums must be uploaded directly by the artist or the record label, or imported directly from Last.fm record label partners. Last.fm records the number of 'Last.fm registered listeners' the artist has, and the number of times each listener plays a track. ie. http://www.last.fm/music/Latent+Anxiety/+albums Five albums have been uploaded to the Last.fm database by Latent Anxiety. Each album includes a track listing and track times, and pertinent information, if any (official release date). --> http://www.last.fm/music/Latent+Anxiety/Detonation --> Refer to Last.fm faqs for "Can I add new albums to Last.fm or edit existing ones (for instance, their track listings)?" http://www.last.fm/help/faq?category=97#355 --> Therefore Last.fm should suffice as a source for confirmation of album release only and that it has a number of listeners which have confirmed it's existence via the listener stats. --KDSRRGurl (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sonic Seducer is hard to weigh.
Sonic Seducer is publication of the Thomas Vogel Media e.K. in Germany (Company)
http://www.thomasvogelmedia.de/start.php?rubrik_id=4 (German Version)
http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&sl=de&tl=en&u=http://www.thomasvogelmedia.de/start.php%3Frubrik_id%3D4&rurl=translate.google.com&twu=1&usg=ALkJrhjsDbvGA-DJ6PdTga7Ws_7WsDkc1g (English Version) --KDSRRGurl (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "grave concerns ezine" is .. an ezine/blog. WP:SPS applies.
  • "music street journal" appears to be one step above a review mill. Perhaps useful to give their review, but not a strong win towards notability.
Please be more specific in terms of "review mill." Thank-you. --KDSRRGurl (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • the band's website doesn't help with notability
  • all4themusic is a blog.
  • mortal loom announcement just confirms the bands worked together. Nothing more; note Ilja's other band isn't notable, so no help there.
  • NME certainly shows the band exists, but it's effectively their lastfm site. I don't even see reviews, just mentions. NME does plenty of award shows, so it's hard to figure out the significance of winning the "eWorld Music Awards 2011". It's not exactly the Grammys.

Overall, the band exists, but the easiest way to have a Wikipedia entry for a band is to win a major award or have a very successful single/album. If the article is deleted by consensus, myself or another admin can move the article to your account to continue working on it, then it can be moved back into the articlespace proper. tedder (talk) 07:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability criteria that seem to be met:

"1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself."

Comment on "Reviews that don't exist online, such as Dark Spy Magazine..." (tedder): Not all print magazines publish their content online. Print media without additional online content do not necessarily compromise verifiability. In this case reviews are online from volume 27, see under "Musik-Reviews" on whereas the cited review was allegedly printed in volume 26.

"5. Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster)."
The music project released 5 albums. The independent label "...was created in the Spring of 1999..." according to their website. The label's roster has various artists including: "Mortal Loom has garnered a reputation for international excellence, working with many artists including Chris and Cosey of CTI as well as other artists around the world."

"9. Has won or placed in a major music competition."
Listed under Awards and Nominations but I'm not sure if these count as major competitions, perhaps in the independent music scene.

Citation links for awards require correction, however, http://www.eworldmusicawards.com/node/44 awards can be verified. --KDSRRGurl (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Industrialhammer (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC) — Industrialhammer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

In reference to Music Street Journal's reviews. This is posted by Gary Hill, publisher of Music Street Journal. If what you mean by a review mill is someone who does reviews for pay and only does positive reviews, then in one sense that's accurate. We only do positive reviews, but that just means if we don't like something more than dislike it we don't cover it. And the reasoning behind that is that we don't have time to cover all the good stuff, so it makes no sense wasting time on bad stuff. Also, we feel that describing music is more important than stating a thumbs up or thumbs down because personal tastes vary. I came to that concept when I read a review trashing a Candlemass album. Fortunately the review went into details as to what was wrong about the disc. Those attributes told me I'd like it - and I bought it and loved it.
If you mean that we'll review anything that gets sent to us, to a degree that is accurate, too. Within the following rules: As mentioned before, we need to like the item more than dislike it. And, two, that item needs to be available for the public to get in some manner - either through free download or purchase or some method. It doesn't make any sense for us to tell someone how great something is and then tell them that they can't get it.
We've been publishing since 1998 and, therefore, have covered a LOT of stuff. We've done interviews with many big name artists - including Godsmack, Yes, Queensryche, Judas Priest, Motorhead, Hawkwind and many more. We've also been considered a "go to" source by a lot of progressive rock musicians and fans.
I hope these things help to clear that up in one way or another. Thanks. Anyone seeking more information, feel free to email us at (email redacted). — 71.82.215.194 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 03:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]


  • Keep: "These are hard to verify, and when a magazine doesn't have a wikipedia article, it's hard to gauge its verifiability." Tedder, please explain. Sources are not bound to have a Wikipedia article to be verifiable. While a source on Wikipedia certainly accounts for its verifiability a lack of Wikipedia inclusion does not automatically discredit its verifiability. Also, Wikipedia is not and shall not be a primary source in itself as it is based on a variety of sources in different formats, which are to be referenced properly. To verify a non-online source it has to be ultimately acquired. — Sun Wolf Rider (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Walsh Family Media

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

Borderline company of the classic "gonna be big someday" variety; limited sources seem to reflect press releases and PR efforts, not substantive coverage. Orange Mike | Talk 03:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also Patrick M. Walsh Jr., created about the same time as part of what seems to have been a deliberate self-advertisement drive by somebody in the Walsh camp. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fails WP:V. I can't find any evidence that this TV show exists. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Competition

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

Fails the GNG - No references and almost no G-hits; by virtue of this also fails WP:TVSERIES Pol430 talk to me 00:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable. Suspected advertisement. There's not much information about this so-called TV programme. Andrew Powner (talk) 17:57, 3 March 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) 01:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 17:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hasan Cihat Örter

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

Unsourced biography by single-purpose account Elektrolikit (talk · contribs). I doubt this meets WP:NMG anyway. bender235 (talk) 19:31, 19 February 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) 01:43, 26 February 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) 01:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - subject appears to pass WP:NM by virtue of his albums on EMI and Sony. However, I do not know if these are his albums or if these are compilation albums. There are clips on youtube of him performing on turkish tv, such as here [27]. subject appears to be notable there from what I can see — Preceding unsigned comment added by Postrock1 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 17:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Solar (PHP Framework)

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

Spam Lorem Ip (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - did you seriously call this article spam??? It may not be a super popular framework, but it is used by real world products. The article needs work, but that's never a reason to delete an article or we'd never get anywhere. Ariel. (talk) 12:13, 2 March 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, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - While whether or not the article is spam is arguable, it does lack references and has no clear evidence of notability, which together can be a justifiable reason for deletion. Dialectric (talk) 12:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article lacks those, but the framework does not. That is a call to improve the article, not delete it. Ariel. (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Silky Baines

