Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 March 16

< 15 March	17 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agnes Milowka

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

Contested Prod. This article was created after the person died. Apparently she was not notable enough to have an article while alive, so I don't see what makes her or her death notable to have an article.—Mike Allen 23:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- —Mike Allen 23:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- —Mike Allen 23:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Quite tragic that this young woman died doing what she loved,[1] but Wikipedia is not a memorial. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Struck my delete (see below)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Sources show this is a news item. Wikipedia is not a memorial site. -- Whpq (talk) 13:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Additional sourced added show coverage beyond just a news item. -- Whpq (talk) 10:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are several obituaries of her in reliable sources, they are full obituaries describing her entire life, not just the "one event" of her death. The nominators rationale is not based on Wikipedia policy. The timing of the creation of the article isn't a factor in WP:gng. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - very sad, but coverage of someone's death in obituaries certainly does not warrant inclusion. Coverage of her work as a stunt double unrelated to her death, however, could possibly do the trick. Did the trick, keep. Yaksar (let's chat) 06:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) got me thinking and User: Yaksar's comment got me digging. While the coverage of her death may have inspired the article, it turns out she WAS written of and she did receive coverage for more than "just her death"... and this coverage was before her death and was because of her career and records. The article is now being expanded and further sourced. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Posthumous awards are always regrettable in that they were given too late for the person to receive them in person, but no one would say that they are less of an award for being given after death, or that they were given because the person died. Similarly, a bio that contains among numerous other facts, the fact that the person has died, is not an article about that person's death. It is more than plausible that Milowka may yet receive more awards. International Who's Who of Diving, Diving Almanac. The Memorial criticism is quite tangential to the content and tone of the article. There are a number of citable facts establishing notability; the record for deepest dive into an Australian cave, work with National Geographic reporting on the Blue holes, and recovering 3000 year old fossils there, and the aforementioned stunt double work on James Cameron's film Sanctum; this article has the potential to become more than just the customary regurgitation of vital statistics and medals. Polish language radio interview recording and the English language transcript Anarchangel (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The bio and new citations were added after I made the nomination. This is the version I nominated. It's quite clear she is notable for inclusion of Wikipedia and the article is not just a memorial of her death. I withdraw the nomination as I now see "what makes her or her death notable to have an article". Thanks.—Mike Allen 03:19, 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 KEEP. postdlf (talk) 01:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Shaya

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

Not notable, posed nude, got fired, and that was 1 time event, been a private person for last 14 yeears Mister vicky (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC) "In particular, if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mister vicky (talk • contribs) 11:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see from your edit history that your very first edit, which was today, was a well executed starting of an AfD and this AfD was only your sixth edit. Can you please tell us what account this is a sock of? --Oakshade (talk) 06:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are numerous sources, easily passes the WP:GNG, she was the subject of a documentary, etc etc etc. Why are we going over this again?! Dismas|^(talk) 01:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dismas. Easily passes WP:GNG. --Oakshade (talk) 06:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' - totally agree with the nominator, low notable one event private people have a right to removal from the project under WP:BLP1E - Off2riorob (talk) 10:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once she decided to pose for Playboy and accept large funds, her WP:BLP1E status became history. --Oakshade (talk) 01:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one small and local bit of titilation does not make the subject notable. MLA (talk) 23:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, all coverage related to the single event. Subject fails WP:BLP1E. Oakshade's accusations of sockpuppetry are completely in bad faith and totally unacceptable. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, Floydian, the nom was blocked for sockpuppetry. If you feel my charging the nom was a sockpuppet was "unacceptable", then by all means start an RfC. I strongly welcome it. --Oakshade (talk) 03:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for the the WP:BLP1E, the person went on to be an actress and starred in a nationally released film. This is in addition to the the posing in Playboy. WP:BLP1E is for "low profile" individuals, not someone who several times placed themselves into the national spotlight. --Oakshade (talk) 03:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 15 minutes of fame were over a long time ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.124.64.197 (talk) 12:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC) — 77.124.64.197 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This user's IP address is in Israel, the same ___location of the nom's sockpuppetts. --Oakshade (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dismas. nominator is a dirty nasty sock.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 22:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Subject has easily cleared the bar set by BLP1E, as argued by both Dismas and Oakshade, and as documented in the article. Way more than sufficient references to satisfy notability. I also question the nomination by a sock, and the delete vote by an apparent SPA. To quote Dismas: "Why are we going over this again?" — Becksguy (talk) 22:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Posed nude. Got sacked. Went direct to video. If this person has been "in the national spotlight several times", I'm an aardvark. The Land (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, you just described this person being "in the national spotlight several times", plus you're not address our guidelines of WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO, which many users here are advocating this person passes. Shall we call you Cerbus?--Oakshade (talk) 00:31, 24 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) 01:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maldives Scuba Diving v. Scubaboard.com

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

Very little coverage overall; all the references are either to the site being sued or other similar Internet forums, which are not reliable sources. Please do not be fooled by the over-referencing; just being discussed on forums makes little difference on notability.

No Google News results, and this just seems to be a run-of-the-mill case that was never very important in the long run. /ƒETCH COMMS / 21:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability, unless somebody can cut through the 60 or so references to forums and similar web junk, and show us where the topic is discussed in depth in reliable sources. Sandstein 22:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have no idea how this is notable. Moondyne (talk) 06:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless secondary sources can be found. We can't write from primary sources, and that includes forum posts and court dockets, which is all this article has. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no reliable source for this at all. Moreover, there's no evidence at all that this case, among the millions filed each year, is in any way noteworthy. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 11:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 82.152.218.51 (talk) 12:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dayewalker (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 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. postdlf (talk) 00:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Ingalls

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

Autobiographical article with little evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC. There is lots of namedropping. There are a few awards from organizations that are mostly non-notable. There is nothing resembling a reliable secondary source. Article was previously deprodded so I'm bringing it here. B (talk) 21:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has released on some notable indie labels (Sargasso Records, Innova Recordings). Mentioned in San Francisco Classical Voice and quoted in the New York Times. -- Theodolite ➹ 21:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There's a WP:COI here (and I've reinstated the notice previously removed from the article) but as Theodoloite says the subject does seem to have just about enough notability despite operating in a field with little media attention. AllyD (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, per Theodolite and AllyD. A borderline case but I think there's enough hint of notability. The article could do with a major rewrite, though, and preferably not by the man himself. --Deskford (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 21:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MINIs on the Dragon

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (events). Ignoring the event's promotional website [2] and anonymous blog posts [3], the only justification for this article is a short piece at Road & Track [4]. The majority of that article isn't enven about the event; it's background about fame and importance of Deals Gap, North Carolina itself. It says 653 BMW Mini owners attended. That is a paltry number; typically recurring festivals of note have attendance in the tens of thousands, at least. A single article fails to meet the criteria of sustained coverage from diverse sources. Dbratland (talk) 21:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Motor Trend has an article on their site about this here [5]. Seems like a good source. Also, the event seems more like an uncompetitive race than a festival, which would explain the low attending numbers. Lebowbowbowski (talk) 03:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A run of the mill event on the Dragon (see this list, for instance). It might be worth a sentence if there was an article about "events on the dragon", but that could easily exist at Deals Gap, North Carolina. tedder (talk) 04:12, 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) 01:18, 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, CTJF83 20:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--75.179.144.50 (talk) 17:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Since this is an activity at a well established ___location with numerous source and coverage suggest that this page be merged into a section of the "Tail of the Dragon" entry.[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death/doom

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

We recently deleted/redirected one article forked from Doom metal, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Funeral_doom, and this article appears to be in exactly the same boat. The article says little more than does the section whence it's split in Doom metal, and nothing that couldn't be handled just as well in the parent article section. I suggest a D&R just as we did with Funeral doom. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is about a subgenre notably separate from both doom metal and death metal. The article could use more citations on its notability, but it could easily be built upon.[6] [7]Lebowbowbowski (talk) 03:42, 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) 01:20, 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, CTJF83 20:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Weak Keep - A quick Google search indicates this is an emerging subgenre of underground metal, distinct from doom metal. It's a neologism, but it strikes me as prevalent enough to be notable. I'm sure stringent adherents of notability guidelines will differ with me on that. Keeping for future improvement seems to make sense to me. Carrite (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(1)How can it be an "emerging" genre when almost every example the article lists was formed in the 1990s? (The label "emerging" is troubling too, being a listed dogwhistle for WP:BALLS.) (2) If more can be said about the genre, what prevents it from being handled as part of the parent article? We're not talking about whether the genre gets a mention here, but rather whether it is sufficiently notable to merit a standalone article rather than being treated as part of Doom metal.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 12:50, 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 delete all. As this AfD received minimal participation, anyone may request restoration at WP:REFUND. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Military Fashion Show

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

No indication of meeting WP:NSONG. Lacks charting, awards, covers, coverage. There is not enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article. (Album article is at afd (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bodypop)) duffbeerforme (talk) 07:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following pages on two other similar singles from the same album:

Delete. NSONGS is crystal clear that individual songs don't get a separate article unless there is something that makes them stand head-and-shoulders above the massed ranks of individual songs: While "[s]ongs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts… are probably notable," "[n]otability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article…." Without something special to carry this burden, songs are to be treated in the article about their parent album or artist, as the nom'd articles can and ought to be. The proliferation of needless articles on individual songs is nothing but wikicruft, and it's about time we cracked down on it.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 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) 01:25, 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, CTJF83 20:44, 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. As this AfD received minimal participation, anyone may request restoration at WP:REFUND. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shoottheartist

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

Organization that fails WP:ORG. No evidence of significant coverage other than self-published books, videos, etc. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. No independent sources at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:49, 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, CTJF83 20:43, 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 keep. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kraisorn Sriyan

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

Unsourced BLP, can't find anything to verify this guy. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 06:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 18:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Keep. Per source provided by ClubOranje. Argyle 4 Life^talk 19:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Thai Premier league is listed as a fully professional league at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues and Bankok Post ref is a reliable source to show he has played there. Other ref I added is a bit non-RS but only to show he is "on loan". Article needs improving not deleting.--ClubOranje^T 22:34, 13 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, CTJF83 20:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – A source has been provided to show that the player meets WP:NSPORTS. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:13, 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. Nice find by Necrothesp, the Victoria Heritage Register will do it. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Eira Town Hall

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

Seems to be just another town hall, failing international notability requirements. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 08:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —:| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 08:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - A town hall of a city of over 135,000 population and that's over 125 years old does seem like a notable topic. I don't have access to the references cited, but I will assume good faith that the editors who have worked on this article over the years provided these sources found them significant.--Oakshade (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems like an historic enough building for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete length of existence and potential population served is not relevant. it needs significant third party coverage which is sorely lacking. [8]. LibStar (talk) 01:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable or recognized at this time. Could be recreated if it gets historic designation from a major authority, but for now it's just a very old building. Google Books finds only two mentions, both in books about town halls in Melbourne - that's pretty minimal. Search for Caulfield Town Hall, its original name, isn't much better. --MelanieN (talk) 02:21, 16 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, Big Dom 20:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep. It's a landmark building. It's one of a portfolio of landmark town hall buildings that are listed at the bottom of the article. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 19:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The list at the bottom does not say they are "landmarks" - it seems to simply list every town hall in the Melbourne area. From a quick glance I would say a number of them are candidates for deletion also. --MelanieN (talk) 13:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question does this building have any "listed" status, equivalent to being a listed building if it was in the UK? If so, then I would say Keep the article.