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:ATHLETE, or WP:ENTERTAINER. Nikki♥311 04:14, 26 February 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) 01:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Working for redlinked promotions is not enough to establish notability. When searching for sources, I found one brief mention on a site that looked like it could have passed for reliable (although simply mentioning his name once isn't enough to establish notability). As an aside, although it didn't influence my comments here, the article creator's vandalism [28] of the New Year's Revolution (2006) article didn't do too much toward encouraging good faith here. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnamese National Badminton Championships

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

    This is not reputable. There source does not give the information listed and gives the reader barely any information. Intoronto1125 (talk) 04:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Every of the articles nominated by the user Intoronto1125 today clearly meets the guidelines for notability in Wikipedia:Notability. If there are problems with the layout of the article or with the references, there are other tools to mark an article. All the contributions of user Intoronto1125 in badminton related articles are in my opinion closed to vandalism or vandalism at all (see move log of Channarong Ratanaseangsuang). If this user has problems with the sport badminton, he should not use wikipedia to show his. --Florentyna (talk) 16:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    The user Intoronto1125 states, that in all these badminton articles are problems with references. But if there are missing sources or there are problems with sources, one should use another template like for instance {BLP sources}. A missing or wrong source is no reason for a deletion request. And at the end it is not right what he is saying about the missing references - every of the articles has a reference section where one can download all the results of the championships line by line. In the link Badminton Europe - Details of affilated national organisations on every page one will find a pdf-document with everything is needed (except for Vietnam). --Florentyna (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Like I already mentioned, a wrong, missing or disappeared reference is no reason for a deletion request (if the article meets the notability guidelines). There are other templates like refimprove to indicate an article for missing or wrong references. Nevertheless before using this, one can also try himself to update the references. Here it was very easy to update the reference using [29]. --Florentyna (talk) 07:39, 1 March 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) 01:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It (the deletion template) is the wrong template - national championships are in general notable. See for instance: A national championship season at the top collegiate level is generally notable in Wikipedia:Notability (sports). And this championship is much higher than a collegiate one. The article is "only" incomplete, but it is the only information one can get from the web. User Intoronto1125 only found a dead link, what is no reason at all for a AfD debate. --Florentyna (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep  I added one ref.  I also found a Google book snippet here that seems to say this is a professional sport for Vietnam.  Badminton at the Summer Olympics shows that Vietnam competed in the Olympics in 2008.  There is also a national committee "Viet Nam Badminton Federation".  Certainly there is content missing and room for improvement–this should be a challenge to improve the article.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Listed for 21 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. I'm going to enterpret Johnbod's comment as a "weak keep". Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Greenmuseum.org

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

    Clearly fails WP:WEB with no reliable, third-party sources found after some inquiry. Jay-Sebastos (talk) 05:00, 26 February 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) 01:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    GRIN Campaign

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

    Promotional page from organization formed in 2010. Though there are several references listed that announced the organization when it was created, none of them are from anything resembling notable media. This is the only Google News hit - http://sdgln.com/causes/2010/12/24/respect-protest-anti-bullying-beyond-united-states - and it's just a repost of http://dot429.com/articles/2010/12/16/respect-protest-anti-bullying-beyond-united-states , which appears to just be some sort of social networking site. B (talk) 05:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The organisation has gained much media attention in the printed press in the south of the UK. One such article can be found here: http://www.petersfieldpost.co.uk/news/bordon/online_anti_bullying_campaign_launched_1_1996104
    The http://dot429.com/articles/2010/12/16/respect-protest-anti-bullying-beyond-united-states and http://sdgln.com/causes/2010/12/24/respect-protest-anti-bullying-beyond-united-states are written by the smae author and do contain some subtle differances, it apears that the journalist works for both organisations but only conducted one interview.
    http://www.ukgaynews.org.uk/Archive/10/Dec/3101.htm is also a news site with many articles relating to the orginisation.
    Spirit FM and RadioReverb, both radio stations in the south of the UK have also interviewed the organisation, http://www.spiritfm.net/news/review.php?article=340505 was an article showing this, however, is no longer avalible but http://www.radioreverb.com/index.php?id=107 still is.
    Although some of the articles cannot necessarily be proven to be notable media the vast volume of articles displayed when 'GRIN Campapign' is typed into Google is clear evidence of the notability of the campaign.jointheworldcouk (talk) 19:45, 26 February 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) 01:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 without prejudice . Treating as an uncontested PROD. I'll restore this article upon request. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    ONTORULE

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

    This article does not demonstrate the notability of the subject. It has been speedily deleted before for A7. The current incarnation has been tagged {{notability}} and {{primarysources}} since May 2010. The only reference is to a page belonging to CORDIS, the official information source for the program that partially funds ONTORULE, and thus not independent—quite possibly the CORDIS page is an ONTORULE press release. —teb728 t c 07:25, 26 February 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) 01:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    List of deceased characters in Prisoner

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

    This list is a bad idea. Apart from being arguably a non-notable subject, categorising fictional characters by whether they're 'alive' or 'dead' has been firmly rejected on many previous occasions: see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 9#Category:Deceased fictional characters, Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 6#Category:Deceased fictional characters, Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 18#Category:Dead fictional characters. That should apply to lists as much as categories. Describing a fictional character as 'deceased' is pretty silly when you think about it. Robofish (talk) 16:00, 26 February 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) 00:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment  Not easy to research and doesn't seem interesting, currently there is no evidence of notability, possibly WP:Indiscriminate.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with leave to speedy renominate. the band's AFD was closed "keep". Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Supa Dupa Diva

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

    non-notable - recent song by a band in afd (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dal Shabet) Melaen (talk) 16:34, 26 February 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) 00:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Earlier versions of this article are a copyvio of [34], and little has been done to rewrite the article to conform with our policy on biographies of living people. Whether or not he passes the threshold required for WP:Notability (people) is yet to be determined; the people commenting on this AFD have not provided persuasive opinions based on policy. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    James Edward Bowen

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

    probably not encyclopedic... altought the reference list is long (not all links are pertinent) Melaen (talk) 16:59, 26 February 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) 00:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was DELETE. If it turns out that Medieval Chronicle Society is kept, then normal editing process can determine to what extent that article should mention this topic. postdlf (talk) 02:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Encyclopedia of the Medieval Chronicle

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

    Following on from discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Encyclopedia_of_the_Medieval_Chronicle, the Wikipedia article Encyclopedia of the Medieval Chronicle was authored by the real life general editor of the work, Doric Loon (talk · contribs). Published late last year, Doric Loon has since authored Wikipedia articles on the book for at least four different Wikipedia projects, including English wiki, whilst inserting it into hundreds of articles as a 'reference'. The work came out only last year, and far from having any clear notability, is probably unknown to most academics, and indeed is yet to be fully distributed (though as the book search reveals, copies of many articles had been made available to some academics prior to its publication). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Current version of that is at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 48#Encyclopedia of the Medieval Chronicle.--Doric Loon (talk) 07:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I am also nominating the following related page.