So would I - but as far as I could find out, it doesn't. --MelanieN (talk) 13:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - I can find no significant coverage about this town hall in reliable sources. This list of heritage places in Victoria does not have this town hall as an item. -- Whpq (talk) 14:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The building is on the Victoria Heritage Register. [9]. What Whpq has just cited is the national list, not the state list. I'm not familiar with the heritage registers in Australia, so I don't know how significant state-listing is, but it's obviously considered to have at least some historic and/or architectural significance. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Thanks for pointing out the state listing. A state listed historic building indicates that it is has notable significance and has undergone research and examination that qualifies it for the listing. As such, I'm switching my !vote. -- Whpq (talk) 18:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment - OK, we've established that the building is on a heritage register, which gives weight to the argument for notability. Now that info needs to be added to the article. The link Necrothesp gave would appear to provide plenty of info to expand the article with. Mjroots (talk) 06:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I've added the basic assertion of notability (historic building), I'll leave it to editors more interested in buildings to expand it. -- Whpq (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being on the state register is suffificent for notability DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 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 delete. It's not clear that the nominator's expansion of the main article is a real merge that requires retention of the original for attribution purposes, but if somebody strongly feels that it is, it can be restored and redirected for that purpose. Sandstein 06:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wheel of Fortune gameplay

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

WP:IINFO, far too detailed and indiscriminate. The retired elements such as Puzzler, Preview Puzzle, etc. cannot be reliably sourced in any way, and the info on the current elements is way too detailed (e.g. "If the host hits a non-cash space, such as Bankrupt or Lose a Turn, or a prize, the host re-spins the wheel, though usually this is edited out.") I have amended the main Wheel of Fortune article to contain only the most relevant elements of gameplay — I feel a basic outline does not violate WP:OR as it is akin to a plot summary, but this article is far too detailed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Wheel of Fortune (U.S. game show)#Gameplay has been expanded to include necessary info from Wheel of Fortune gameplay and the child article is no longer needed. Sottolacqua (talk) 19:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - expansion of paragraph in parent article is clearer and more succinct than child article. JTRH (talk) 21:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge While the up-merge done by the nominator is a step in the right direction, licensing requirements preclude deleting this article without non-trivial attribution efforts. Best just to redirect it to the main article to complete the merge simply. Jclemens (talk) 01:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain what you mean by "licensing requirements" anmd "non-trivial attribution efforts"? Thanks. JTRH (talk) 02:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I would agree that a short description of the game is fine in the main article (Which is already there) but this spin off article (no pun intended) is really not needed. Likewise if the result of this discussion is to delete than the associated non-free images (File:$5000 Space.jpg, File:Double Play from 1995.jpg, File:$10,000 Space from 2007.jpg) should also be deleted as they will be orphaned and unused. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Historical information on old wedges is actually nice, and on Youtube I found a 1978 episode hosted by Chuck Woolery that includes the Star Bonus token. Someone picked it up and later got to try a special puzzle, just like the article says. History on such special wedges is definitely welcome. Also, if it's not already, the Double Play is worth mentioning in particular because it is today used in the Facebook version to double your spin. CycloneGU (talk) 15:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube can't be used as a source, because the clips posted there are in violation of copyright. There are a few books that have been written about the show, and the information might be available in one of them (I don't have time to do the research), but there really isn't much else in the way of a verifiable source. JTRH (talk) 15:08, 22 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. I am pretty sure that WP:SNOW really applies here so I think it is best to close this now. (non-admin closure) Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Friday (Rebecca Black song)