    Medieval Chronicle Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    The society's notability is far from clear, and was authored by the same Wikipedia editor (who happens to be the President of the organization; perhaps the founder too?). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC) Replaced with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medieval Chronicle Society following requests on this page. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • I would have preferred these be nominated separately, or, rather, the latter not at all. I think a discussion of the notability of the Medieval Chronicle Society should be had at its talk page, since it is not clear whether it meets our (very low) standards or not. In the case of the Encyclopedia of the Medieval Chronicle, the solutions seems clear: it has not attained notability by even our standards yet and Doric Loon should copy it onto his hard drive (or some other off-site storage device/place) and hold onto it until some time in the future when citations or reviews in academic work and its use here at Wikipedia has blessed it with sufficient notability. Until then it should be deleted. If and when it is re-created it must cite something other than itself. Srnec (talk) 21:08, 26 February 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) 00:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do not support (at all!). First of all, I would like to ask the two contributors above who support the deletion to do two things: 1) argue more clearly why they believe this work is "not notable" (stating something is not proving); 2) to present their academic credentials that allow them to assess the "unnotable" nature of this work. This is in fact a monumental work, and it is the first major encyclopedia of medieval chronicles in English. If the two users believe that the article sounds "promotional", that is not reason enough to delete it (the style can be changed). The fact that the article was written by the author of the encyclopedia is also not reason enough to demand the deletion of the article. As a matter of fact, we (and Wikipedia) should be happy that the article was written by an expert. So, once again, the case for deletion does not stand. --Euro (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Either its notable or its not, I don't see any reason to thing the COI of the primary author should carry any weight on the AFD, that said, to the 'Do not support' commenter, can you point to any sources that would satisfy Wikipedia:Notability_(books). Thats all it would take to save the article, but I haven't seen any yet. Monty845 (talk) 07:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know whether I should be writing here when I'm not a Wikipedia member, but my supervisor wrote for this encyclopedia, so I know a little about it. Although it only appeared on paper six months ago, the people who worked on it, which includes all the big names in the field, had access to the database over the last five years, which means that for them it already has a track record. I'm not sure what would count as proof of notability here, but you might want to look at "Narrative Sources" (http://www.narrative-sources.be/colofon_nl.php). If you put the title of the Encyclopedia into the search engine, you will find that it is cited there 605 times as an authority. Actually, you should think about writing a Wikipedia article on Narrative Sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.223.36.96 (talk) 14:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    OK, it is really time to wind this thing up. The vote would appear to be three “keeps” (Euro, unregistered 93.233.36.96, and me), four “deletes” (Deacon of Pndapetzim and Accusativen Hos Olsson, and ambivalently (?) Snrec and GeorgeLouis) and one waiting for evidence (Monty845). Since the last two edits did provide evidence of notability, it would be interesting to know what Snrec, GeorgeLouis and Monty845 now think, but they haven’t been back since that was added. At any rate, this seems to be a fairly even split, and so I have asked for admins to come in and decide the matter.
    I think it’s clear that notability is the only issue here. If anyone is still worried about the CoI issue, please see the comments I just made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medieval Chronicle Society.--Doric Loon (talk) 07:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You want to Keep it as the author, Euro wants to keep it because he is also an author, the other anon is a former phd student of an author .... so you and two single purpose accounts (brought in by yourself?) want to keep, and everyone else thinks it should be deleted. Not impressed at all. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note to Doric Loon: baring very unusual circumstances which are not applicable here, Articles for deletion discussions must run for at least one week, so now is definitely not the time to "wind this up". No comment on the actual article itself. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Never mind, I misread--I thought this was opened on March 16. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I could find no sign of notabality using google scholar, google news or plain google. While it may well one day be notable it's not there yet. I'm not an expert in this field so if anyone can show me evedience of how it meets either WP:NBOOK or the more general WP:GNG then I'll happily change my !vote but I can't see any evedience of notability at the moment (and yes I have read the above). For transperency - I came here because of the ANI thread. Dpmuk (talk) 13:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      If the society article is kept at it's AfD I'd support a merge and redirect as below. Dpmuk (talk) 23:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep , and merge into the article on the society. It would have been preferable not to start two articles. But the conferences are notable, and the encyclopedia is being published by the best known publisher in the world for this sort of topic, which adds to the notability. I'd prefer the article to be on the Society, as it does more than just take responsibility for the encyclopedia . There is a good 3rd party source, [35]. which lists the encyclopedia as one of the key sources. DGG ( talk ) 20:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge/redirect to Medieval Chronicle Society per DGG.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Merge and redirect works for me, as the original author of the article, if that brings us closer to a resolution here. --Doric Loon (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete - I'm not seeing the third party coverage here - nothing on Google news, only passing mentions in Google books, and no reviews in Google scholar. Fails to meet the notability criteria. The fact that it may be notable eventually or that it's an impressive reference work doesn't allow us to ignore the notability requirements. If so, we'd have articles on all books published. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Ethical Ocean

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

    Delete. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    (Do Not Delete. Notable company. Only online large scale source for ethical products. -- RamseyBenAchour (talk)

    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) 00:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a means for people to choose how they themselves want to act; since PC is prevailing on others to act a certain way, is it ideologically sound to prevail on these people to not choose how they want to act, and then call them PC? Anarchangel (talk) 01:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep The article could use more examples of real coverage, as a couple of the notability links seem to be a bit press releaseish. However, reference [[36]] seems to go a good way towards meeting the notability rule. Monty845 (talk) 08:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was redirect to The Life and Adventures of Santa Claus. There is no consensus to keep the material, which is unsourced, and a quick search turned up nothing on the topic, though plenty of use of the term in Baum's stories. A redirect of the title was seen as useful, though there was no agreement on target. I am redirecting to The Life and Adventures of Santa Claus as that article mentions both Knooks and Ryls. SilkTork *YES! 13:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Knook

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

    See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cayke. Like the characters there, an un- or underreferenced about a hardly notable character. Unfortunately, due to the crossover into other Baum stories, I'm not sure where any mergeable content would go Purplebackpack89 22:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I am also splicing on Ryl to this AfD for the above reasons Purplebackpack89 22:52, 26 February 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) 00:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    James Shea

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

    Although Shea is a youth player at Arsenal he has yet to make a first-team league appearance. Until he does, he fails Wikipedia:NFOOTY. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Result was keep; nomination withdrawn. Rlendog (talk) 14:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Kyle Sleeth

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

    Not a particularly notable minor league baseball player. Yes, he was "once touted as one of Major League Baseball's top prospects," however many, many players have been named "top prospects," therefore that in itself does not make him notable enough for an article. It is debatable whether his collegiate accomplishments merit an article. His placement on the 40-man roster is not inherently notable either. The long and short of it is that he became a 12-21 pitcher with a 6.30 ERA that never went above Double-A, who in my humble opinion does not merit an article. Alex (talk) 05:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep - I missed the part about the subject having been on a national team, my bad. Carrite (talk) 22:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep As a member of the US national baseball team he participated in international competitions at the highest level. "Sports figures are presumed notable ... if they: 1. have participated in a major international amateur ... competition" Kinston eagle (talk) 00:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Per Kinston eagle. Since it's not mentioned in the article, it's easy to miss, but a quick web search turned up mention of his stint with Team USA in 2002. Someone needs to fix that. -Dewelar (talk) 00:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I didn't see that in the article. I wouldn't have nominated him if I had known he played on the US National Team. Alex (talk)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Consensus is not to keep in mainspace as the article does not asert notability and does not have appropriate sources. I will userfy on request, or provide copy for anyone who wishes to use the material on Batheo Wikia. SilkTork *YES! 13:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Batheo

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

    Not notable, and the article lacks reliable sources with which the verify it. Original PROD has COI concerns as well but I'll AGF here that the article's creator will have their username changed appropriately.

    (IP contested prod with reason: "I just heard of Batheo today from Facebook, and Wikipedia's entry is the only description of the game I can reach through my internet filter.") OSborn arfcontribs. 21:27, 25 February 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) 01:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems as if consensus is to userfy, no? Let's just do it and end this. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - See [37]. Not sure if the WP article is a copyvio of this site, or if this site is just mirroring the article. They were both created around the same time. In either case, userfying the article seems like the best idea to me. Needs major wikifying and sources. —SW— comment 17:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply looks like a scrape of the WP article- that link says posted 2 March 2011, the article was created 23:08, 22 February 2011. (forgot to sign, OSborn)
    • Keep or Userfy This looks like a good topic. I found several game review sites which had articles about this game. Maybe some work could be done to recruit some seasoned editors who are interested in browser games to help build this into a good article.OfficeGirl (talk) 09:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a sister wiki site at Batheo Wikia where the players of the game are keeping information neutral and as unbias'ed as we can. I manage the site with others for content submission et al. Goldbishop (talk) 01:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 05:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was  keep. The rationale for deletion was lack of useful content and sourcing, Novickas' edits appear to have addressed that issue and the only comment after those improvements has been to include the content.

    I am making the purely editorial decision to rename the article "Taiwanese tea", as this improves the grammar, and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals) discourages plurals in article titles. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Taiwan teas

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

    This seems to be a low quality article with no obvious reason for its existence. Any material could be included in tea, Chinese tea, or Taiwanese tea culture. There seems to be a proliferation of low quality articles on closely related topics. It would be better to work on high quality articles with redirects as are useful. I can only compare this to beer: There is no article for Scottish beer, English beer, Belgian beer, etc. Why should there be an article for Taiwan teas? This article does not make the case for a notable standalone article. Logical Cowboy (talk) 06:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 05:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I would like to point out that this article is almost completely redundant with Formosa oolong tea. Logical Cowboy (talk)

    Note: The article under discussion here has been {{rescue}} flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron. Yaksar (let's chat) 16:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and REDIRECT. postdlf (talk) 00:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Richard Timney

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

    This man is not notable other than in relation to two acts of masturbation in private and a 10 pound charge to the taxpayer. His article should be deleted and a redirect to the article on Jacqui Smith put in its place. Vizjim (talk) 08:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 05:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Matt Black (musician)

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

    Autobiographical article about the lead singer of an unsigned band. The subject does not appear to meet the notability guidelines at WP:BIO, WP:MUSICBIO, or WP:GNG. VQuakr (talk) 07:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 05:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was speedy keep. As per the nominators comment after my request to him/her and their response here User talk:Off2riorob#closure on AfD - I am closing this as speedily withdrawn. The main consideration for withdrawing the nomination was that it is only a couple of days since the last AFD was closed as no consensus and it is just too soon for another AFD discussion. (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 13:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Swedish Judicial Authority v Julian Assange

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

    This page continues to suffer from point-of-view creep, which only seems to be getting worse as more gossip-style material is continuing to be added. My recommendation again, is to place this page in the Wikipedia Incubator area, or to merge it back to its parent article, with substantial trimming, or to simply remove it entirely. Avanu (talk) 04:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Richard, may I draw your attention please to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion
    This deletion nomination completely fits the guidelines listed. It is a content fork, a potention POV fork, a potential BLP breach, and potentially not encyclopedic. In addition, I provide several suggested alternatives to deletion of the material, and support those as fully, which is also a AfD guideline (Alternatives to deletion). -- Avanu (talk) 05:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    From WP:NOTCLEANUP "With that said, if an article is so bad that it is harmful in its current state, then deleting now, and possibly recreating it later, remains an option." My contention is that it is harmful and getting worse, and needs to be removed or cured. As Huey Lewis said "Sometimes Bad Is Bad." -- Avanu (talk) 05:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clarifying, I'm glad to see that you have a policy reason in mind. I happen to disagree with your view, however. Qrsdogg (talk) 05:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate the reply, and no worries, I don't mind considering and debating our views to reach a decision. I'm simply concerned about the direction I see this article taking, and am seeking solutions to remedy it, and I would welcome your thoughts on that also. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 05:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a bit of a paradox, the "rules" say that AFD is not cleanup--but usually the best way to improve an article is to bring it to AFD. I don't usually edit in this area, but now I'm thinking about it--so you never know. Qrsdogg (talk) 06:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The article seems to be acceptable. --Arendal janitsjar (talk) 05:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Last AFD just ended no consensus, POV creep is not a reason to delete an article. This has received extensive global media coverage. It clearly satisfies the requirements for an article. Once the subsequent legal proceedings occur, it may be appropriate to merge this into that future article, keep it unless that happens. Monty845 (talk) 07:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete just like last time. Extradition cases are not the source of notability. The notability is in the legal case against Assange in Sweden. Some of the content in this article might be a footnote in the future article on Assange's criminal case but that case hasn't happened yet so. 09:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by MLA (talk • contribs)
    • Keep - Why is this article put up for Afd again so soon? Its a definite continued keep.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • note - as there are supporter and objectors this is just going to go the same way as the very recent AFD, it really is a bit soon, I will suggest the nom to withdraw the nom, we don't need this again already. Off2riorob (talk) 13:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Acather96 (talk) 11:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Cell For Cash

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

    This page is serving as a tacit/implicit Wikipedia endorsement of a non-notable company that is widely maligned online as fraudulent and deceptive. This company does not merit Wikipedia's imprimatur. jengod (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • weak keep as cleaned up with promo language removed. It's not wikipedia's "approval" of the company to be writing about it, and the references are to reputable sources (CNN among others). Sources seem to indicate bare minimum notability, but notability none-the-less. HominidMachinae (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. (ec) There seems to be some contradiction in the assertion that the company is both "non notable" and "widely maligned online". I don't think that not liking something counts as a valid deletion rationale either. So whilst I make no recommendation either way whether the article is appropriate, I think a more compelling case needs to be put. RichardOSmith (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep - there's probably enough coverage in reliable sources for an article; besides those already included, I found this and this, for instance. The fact that they're 'widely maligned online as fraudulent and deceptive' doesn't mean we shouldn't have an article - on the contrary, it adds to their grounds for notability! It just means we have to take care to keep it NPOV and make sure a fair view of the company is presented. Robofish (talk) 18:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 04:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mesa Public Schools. (non-admin closure) Acather96 (talk) 11:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Rhodes Junior High School