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

This article falls afoul of policy on biographies on living persons, and should be deleted per WP:BLPDELETE. ("Summary deletion is appropriate when the page contains unsourced negative material or is written non-neutrally, and when this cannot readily be rewritten or restored to an earlier version of an acceptable standard.") ~~Many of the points in this article do not even seem to be accurately based on the cited sources.~~ And, even if these points were accurately based on the sourcing, the negative focus makes it decidedly non-compliant with the encyclopedia's biographies of living persons policy. (Note that although the article is not a biography, the fact that it mentions the singer by name & that the singer's name redirects to the article makes it especially essential that the article is compliant with BLP policy). CordeliaNaismith (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand The song and artist rose to repute/notoriety less than a week ago. This article has a lot more room for expansion, especially with regards to the "viral" themes. Keep in mind that this video has not been televised, and as far as I know, did not have radio coverage until after it's success. It could become a distinctive piece of social commentary, as easily as it could fade away into obscurity. Either way it is too early to make a definitive decision. But, for anyone wanting to reference the Facebook/Tumblr/Youtube generation and its potential to spawn careers based, ironically, on defamation, this article could be absolutely critical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.182.182 (talk) 18:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am not a big wiki writer/editor, but I wanted to find more info on this individual given the recent spread of her success and found my answers on this page. It is knowledge that should be shared. The name is misleading, though. This page should be more about the artist, less about the song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.204.229.11 (talk) 18:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its awesome
Keep I'm very supportive of avoiding BLP violations, especially when it's a 13-year-old, but I don't see any here. Negative unsourced additions have been repeatedly reverted, and what's left seems well sourced and accurately reflects the sources - in fact, every single statement is sourced. Sources include Time, Rolling Stone, Entertainment Weekly, New York Daily Times, Forbes. (Please also note there is also a deletion review of a related article happening at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 March 14#Rebecca Black) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per User:Boing! said Zebedee. WereWolf (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Edit The article should be edited to removed the references to her by name, all of which are very hostile, until such time as she qualifies as a notable person in her own right; and the references can satisfy WP:BLP. Her individual identity as the singer of the song is not integral to the article, and could be eluded to, such as by mentioning it was sung by a 13-year old girl, rather then using her name. While its not an ideal solution, it would seem like a good compromise. Monty₈₄₅ (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But it's only her actual performance of it that makes it notable - that's what all the well-sourced stories are about, not just about the song. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While it is the specific performance by her that has drawn attention, and which the article is about, how notable is it that she is the singer? My view is that any other non-notable person could have replaced her and the song would have received the same attention. Normally, even if you agreed with me on that, it wouldn't be justification for removing her name, but given the circumstances here, I think it would be reasonable to do in light of the extreme hostility involved. (though I don't think any specific policy would demand it) Monty₈₄₅ (talk) 20:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't think that would work - it would be like having an article about the sayings of George W Bush but describing them as having been said by "a US President". I think it either has to be kept as sourced, or deleted - and if a consensus for deletion against policy could be found, for humanitarian reasons, I wouldn't object. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I strongly disagree with "any other non-notable person could have replaced her and the song would have received the same attention" - it's the fact that she's such a bad singer that even auto-tune can't save it that has made it such a hit. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I understand that I am likely in the minority here, but I think keeping an article that is a series of criticisms regarding a child simply because it can be sourced is completely unnecessary. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 19:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although I !voted to keep it, I wouldn't object if a humanitarian case could be made for deletion - but it would be an IAR decision -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which is what it would need to be. My delete !vote is IAR through and through - I understand the keep votes are supported by current notability guidelines, but I personally cannot argue to keep any article that perpetuates the mocking of a child. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 22:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In actuality, the sources are generally criticizing the song and video, not the singer. There are a couple of sporadic mentions of her facial expressions in the video, but there just hasn't been any reliable sources criticizing her talent, looks or singing. Sure the heavy use of autotuning is a topic of humor, but that doesn't mean they're saying she's a bad singer, it could just be the production choice which is extremely prevalent currently in music industry. --Oakshade (talk) 05:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 108.71.52.30 (talk) 19:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I do understand the basis for the arguments regarding the deletion of the page, specifically the negative criticisms of a child (albeit sourced), I think it is an important topic to have due to the methods through which this video spread, notably social networking tools. In a matter of hours, the video spread rapidly, and as such, became one of the most talked about topics on Twitter and Tumblr, as sourced. That alone should keep it as a notable piece of media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.78.26.125 (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable nonsense is notable. Using her name in this context is acceptable--she may have been ill-advised to record it, but that she did has been published by multiple responsible sources, and do no harm is irrelevant. (I have said otherwise with respect to the article about her--a title starting with her name would be undue prominence at this point.). the guiding rule is well stated in the essay , WP:OSTRICH. If we could delete the song from existence altogether, that might be a good option, and a case could be made for that being the humanitarian position, but the world is as it is. DGG ( talk ) 20:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This song has been discussed in countless notable sources, including Yahoo!. And, like the person above me said, notable nonsense is still notable.--76.106.233.222 (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject meets the GNG, even if the phenomenon is based on the unconscionable exploitation of a child. That's a good reason for expunging the "studio" behind this claptrap from existence, not for ignoring the subject. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- the article is on the song, not the person, shouldn't even be considered as an issue. And, as hillariously awful as the song is (in a fit of masochism, I actually forced myself to listen to the whole thing), the GNG has been met and exceeded in spades. Now if someone could supply me with brain bleach to remove the song from my head, I'd be grateful. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, that should read WP:BLP shouldn't be considered an issue. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As Oakshade noted in the DRV for Rebecca Black, this is not the case of "a kid in her room who made a video of herself intended for her friends"; it's a commercial venture, with an official website, for sale through iTunes and as a ringtone. The coverage is massive. I agree that BLP applies but I don't see any violations at this point. At this point it's just like any other Wikipedia article about a notable one-hit-wonder song--except that this one has a lot more reliable sources than such articles usually do. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is an extremely high profile song, arguably passing WP:GNG easier and sourced better than most song articles. Contrary the the nom's statement, it looks very heavily sourced and I know this as I've been scrutinizing this page within minutes of its creation (I was the editor who first wikified and sourced this article) and written with neutrality; Most of what has been written about this song has been negative. If there has been a positive review of this song, by all means put it in. We might not like it, but that is not a criteria for deletion. --Oakshade (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — I also have contributed to this article (...please don't judge...) and I believe the other editors and I have done our best to keep it as neutral and sourced as possible. It isn't our fault when the coverage has been exceedingly (and mostly scathingly) negative. The sources that both meet Wikipedia source requirements and are not-so-negative are essentially backhanded compliments (see the Rolling Stone article already listed, or this review by The Arizona Republic). As stated earlier, this was the singer's attempt at a legitimate, publicly consumable song (uploaded onto YouTube, sold on iTunes as of yesterday); as such, there's nothing inherently excluding it from public discourse, including Wikipedia. SKS (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~IAR Delete~~ - BLP issues, and notability reasons. The fact that this song is 'notable' today doesn't mean it'll be notable tomorrow; we shouldn't have articles based on flash-in-the-pan internet memes, but those that demonstrate lasting notability, which this hasn't yet. And though it is well sourced, I'm just not comfortable with keeping what is essentially an attack article on a living 13-year-old. If it's going to be kept, as it seems it is, at the very least have the decency to remove her real name and image. Robofish (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But she's using her real name and that image to sell it - see [10] -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that request is absolutely no reliable source, many of which are much more respectable than Wikipedia IMO, has withheld her name and image and both are synonymous with the song title and are even part of the iTunes single which is currently charting, currently up at 69. Wikipedia is not censored and this is not a case for an exception as everything here is very well sourced per WP:BLP. --Oakshade (talk) 02:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this one's got way out of our hands, I don't think notability can be denied any more. The article's also more neutrally written than it was, and I was probably exaggerating the BLP issues in the first place. Switching to Keep (though I would still say it should be re-examined at a later date to see if notability is truly lasting). Robofish (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Absolutely -- The song was intentionally put into the public space as part of a commercial venture (even if it started as a 'vanity project'), and the song and its artist are inseparably linked at this point - Chachap (talk) 21:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:IAR or invoke an WP:OFFICE action if need be. This momentary hoopla is a blip of internet meme idiocy, subject of which is a minor. That teenaged girl who made headlines last year for her "stop hating" or whatever video doesn't have an article here either, thankfully. Start acting more like an encyclopedia and less like a branch office of TMZ. Tarc (talk) 21:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're comparing apples and oranges. This is a legitimately professionally produced and distributed song (albeit awful), not a kid making a youtube video rant from her bedroom. If TMZ or like tabloids were the only sources, then your "branch office of TMZ" line might be valid, however the sources are not TMZ or other tabloids and are mostly very prestigious ones. --Oakshade (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you read what I actually said, you'd see apples-apples. I don't care about the origination or intent of either video, that isn't relevant. The point is, both received coverage in reliable sources, but that isn't always enough to justify a Wikipedia article. There's a part of WP:BLP policy (note that; policy) that reads "it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.", that is unfortunately routinely ignored when overzealous editors create articles based on recent events. Tarc (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the "origination or intent" of your example has a great deal to do with your argument. That ""stop hating" video was not a professionally produced and distributed video by a high publicity production company as this song and video was. There is nothing about this article to indicate a violation of the policy of BLP nor the quote you choose from it as, per WP:BLP, any negative content has been cited by reliable sources. --Oakshade (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Providing a timely article on a pop culture phenomenon (yeah, we're gonna get 'rick-rolled' on this one for the next decade, at least) doesn't turn Wikipedia into TMZ -- as long as it remains sourced and factually-based. If I hadn't caught wind of this a few days ago, and wanted to know just WTH was going on, I'd be clicking straight to WP for the scoop, and if there was no article to be found, it wouldn't be the "freakishly addictive" video making me say, "WTF!?", it would be the LACK of an article here. --Chachap (talk) 01:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. --Jannefoo (talk) 22:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)— Jannefoo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Normally i'd just stay away from discussions like this. However, this internet meme is one that seems to have caught onto the mainstream, with significant discussion in major publications such as Rolling Stone, TIME, CNN, and others. The amount of coverage is more than sufficient enough to meet our standards of notability. Silver seren^C 22:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This song currently 69th in download chart. http://www.apple.com/itunes/charts/songs/ and got bad critical reaction. In wikipedia there are movies with bad critical reception but we're not deleting these. 78.160.27.47 (talk) 22:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)— 78.160.27.47 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Many sources have already discussed this artist and the song. I see nothing wrong with informing people of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.133.192.129 (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC) — 205.133.192.129 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Edit/Delete I don't mind keeping the bad reception, as long as it isn't the content of the entire article. You can't have an article which in essence says "X was a song by 13 year old Y, and everybody hated it. Here's the sources to prove it." Where's the actual description? Anything to do with reception should be put under "Critical Reception" header (or similar). If this cannot be arranged, I say it's best it's deleted for now. Why should we keep an article which is just an hurtful attack on an innocent 13 year old girl?! --CameronLee (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)— User:CameronLee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. Absurd at this point to deny the notability. BLGM7 (talk) 23:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand - I could understand the point of 'it encourages people to hate a child' for articles such as Nazi Pop Twins or Prussian Blue. But I don't think anyone actually hates the girl, in fact many seem to love her for successfully parodying the pop music industry in a brilliant way, albeit probably unintentionally. I don't think this is going away, may well be the start of a highly successful career, as previous said this isn't someone ranting in their bedroom and becoming a meme. She has the force of a record label behind, is twittering away on twitter about how excited she is about all the attention she is getting. I think if the child came out and said she regretted ever doing the video and wanted to forget the whole thing then the article could be deleted on purely compassionate grounds. But as I said she has no shame in having her name attached to the song, more power to her for that btw. So in conclusion: not offensive, notable for now, and I agree with the above comment that the article should be more than just the negative reaction. I will attempt to write a short neutral description of the video. If in six months then this is proved to be a momentary fad THEN open an afD and see what happens, but no crystal balls at this stage I'm afraid.--EchetusXe 23:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work, it's much better now - and who knows, with the way it's going maybe we'll soon be able to add a bit about its chart positions too ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I certainly hope we can write about some chart success in the future. Outside of Lady Gaga, Black's work is the most interesting thing to happen to pop music since the Pet Shop Boys.--Echetus Xe 01:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant reframe on the article, 'EX'; the views expressed in 'Rolling Stone' & 'EW' were sorely missing, and place the song's importance in a better context. --Chachap (talk) 01:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

this song is awful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.53.122 (talk) 23:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets criteria sets forth in WP:GNG. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand She put the song out there, if people want to expand they should be allowed. There have been younger people than her and it's her fault for making some a viral piece of junk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.204.211.132 (talk) 23:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC) {— 67.204.211.132 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep I just checked, this is number 77 on the top 100 downloadable songs in iTunes. Its popularity is still growing rapidly. The song has only been popular for about five days, but in the future there will definitely be more events concerning this song that will lead to expansion. Ŵïllî§ï$2? (^Talk!/_Sign) 01:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I came to this article this morning and considered nominating it for deletion as well because the article was so lacking. But in just one day, there has been a lot of improvement here. It's well sourced, there is cover art, and even covers already. Definitely notable. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 02:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:BLP Is not intended to prevent all negative criticism of an individual. It should be kept and expanded. If there are positive reviews, then these need to be included. This meets notability, and should be kept. Rmosler | ● 02:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So much media attention here – foolish to call it non-notable at this point, whether we like it or not. Goyston talk, contribs, play 02:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Every other horrible pop song gets a wikipedia page...this one deserves a page too. Stromcarlson (talk) 03:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously passes all notability tests easily, and it appropriately goes by what the sources say. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 03:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The video has over 10.3 million views on YouTube at the moment and countless parodies. At this point, it's notability is very solid and isn't going away anytime soon. Illinois2011 (talk) 03:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it meets music notability guidelines as it's been criticized by media and has gone viral online. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 03:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm sorry, I almost always say delete the memes, but 10 million views on youtube? Plus the song is top 100 in iTunes, so as much as I want to kill the song with fire, we have to face the reality that although it's for all the wrong reasons, this song is going to at least be certified gold. 76.102.155.25 (talk) 04:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain how you "almost always say delete the memes" when your edit history shows no other AfDs before this?--Oakshade (talk) 04:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like they may have just forgot to log in. Illinois2011 (talk) 04:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep — Even if you think internet sensations have no place on Wikipedia, this "song" (if you'd like to call it that...) has become a successful single. That in itself makes it notable enough for inclusion. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a single that's been professionally produced and released and has proved successful (albeit in not the right reasons). It's been discussed in a variety of accredited sources. It pretty much fits the definition of notability now.Dtnoip28 (talk) 04:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is (unfortunately) extremely culturally relevant. And it's well-cited. Doesn't make fun of the singer, but quotes critics who mock the songwriting and video. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.240.18 (talk) 06:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC) — 96.52.240.18 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Why would we delete an article that's about a very notable subject, that's well written, and has a ton of references from a ton of different reputable third-party sources? Ridiculous. Whoever nominated this for deletion should be stripped of the ability to do so in the future, because they obviously have no judgement whatsoever.Rockypedia (talk) 06:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Edit & Keep I'd like some of the more grating phrases changed. Such as "overwhelmingly bad lyrics, singing and video content" in the intro, or in critical reception, "One reviewer went so far..". If you're going to include a bad comment at least explain who said it and where. On the subject of notability, a video with over ten million hits, and this many media sources I think is worth keeping. Not to mention number 69 on itunes top 100, even the 10th best selling pop song in New Zealand right now. The song Friday is probably more notable than Rebecca Black or Ark Music Factory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danthemango (talk • contribs) 08:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd normally argue strongly against keeping articles based on flash-in-the-pan news stories about lulzy internet memes, but the coverage this song has picked up in a wide variety of very high-quality reliable sources is remarkable. It comments on the phenomenon of teen pop, of internet celebrity, of the way you can become famous overnight on the internet, and on the use of autotune. I strongly suspect this will be one of those things that still gets referred back to in days to come. That said, it does obviously need to avoid merely slagging off the song/singer without careful use of reliable sources.--Korruski^Talk 08:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per the fact that social media are a huge part of the world we live in today. Its not 1980 anymore, Wikipedia users has to become more aware of this. The song has charted within the Top100 so its a notable song for that reason too.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no reason not to mention her by name; she's a published singer, and should be treated no differently to, say, Lady Gaga. Her age is irrelevant; there have certainly been published singers younger than her (Willow Smith, for example) and all of them have articles. All negative comments in the article come from valid sources and are consistent with other articles' "Critical reception" sections. CNash (talk) 10:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Evancho would be another example of a child singer we have an article on. Silver seren^C 10:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because this article provides much insight for all users of Wikipedia to know more about "Friday" and Rebecca Black. Also, this is not a troll nor a flame, so it should not be deleted. BlackieDog_w/c/d 10:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yesterday people said this song wasn't notable. That was Wednesday. Today is Thursday. After that comes Friday. Fun. Fun. Fun. Fun. AfD hero (talk) 11:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um... ._. Wow. That must have taken a long time to do. Silver seren^C 11:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is not different to all the other viral things on the internet. Hohohob (talk) 11:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Article provides a quick explanation for an otherwise vague Internet phenomenon. If deemed necessary, reduce/eliminate negativity toward the subject. But the need for sensitivity is reduced because the subject has put herself in fair territory for widespread and harsh artistic criticism by releasing her voice and image as a cultural work. She has agreed to become a public figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Btimlake (talk • contribs) 15:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I know I haven't been around for a while, but last time I looked, if something had so much coverage it immediately becomes notable. Therefore, this is perfectly notable. DeMoN2009 16:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Edit and Move To emphasize: This is not a BLP; as currently titled, this is an article about a song. It needs to be broken out into a Rebecca Black BLP and an article about Friday separately. Of course the song/video is notable, and by extension so is Black. But it has to be carefully written to avoid POV issues, which I don't think is impacted by noting the general documented reactions. x (talk) 17:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. User:Rbs7878 (User talk:Rbs7878) 18:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant and disgusted keep - like a lot of pop-culture fads, says more about the pathetic condition of our culture than about the subject, that such a thing should be clearly notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The video's gotten millions of views in a month. Even weeks after the fact, people are still talking about it. I've seen it on forums, front pages on sites like Yahoo!, and the TV news. This is what Wikipedia is for. Rockhead126 (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a very high profile song and has received millions of views over the course of a week. It's been posted on news sites and has been discussed extensively on radio and tv news. This is no different to other 'pop culture' fads that have articles on Wikipedia. It is also a song available for purchase on the iTunes store since 14 March 2011. Matt (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is like having a Britney Spears profile (and it should be reoriented around Rebecca Black); the only significant difference is degree (BS is more famous and prolific than RB). When folks hear this song and think, "Who's Rebecca Black and what's the deal with this song?" they should be able to trust that Wikipedia will have the reliable, neutral assessment of this person. People want reliable information, and Wikipedia has a chance to give that information on the topics that people are interested in, including, for better or worse, this song and its heretofore unknown singer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.66.104.128 (talk) 22:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Improve. Notable and peculiar.TjoeC (talk) 22:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article was much improved by EchetusXe (great job :-), and I don't think that there are major BLP problems anymore at the moment. I'd be happy to withdraw the AfD nom, if anyone wants to close this one early...CordeliaNaismith (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, it shouldn't be closed until.... Friday! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cordelia, and love the thinking there Zebedee. Who said bureaucracies cannot come to touching and appropriate conclusions?--Echetus Xe 23:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:N; problems described above regarding unsourced criticism etc seem to have been addressed. Una Laguna^Talk 23:15, 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cian Byrne