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

    It's just like Hendrix which I nominated yesterday (today in WP terms). Same school district (except this one didn't get closed), same type of school, no notability. Raymie (t • c) 21:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 04:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect. I don't find any coverage that suggests this particular school gets over the bar; there are about 100 hits at Google News[41] but it's all pretty much run-of-the-mill coverage of the sort that has not been found to show notability in similar articles. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Bryan Haczyk

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

    The subject of this article does not appear to meet the general notability guideline or the WP:NHOCKEY guideline for ice hockey players. Onthegogo (talk) 04:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep Nominator claims that Mr. Haczyk is not notable, but the notability guideline states that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article". The general notability guideline further explains that "significant coverage" means: "that sources address the subject directly in detail". Mr. Haczyk clearly has been addressed directly in detail in several reliable sources: [42][43][44][45]. It's a common misconception that athletes who fail a sport specific guideline such as WP:NHOCKEY cannot be notable, but this is not the case at all. Wikipedia:Notability (sports) asks editors to "Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted". Qrsdogg (talk) 04:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions.
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NTEMP defines "routine coverage" as "as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage". These articles are clearly not simply routine coverage of hockey games, but in depth profiles of an individual. There is a difference between "sports coverage" and profiles of an individual. There are thousands of college hockey players in the U.S. Very very few of them will have in depth detailed looks at their careers published in multiple reliable sources as Mr. Haczyk has had. I don't see how you can say this is "routine" at all. It does not matter whether he meets WP:NHOCKEY or whether you think his career is notable. If you read Wikipedia:Notability (sports) it clearly states that "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sportsperson, sports league, or an amateur/professional sports league organization will meet the general notability guideline". It is not a requirement above the GNG! As shown above, he easily meets GNG. Qrsdogg (talk) 05:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The refs that Qrsdogg has given go much further than routine coverage and are, in fact, significant coverage. I'll basically reiterate what Qrsdogg has said above, in that, if the subject passes the general notability guideline, then they are notable, whether they pass the sport-specific guideline or not. Jenks24 (talk) 11:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment on sources - The refs that Qrsdogg has given might be considered as questionable sources as they are expressing views that are promotional, or which rely heavily on personal opinion. And yes, those kind of articles are routine for college and junior hockey players. Onthegogo (talk) 15:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Promotional? What are these websites selling? If you read the link you cited in context it refers to websites that are by nature devoted to promoting a certain idea, not individual articles that might reflect the author's point of view. In any case, it isn't at all uncommon for sportswriters to include their opinion of an athlete in an article about the subject-that has no bearing on whether the publication is a reliable source or not. Anyway, it does not matter if you think the coverage is routine or if he is a notable athlete, what matters is how Wikipedia defines "routine coverage" and "notability" in the relevant policies. Qrsdogg (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I raised the issue on WP:RSN to get more feedback on the sources. Qrsdogg (talk) 20:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete fails WP:NHOCKEY. College player with no coverage beyond local media sources and online news outlets that specifically cover college hockey. ccwaters (talk) 15:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The WP:NHOCKEY test shows how a hockey player who has received no press coverage could be eligible for Wikipedia, however failing WP:NHOCKEY is not a reason to delete an article (as WP:NHOCKEY clearly states). In this case, while Bryan Haczyk does indeed fail WP:NHOCKEY, he passes WP:GNG by receiving press coverage in four separate publications, and all four articles are actually about him, they don't just mention him as a passing reference. Robman94 (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. Not significant coverage for general notability, either. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 23:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Regardless of the extent to which notability may be subjective or waiveable, verifiability is not, and no one could present any references independent of the organization's own website. postdlf (talk) 02:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Progressive Youth of Poland