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

No appearance in fully professional competition.

No evidence of multiple reliable sources giving non-trivial/routine coverage. Kevin McE (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. J Mo 101 (talk) 12:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 13:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable footballer who fails WP:NFOOTBALL and doesn't appear to have done anything of note to pass WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 05:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Zanoni (talk) 08:06, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth Whelan

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

No appearance in fully professional competition.

No evidence of multiple reliable sources giving non-trivial/routine coverage. Kevin McE (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 14:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable TheBiggestFootballFan (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable footballer who fails WP:NFOOTBALL and doesn't appear to have done anything of note to pass WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 05:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Zanoni (talk) 08:08, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Quigley

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

No appearance in fully professional competition.

No evidence of multiple reliable sources giving non-trivial/routine coverage. Kevin McE (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 14:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. TheBiggestFootballFan (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable footballer who fails WP:NFOOTBALL and doesn't appear to have done anything of note to pass WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 05:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Zanoni (talk) 08:08, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Nolan (footballer)

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

No appearance in fully professional competition.

No evidence of multiple reliable sources giving non-trivial/routine coverage. Kevin McE (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 14:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable TheBiggestFootballFan (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable footballer who fails WP:NFOOTBALL and doesn't appear to have done anything of note to pass WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 05:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Zanoni (talk) 08:10, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alan McNally

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

No appearance in fully professional competition.

No evidence of multiple reliable sources giving non-trivial/routine coverage. Kevin McE (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 14:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable footballer who fails WP:NFOOTBALL and doesn't appear to have done anything of note to pass WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 05:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Zanoni (talk) 08:10, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Quirke (footballer born 1991)

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

No appearance in fully professional competition.

No evidence of multiple reliable sources giving non-trivial/routine coverage. Kevin McE (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 14:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable footballer who fails WP:NFOOTBALL and doesn't appear to have done anything of note to pass WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 05:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Zanoni (talk) 08:11, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Duggan

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

No appearance in fully professional competition.

No evidence of multiple reliable sources giving non-trivial/routine coverage. Kevin McE (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 14:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable footballer who fails WP:NFOOTBALL and doesn't appear to have done anything of note to pass WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 05:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Zanoni (talk) 08:11, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keith McCarthy (footballer)

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

No appearance in fully professional competition.

No evidence of multiple reliable sources giving non-trivial/routine coverage. Kevin McE (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 14:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable footballer who fails WP:NFOOTBALL and doesn't appear to have done anything of note to pass WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 05:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As above, he clearly fails all relevant notability guidelines. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:49, 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aidan Bissett

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

No appearance in fully professional competition.

No evidence of multiple reliable sources giving non-trivial/routine coverage. Kevin McE (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 14:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable footballer who fails WP:NFOOTBALL and doesn't appear to have done anything of note to pass WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 05:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Zanoni (talk) 08:07, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Costigan

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

No appearance in fully professional competition.

No evidence of multiple reliable sources giving non-trivial/routine coverage. Kevin McE (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 14:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable footballer who fails WP:NFOOTBALL and doesn't appear to have done anything of note to pass WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 05:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Zanoni (talk) 08:07, 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) 00:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Verse the World

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

I've declined a speedy for spam as I don't think it fits properly. I am concerned about the notability so I've brought it here. Peridon (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The author of the book says on the talk page that he wrote the article "to support the book, NOT to advertise for it" but I don't really see the distinction --Theodolite ➹ 20:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from article talk page: Hi,

I created the Verse the World page by request from the readers of the book. My name is Manu (Singh) and I wrote the Wikipedia page to support the book, NOT to advertise for it. This book is a legitimate story written about a friend of mine that suffered a tragic death and this book is the story behind it. It is written as a multimedia e-book. The website, as you can see, has several reviews, including a professor, author, and a doctor, that have read the book and written reviews about it. Additionally, there is a Facebook fan group for the book with over 140 readers, with that number growing.

The website for the book is www.versetheworld.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AXmichigan (talk • contribs) 19:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to be interviewed by a local newspaper (patch.com) in the next couple weeks and in addition to the readers, a friend of mine who works for the newspaper asked me to create and initial Wikipedia page for the book and myself.

Please do not delete this Wikipedia, and let me know, if anything, is in violation of Wikipedia's policy and I will be happy to rewrite it.

Thank you, Manu

In addition, the book has been copyrighted since October 4th, 2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AXmichigan (talk • contribs) 20:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

End of copy. Peridon (talk) 21:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi it's Manu again. I'm not trying to do anything malicious, so I don't get it. I spent over 3 years working on a book that I have released for free. It took a lot of time to write, edit, and add allthe multimedia effects. I thought the point of Wikipedia was to explain the background of how something was brought into fruition and that is all I was trying to do. Please let me know if I'm doing something wrong here. AXmichigan (talk) 20:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note on your talk page. Theodolite ➹ 20:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that - it backs up what I say below. Peridon (talk) 21:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First, we're not accusing you of doing anything malicious. Second, please sign posts with four squiggly things ~~~~ like those. Third, Wikipedia is free - yes. But it's an encyclopaedia that cannot include everything. An obvious no-hoper would be "What I did on my Holidays", by Jason Smith (age 8). (With the exception of it getting issued in hardback by Doubleday and selling 50,000 copies...) An obvious must-be-in is "Wuthering Heights" by Emily Brontë. In between is a vast expanse of varying notability. Have a look at WP:GNG for general notability, and WP:RS for what are reliable sources. So far, you only cite your own site. You may know more about this work than anyone else (until the experts and critics really get going...), but this is not a reliable source - according to Wikipedia's standards. We're not accusing YOU of dishonesty. We have seen a lot who are. The article was tagged for speedy deletion as spam (but with a posh way of wording it that's built into the template). I declined the speedy as it didn't look wholly promotional which is the real target of that tag, and opened this discussion. It's not a trial. It's a review procedure. It's normally open for seven days, and an administrator will read through it and make a decision. (Won't be me - I'm involved. It's one who hasn't taken part.) You should find us all willing to help and explain. And if the discussion goes against you, we can advise on how to try again with a new improved version. Peridon (talk) 21:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peridon, thank you for the response--I just posted on Theodolite's wall. This Wikipedia article was created as a precursor to give background before having the local newspaper article, as well as the future news articles written about the book. I'm not sure if it was a requirement for them to write the article, but it is what they asked for so I immediately wrote it to maximize my chances. As I'm trying my best to spread this book as far as I can, please let me know how I can improve the article and what I need to do to remove this article for deletion consideration. I appreciate your help. AXmichigan (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa there! "As I'm trying my best to spread this book as far as I can" - I'd advise you to look at WP:SPAM before you say any more. That isn't what we're here for. Promotional stuff isn't allowed, not even for non-profit, free or charitable. It's all one here. See WP:NPOV (neutral point of view) as well (your wording isn't too bad in this respect from my point of view, but it gives a bit more background to what is expected here - and what is not allowed. I'll be back on tomorrow evening (my time here in the UK) as I'm going off now (early start in the morning...). Do some reading while I'm gone, and put any questions to the next shift. Peridon (talk) 21:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article was not meant to spread the book, it was meant to only give background information (I personally am trying to spread my friends' plight). Once again I'm not trying to advertise anything. At this point I give up, just delete the article if you wish. Thank you for making me give up hope. AXmichigan (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, should have been speedy delete. --George100 (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - it sounds like what the author needs is to obtain a press-release service (there are free ones) to promote his writing. --George100 (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We have quite a conversation here, primarily centered on semantics. There is often a wide range of ideas and fields of understanding on Wikipedia, over the definition of publicity, support, promotion, spam, and advertising. Another way to understand the inclusion criteria or recognize an inappropriate promotional article (G11) is to determine if the article has been written or edited in an attempt to manage the public's perception of the subject of the article, or to initiate or enhance the anticipation of an event. In this particular instance, the anticipation of a promotional article in a local newspaper. On Wikipedia, common article subjects that are often written to promote, include persons or groups (for example, political candidates and performing artists), goods and services, organizations and events of all kinds, and works of art or entertainment. Mere publicity, promotion, and advertising need not reference sales or reviews pertaining to the quality or feasibility of the subject of the article. Simply announcing the existence of a subject prior to notability would be considered inappropriate. The desire of the author is to use Wikipedia as an impetus or catalyst to bring the newspaper article to fruition. This is not the purpose of Wikipedia. The response in this situation would be to address the promotional article, content, and materials through the speedy deletion process. Specifically, to ensure compliance with the G11 guidelines. That said, we're all human here, with varying degrees of interpretation and understanding, i.e., semantics. Arriving at the discussion phase of the deletion process, the article has not presented importance or significance, nor established the notability of the subject. Notability must be established and presented through significant coverage in reliable and independent secondary and third-party sources before inclusion on Wikipedia can be accepted. In response to this lack, Wikipedia's guidelines call for deletion of the Verse the World article. Respectfully, Cind.amuse 01:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is there a difference between someone who makes an article purely to promote a book, and someone who makes an article so that it can contain background information about a book, that will support his PR? Maybe, but it doesn't matter because the essential point is that the book is not currently notable. The purpose of the article is, therefore, irrelevent. Also, while AXmichigan asks for advice on how to improve the article, they need to be aware that in many cases 'improving' the article isn't going to help. In the absence of good quality reliable sources, an article is unlikely to ever pass AfD, and there is nothing much you can do about that, unfortunately.--Korruski^Talk 09:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When there is coverage in independent sources, you would be welcome to try again - but keep it on a subpage of your userpage first and ask one or more of us for advice. If the reviews you refer to above are to be found outside your site, but not in a blog or forum, or Facebook, MySpace etc, then tell us. If they are written for your site, they don't count as independent. Sorry, that's how it is. Go for the press - get your project covered there. They are NEWSpapers - they look at what is new. Happenings and reviews of new things. We record things as they achieve note. Use all the free space providers like LinkedIn and AboutUs (if you aren't already...). But, as with many people, I fear you mistook the purpose of Wikipedia. We aren't against you - I'm sure all the participants here would join me in wishing you luck and success in an interesting project. But I feel that's all we can do here. Peridon (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 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 delete. Assertions by new and single purpose accounts that sources exist does not make it so; currently none are cited in the article or here. Sandstein 05:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Mickle (golfer)