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

    No sources are provided to establish notability of this youth organization. An external link verifies their existence, but no evidence is provided for notability. A search in news and scholarly sources in both English and Polish produced no results. Unless multiple, independent sources can be found that discuss this subject in detail, it should be deleted per WP:N. Note that this may be the same organization as Communist Youth of Poland, which is also undergoing an AfD at the moment; relevant discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communist Youth of Poland. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep - First: I favor the lowest of all possible bars for inclusion of political parties and their youth sections. There are lots of things to slice from an encyclopedia based upon "notability" concerns, but coverage of political organizations — left, right, and center ideologically — should not be one of them. Second: Poland being a former Communist country, the new communist political organizations emerging in their aftermath are likely to be of academic interest. Even if this were nothing more than a stub article that Progressive Youth of Poland is an independent communist political organization based in XXX, with an estimated XXX members. It is an affiliate of the World Federation of Democratic Youth, that would be important, valid, worthwhile encyclopedic content. There comes a time to put aside notability doctrine and to WP:IAR (Use Common Sense). Third: The fact that this group claims adherence to the WFDY (the equivalent of the old Communist International of Youth in the cold war period) is an indicator that this may well be a significant group, as opposed to a microscopic sect. I don't know, I'm not an expert on current politics in Eastern Europe, but this should be regarded as a "yellow flag" that deletion should not be rushed here. I see no pressing reason why this page should be deleted. I favored redirection of Communist Youth of Poland to this article in an AfD yesterday. This one should be kept, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, but WP:N is core policy, and not lightly set aside. Furthermore, the article now and even the stub-sentence you suggest would violate WP:V, because we have no way of verifying it. Anyone can create a website that claims to be about a group with hundreds or thousands of members, and claim to be part of a larger organization, and none of it may be true. The whole point of both WP:N and WP:V is that they make it so that we don't have to guess or make subjective decisions about what may or may not be encyclopedic content. Otherwise, it just comes down to "your word versus mine", where you insist its notable, and I say it isn't. I cannot see any justification in allowing an article about an organization to exist without some independent evidence that this organization has some form of notability. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "your word versus mine"? In which dimension do you normally edit Wikipedia? It's always that way, especially when N is fundamentally subjective, and RS is inherently subjective or can be assessed subjectively: "multiple", "independent", "reliable", "third-party", "published" sources "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". About the only word in that that isn't is "sources", and I am sure someone can think up a dubious definition of that, too, and get enough people to agree with them to make it policy, by virtue of the subjectively valued supremacy of the majority delineated by the WP rule of "consensus". I may go along with it, but I don't pretend it is some fundamental law of the universe. It's just a way of trimming down the encyclopedia, and for what reason is a little unclear, because WP is not paper. What I believe Carrite is saying is we don't need to and shouldn't trim this one. Anarchangel (talk) 03:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I totally agree with the above that there is an enormous amount of subjectivity in the application of Wikipedia inclusion criteria. What gets challenged to AfD and why? These things are not random. There is a certain amount of reason and rationality used by editors in deciding to challenge this or to leave that alone. Not every article is subjected to a certain set of holy and immutable Notability Rules delivered from the mountaintop by Moses. Things are considered, contemplated, pondered, and sussed out. Here's my view, and it's not made "lightly" — topics of substance, things that should be in an encyclopedia, should not be lopped off lightly. If there is anything commercially-intended or vanity driven or trivial — by all means, hold that to rigid standards of inclusion-worthiness. But if something belongs in an encyclopedia, like, for instance, information about political parties or their youth sections — then tread very lightly indeed. This is a weak, faintly sourced, stub article as it sits. There may come a day when it is fleshed out. Or not. But even the content here has worth and should not be disposed due to its alleged failure to meet muster to "guidelines." Carrite (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I add: I don't dispute the good intent of the person making this particular challenge. AfD in general has a certain "shape" to it... There are certain hot button type of articles that get challenged for this reason or that; other types of articles are ignored. I just want to make it clear that I don't feel that this particular challenge is tendentious, only ill-advised. Carrite (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that topics of substance should be in an encyclopedia. The way we demonstrate that an article is a topic of substance is by showing that it has been the subject of significant discussion in multiple, independent, reliable sources. If you (or anyone else) can do that, then the article should be kept. Otherwise, why should I or anyone else believe this "belongs" or is a noteworthy subject? Does the mere fact of someone having a website claiming to be a political party or youth movement automatically generate some form of notability? You say it's "faintly sourced," but, in fact, it doesn't have even a single source other than its own website. Anyone at all can make a website claiming to be a notable political party; this does not inherently make that group notable enough for inclusion. Not that it matters much, but the only reason I found this page was because an editor made an "edit semiprotected" request on [[[Communist Youth of Poland]]), which is a category I regularly look at to help non-autoconfirmed editors make changes to semi-protected pages. After looking at the page for a few days, doing my due dilligence and searching for reliable sources, I believed that the article did not meet the general notability guidelines. There was no malice, this wasn't a particular hot-button issue for me; it was just an article I found basically by chance that did not meet guidelines, that I attempted and was unable to make it meet the guidelines, and thus I nominated it for deletion. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I have a lot of sympathy for Carrite's position that articles about political entities, of any significance at all, should be given all the leeway possible to allow them to remain in the encyclopedia. I'd also note that WP:N is a guideline, not a policy. On the other hand WP:V is a policy, and we do need to find some sort of reasonable verification that this organization really exists and is what the article says it is. Digging into the organization's website, I noted a rather interesting entry, on the organization's FAQ page[46], which begins, in unreliable Google translation[47], as follows:
    What would be the definition of PMP in Wikipedia?
    Unfortunately, the Polish version of Wikipedia is dominated by supporters of neo-liberalism and the extreme right, which is why the entry relating to the PMP is regularly removed. This shows that more explicitly about censorship prevailing in the popular Polish-language website. Despite this, we can give you a definition of PMP below:
    Progressive Youth of Poland (PMP) - Leftist unregistered youth organization operating in the Polish Republic. It is a youth organization, independent of political parties. PMP is the result of transformation of the Communist Youth of Poland into Progressive Youth of Poland in May 2009. The emergence of the KMP [(Communist Youth of Poland) - clarification by translator] and the beginning of its operation date back to November 1996 in the Sudety mountains.
    I don't know what to make of this, but someone more versed in contemporary Polish affairs may have a better idea, so I thought it ought to be noted.--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've corrected the machine translation above as far as to make the meaning clear, without worrying about minor grammatical errors. I hope Arxiloxos is OK with that - if not then please revert. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks very much for the clarifications: I was wondering in particular what they meant by the "password" disappearing. I could have sworn I posted this thank you yesterday; must have forgotten to press "save".--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 02:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Dominion (Benedictum album)

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

    Contested Prod with "Universal praise". Udder rubbish. No sources. Phearson (talk) 03:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • KEEP: Phearson proposed rapid deletion on the same day the page was created with more information on it than pages that currently exist. So far he has made no attempts to fix any problems with the album page or the page for the band and has only tried to delete this and all pages. I am beginning to suspect s/he has something of an agenda with regards to this band. As the "Universal praise" comment was in the revision history and not on the main page, his attempt at a joking (and possibly sexist) dismissal of an off-hand comment as a means of denying the validity of the reversion seems offensive. I apologize for the tone of this comment, but since s/he was attacking my comment in a dismissive manner, it became imperative to point out the deficiencies in his/her reasoning and general reliability. Blackfyr (talk) 07:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Phearson's prod sated "No indication of Notability, WP:N." Blackfyr removed the prod and stated, "There have been multiple reviews of this album with universal praise."[48] The Prod itself was rubbish because it was not clear. Blackfyr's response to the Prod stated that there have been multiple reviews. That is true[49] and fully responsive to the Prod. WP:N is about "Wikipedia covers notable topics—those that have been "noticed" to a significant degree by independent sources." Sources do not need to be in the article to meet WP:N - there only need be a liklihood that they exist. Apparently feeling hurt, the AfD nominator chopped Blackfyr's statement out of context to give a false impression. The AfD nominator also said No Sources. That is false.[50] Phearson has been with Wikipedia since 16 June 2009 and should know how to write a Prod to avoid WP:BITE and to not emotionally react when someone contests a Prod posted by Phearson. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My concern was the reasoning of the edit summery of when the prod was removed. "Universal Praise" sounded like a WP:Peacock term ans did not specify what was done to resolve the issue for the removal of the Prod. The situation has long since been cleared up. I also must ask you to refrain from personal attacks, I do not edit Wikipedia based on how I feel, and that itself has no bearing on the deletion discussion. Phearson (talk) 14:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Mehmet Coral

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

    Likely autobiography by Ceylantepekoylu (talk · contribs). I don't see any notability per WP:AUTHOR. bender235 (talk) 19:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    What makes you think that this is a likely autobiography? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:38, 27 February 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) 00:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Sources appear exist to establish notability under WP:AUTHOR #3 as the novels have attracted some criticism in at least three languages. Not a *lot*, mind you, but I feel "enough." Autobiography is moot, as it is not a priori a policy reason to delete. --joe deckertalk to me 03:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 02:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    William "Dock" Walls III

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

    Fails WP:POLITICIAN as a failed candidate who hasn't held office, doesn't otherwise meet WP:GNG – Muboshgu (talk) 17:38, 26 February 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) 00:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. Withdrawn AFD (non-admin closure) -- DQ (t) (e) 16:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Kin'ichi Kusumi

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

    Notability concerns with a side order of BLP, etc. The only English or Japanese reliable sources I can find concern this actors work in porn, thus my addition of his third-billed role in a film whose title translates as "Latest Soap Technique". The articles on several of the TV series listed here don't mention the actor. This IMDB entry [51] lists all or nearly all porn work. It's even possible that this is a partial hoax, dunno, but in any case, I doubt this actor meets WP:PORNSTAR, don't see any verification that would lead me to believe he meets WP:ENTERTAINER, and don't see sourcing sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Additional sources welcomed, of course, if notability can be established under any of these three policies. --joe deckertalk to me 07:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - This is a well-known prolific performer in pink film with over 170 movies listed at JMDB and various appearances in TV, movies and V-Cinema documented at AllCinema. He also is referred to in Thomas & Yuko Mihara Weisser's Japanese Film Encyclopedia: The Sex Films (ISBN 1-889288-52-7) p597. There is also an extensive list of credits for him at the Japanese Cinema Database. Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 06:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - I've greatly expanded the article and added several references. I'll add to the filmography when I get the time Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 23:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BigDom 13:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Medi Abalimba

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

    fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG at present. Recreate if/ when makes his competitive first team debut Zanoni (talk) 23:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    School of the Nations

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

    Nothing notable about this school, I'm afraid. A Google News Search produces some hits, most from the Stabroek Nes--but all of them are simple mentions involving students from the school. I don't find any significant discussion. Drmies (talk) 17:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. All secondary schools are notable. (non-admin closure) -- DQ (t) (e) 16:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    PTV Marathi Medium Secondary School

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

    Non-notable school CTJF83 20:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a duplicate article - one already exists on Wikipedia at Parle Tilak Vidyalaya English Medium School. I suggest the AfD is cancelled, and the smaller AfD-nominated article is simply blanked and redirected to the larger one. This is a primary school, not a secondary school. I would support deletion and suggest that information on the school instead be included in the parent article Parle Tilak Vidyalaya Association. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 20:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    There exist two separate, independently functioning institute buildings of Parle Tilak Vidyalaya Marathi Medium. one is Primary section and the other one is secondary. also there exist a separate, independently functioning institute buildings of Parle Tilak Vidyalaya English Medium. I can proove this by providing 3 separate photos of these buildings. I beg some time for that. - Saurabh Lad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saurabh Lad (talk • contribs) 17:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 02:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Trimble Community Forest

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

    I can find no reliable, third-party sources discussing this forest (under this name or "Trimble Township Community Forest"). Zero news archive or book its, only a few hundred web hits, including WP mirrors, affiliated sites, and calendar of event-type listings. I think the subject fails WP:N. Novaseminary (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Fair enough. And I would not be upset if there was a common set of agreement that it should be removed. Part of what I do plan to add to the article, should it survive, is the extensive coal-mining history, ONCE I have documentation, for what it's worth. I AM very concerned about the concept of third-party noteworthiness. I am sure that I could dig up some historical fact from hundreds of years ago that appears in Wikipedia but that has not been mentioned in any scholarly (or popular) publication for many years, if I tried hard enough. So should such a thing be removed? When something exists in a large way -- like Highlands Sanctuary, which I very strongly feel should be included in Wikipedia (I mean, 5,000 acres in the heart of Ohio and steadily growing! -- the TNC component is another 12,000+ acres!), but doesn't seem to appear much in the news, and so is threatened for removal, I feel concern about whether Wikipedia really is being encyclopedic. However, that's not to say that the TCF is "newsworthy." jaknouse (talk) 22:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment The idea would be to gather the sources first, then write the article based on the sources, not personal knowledge. That way WP:N and WP:V are satisfied all together. Since anyone can edit, that is the only way we have to ensure WP is and remains encyclopedic. Novaseminary (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I did add a third-party reference. I will search the local newspaper archives to find more. jaknouse (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment It is not clear that this source is unaffiliated or that it is even an RS. It looks like a press release. Novaseminary (talk) 22:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Move to Trimble Township Community Forest  While I see "Trimble Community Forest" in searches, I have yet to see any I'd consider reliable (including the map in the article).  In fact, the "Trimble Community Forest" reference I used for the Coords seems to be in error pointing to a "Trimble Wilderness Area" Google place.  I did not find this forest in GNIS, but a map from the state of Ohio (pub038.pdf) I am considering to be a quality independent reliable secondary source for the mapping and the name.  WP:5 policy shows that Wikipedia is partly a gazetteer.  So given verifiability in a quality map I think we only need a tad more reliable information to qualify as a gazetteer entry and provide something useful to readers and satisfy policy.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I'm sure it is a real place. But even searching under the proper name, there still doesn't seem to be significant coverage ("sources address the subject directly in detail") in reliable third-party sources (as noted in the nom). Gazetteer entries still need to meet WP:N. If the article is kept, though, I certainly agree with the move proposal. Novaseminary (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)I think you are referring not to WP:N so much as WP:GNG.  I'm still coming up to speed on this, but...I think that gazetteer entries do not need to meet WP:GNG for many reasons.  (1) WP:N can be satisfied under the definition of notability "worthy of notice", to which WP:GNG is subserviant.  (2) WP:Deletion policy (as is also indicated in WP:N) provides alternate guidelines to WP:N.  One candidate is WP:Notability (geography), which is in limbo between being an essay and being a guideline.  (3) WP:N is a guideline, so does not trump WP:5 which is fundamental principles.  (4) The essay WP:OtherStuffExists notes that it is a valid argument to have consistency in the encyclopedia.  There are tens of thousands of gazetteer entries in the encyclopedia. This is supported by WP:UCS which is a variation of WP:IAR which means that the rules are not to interfere with improving the encyclopedia.
    As a specific response, I believe that pub038 is significant in identifying the topic (source addresses the subject directly in detail) as would most good maps.  However, I've noticed since my first post that the Ohio DNR donated money to this land, so there is an argument that they are not independent.  See also, Wikipedia:Notability (Geographic locations) and Wikipedia:Common outcomes#Geography and astronomy.  FYI, Unscintillating (talk) 00:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The project was funded by the Clean Ohio Conservation Fund, an open, competitive granting process that is based on a bond issue twice strongly approved by Ohio voters. In order to carry through on an acquisition project, the grantee must record and enforce appropriate deed restrictions. However, beyond that, the state has no direct role in the land or its administration. I deal with these on a daily basis. Oh, and the map in the article can be affirmed based on the GIS shapefiles provided by Athens County, Ohio government and made available to the public at this outlink: [52]. I am a professional map maker and it would be bizarre to suggest that I would make any map that is not as accurate as possible. You can view other maps at [53]. jaknouse (talk) 02:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This would be a better link for maps: http://www.athenstrails.org/maps/maps.shtml jaknouse (talk) 02:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I talked with the President of Appalachia Ohio Alliance a couple of days ago, and he affirmed that the correct name is Trimble Township Community Forest, not Trimble Community Forest. jaknouse (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment WP:GNG is one section within WP:N (click on GNG and then scroll up to verify). N/GNG is a guideline which is followed unless there is a very good reason to depart from it. The actual policy is really WP:V which states: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." I wouldn't be suprised if RSs, especially guidebooks, etc., cover this preserve in the coming years. So, I wouldn't oppose userfying the article. When sources come to light, they can be added and the article recreated. V has more on the need for secondary sources (maps are generally primary sources) and the prohibition on original research, too. And I think WP:OTHERSTUFF cuts the other way. There are thousands of articles on places, but not on places not receiving coverage. Just as there are thousands of articles on people, but that doesn't mean there should be an article on every person. Novaseminary (talk) 02:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (1) If you will, take a look at an article I rewrote, Barber Island.  I suspect that this article does not pass WP:GNG the way that you are reading it, yet it has a place in the encyclopedia.  (2) I see the section in WP:V, but when you are looking at WP:V that is article content policy, see WP:NNC for more info.  And compare with WP:Deletion policy, which also references WP:N.  (3) Also, the sentence near the end of WP:GNG, "A topic for which <WP:GNG> is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia" (emphasis added).  So even if WP:GNG is met, a topic might not satisfy the definition of notability in WP:N, "worthy of notice"; and so likewise, even if WP:GNG is not met, a topic may still satisfy the definition.  (4) Then also in WP:N, there are the two sentences, "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below and is not excluded by WP:NOT. A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right."  So, WP:GNG+N is but one path to notability.  WP:Deletion policy says the same thing. 
    I'm not saying this is responsive to all of your point in relation to WP:V, but there has got to be more middle ground than we have now.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The existence of names for Barber Island is evidence that people consider the island to be "worthy of notice".  Cartographers are in the business of documenting named geographic features so that we have independent reliable third-party secondary (one step removed) sources for these names.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep It meets the general notability guidelines as there is significant coverage in reliable sources. These two sources ([54],[55]) and the others available and cited in the article represent significant coverage in my opinion. They are about the subject, rather than simply mentioning it. Of course I might require a large number of non-local sources if I were judging the notability of, for example, Acme Web Marketing Company, but an article on a 1200 acre community forest goes towards fulfilling Wikipedia's function as a geographical directory. For this reason, as long the forest can be verified to exist, and there are sources that provide coverage about the subject, the article should be retained.--Pontificalibus (talk) 16:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I am not opposed to WP "incorporat(ing) elements of ... gazetteers" of course. Though as you acknowledge, the subject must still meet N somehow. I disagree that the two sources you mentioned meet GNG. One is a few sentence blurb. The other (#3) is good, but that plus a blurb plus affiliated press releases and OR doesn't meet GNG in my opinion. If this meets it, many high school honors students listed in local papers a few times for getting honors and then profiled once in a local paper would meet WP:GNG. That (and this) doesn't seem to be the significant coverage GNG expects. Novaseminary (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Shy Feet

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

    Notability. The "notable" sources added by editor discuss the dance form, not the documentary about it. No gnews hit for "Shy Feet" footwork; only relevant ghits are for the production company and a database hit. Nat Gertler (talk) 02:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete due to lack of significant coverage to establish notability. I looked up the title plus the director's name (in different forms) as well as the title plus "documentary" with no coverage and the barest of passing mentions. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) -- DQ (t) (e) 16:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Teen Top

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

    Contested prod - Non-notable, non-sourced band that fails WP:BAND. Aspects (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - the group is relevant in Korea as they have charted on Korea's national chart (proof here) and have been nominated for a major award (the Mnet Asian Music Awards, equivalent to about the MTV Awards for Korea) as Best New Male Artist (proof here). They've also been the subject of a TV show but I can't find any reliable sources for that. 21nolja 00:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Teen Top was awarded the Rookie of the Month award in August of last year by the Ministry of Culture and Korea Contents Association. Unfortunately, the source is in Korean, so I apologize. They were also part of the Top 20 Trending topics on Twitter at one point, and part of an article that recognized them as the next "hot topic." The original article is here with an approximate translation here. Suicidethrone (talk) 11:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Previously PRODded, promotional article with no indication of notability — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 02:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Pilgrim Gardens Shopping Center

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

    Contested PROD, non-notable shopping center. Dough4872 01:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) -- DQ (t) (e) 16:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Tere Liye (TV series)

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

    No indication of notability. Consists mostly of a very long plot summary — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 01:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep The show is extremely popular show in country. Agree the page requires cleanup but deleting the page is such a weird decision. Whats up with deletion frenzy?Vin99 (talk) 09:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep seems to be a mainstream show and plenty of returns from a brief search on google that could be used as sources. Article needs a serious cleanup but not deletion. MLA (talk) 09:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    2009 UCLA throat slashing

    edit
    2009 UCLA throat slashing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Although this was a tragic event, it does not appear to meet the criteria for event notability outlined at WP:EVENT. In particular, "[r]outine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) - whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time - are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 00:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Merge - with University of California, Los Angeles. I don't believe that the press coverage was sustained over a significant period of time. Hence, it probably does not meet WP:EVENT. However, the event does deserve coverage in Wikipedia, and I propose that it be merged in to become a paragraph in the history section of the UCLA article. Racepacket (talk) 02:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Nothing which could be merged to the article about the university, even a single sentence, without giving the incident undue weight. There was local press coverage and an AP story. Total Google News archive coverage only was during October 8-12 2009. Classic instance where WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E justify deletion of the stabbing incident. Otherwise every bar fight with a broken beer bottle and every knife attack in the history of every school in the world should be added to the articles about the schools. Wikipedia is not a chronicle of every case of attempted murder. Edison (talk) 02:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    People expect Chem labs to explode and bars to have beer-bottle fights, but a throat slashing in the Chem lab is remarkable. As a precedent, the University of Maryland, College Park article makes reference to the death of Len Bias. Racepacket (talk) 08:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability is not defined by how "remarkable" an editor perceives the event to have been. The death of Len Bias is far beyond comparison for multiple reasons, primarily because he was notable before his death, his death meets the criteria set forth in WP:EVENT, and he was not a murder victim. (There were apparently 124 murders on college campuses in the United States just between 1998 to 2003.[60] I haven't checked on who they were, but I doubt most of them are mentioned in their respective college or university articles.) Location (talk) 13:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieval on "2009 UCLA throat slashing" is not the most effective way to perform a Google search for this topic. Racepacket (talk) 11:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Norco bite

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

    Unreferenced, original researched personal memories of a non-notable product. Prod removed without reason by article creator and only contributor.The-Pope (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. A Google News Search turned up no news articles, books, etc. A standard search found just a couple of references in blogs (not verifiable sources). It appears that this product may not have survived long enough to appear in notable sources. Geoff Who, me? 18:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wallet#Varieties. (non-admin closure) -- DQ (t) (e) 16:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Chain wallet

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

    Wikipedia is not a dictionary WP:NOTDICDEF EricSerge (talk) 00:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Speedy keep. Obviously implausible, vexatious nomination.--RL0919 (talk) 03:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Roger Smith (executive)

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

    Not a well known business person. Fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and most of it occurred over 20 years ago. Not many people knew who he was. MontanachippyD (talk) 02:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2011_March_12&oldid=1142637601"