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

Exactly the same as the first AfD. Non-notable golf teaching professional. Still no mentions in reliable third party sources as required to verify claims of notability. _wjemather ^bigissue 17:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. —_wjemather ^bigissue 17:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - per award was presented to Mickle by the PGA Chief Executive Sandy Jones mentioning. I give this article the benefit of a doubt for now. Awaits more consensus.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The awards is less of an award and more of a qualification level for coaching as I pointed out in the last AFD. See [11]. What is missing is coverage about this guy in reliable sources. Considering how huge the golf industry is, and how much media coverage there is with dedicated golf TV channels, and dedicated golf magazines in addition to regular general media coverage, the lack of any sources in the article, or from a google search it telling. -- Whpq (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here is the guy's bio from his web site. As a coach, which seem to be the primary claim to notability, his major accomplishment is a bringing a couple of junior golfers up to scratch which is a rather weak assertion to notability for an article. -- Whpq (talk) 14:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that anybody who makes it to the top out of some 20,000 Golf-Professionals on Mainland Europa, most certainly warrents a place in Wiki.Imagine the case of a Attorney in the US achieving the same excellence in standards, a leading position from all other Attorney's and leading the World of Law....would he or she not warrent a place? Of course they would. I have looked at the Charles Mickle's website and it seems to me that my coach is useless when compared. As for the citation of Junior Players - this appears to be wayward of the point in view of the fact that Mickle also coaches many professional players, something very few professionals achieve in a lifetime. I think and believe that the original edit is very worthy of a place in our World of Wikipedia.92.223.51.53 (talk) 14:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC) — 92.223.51.53 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - I would absolutely support the inclusion of a top golf coach in Wikipedia. But it requires documentation in reliable sources independent of the subject which are lacking in this case. -- Whpq (talk) 14:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...Remark...Documentation and reliable sources of a qualified nature are present in the article concerned. I have just read some of the links for this person and they appear to be quite correct and above board. I mean, why should the information portrayed be untrue? When there is enough evidence to suggest if not prove beyond all reasonable doubt... the complete opposite?

Have you researched Google Germany as a matter of interest for this person?

In my opinion just as someone else mentioned above that the article should be given the benefit of all doubt and that the existing format stay as published. The person named is quite obviously not bogus and is certainly worthy of an edit. There are many other 'people edits' on Wiki who are by no means in the same league as this person..some things I find hard to comprehend..92.223.51.53 (talk) 15:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC) — 92.223.51.53 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Reply - Are you reading the same article as I am? There are no reliable sources in the article. The links in the article lead to web sites that do nothing to verify any of the infroma;tion presented. -- Whpq (talk) 15:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remark--Also Whpq mentioned in his disclosure about the "Award being nothing other than an award for coaching".. but if you click the link to the PGA and read about the award, it has nothing really to do with coaching...it has all to do with further education, examinations and achievements in the world of Golf. Reading the facts state that an Award of such magnitude is only presented to outstanding individuals. I rest my case, but please do more homework on the subject matter for next time, before another outstanding person or edit is quashed because this guy certainly has merit and more for his contribution to the World of Golf!! 92.223.51.53 (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)— 92.223.51.53 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - If you are going to bold, and put in quotes, words that are attributed to me, please have the courtesy to actually quote what I actually wrote which is that it is "less of an award and more of a qualification level for coaching". And I have no idea what link I should click as you have not offered it here. -- Whpq (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree with what has been said by user 92.223.51.53. The article deserves on merit to stand as published. The Edit could be made perhaps better, maybe one of you professionals could ((help)) out here?...but the evidence given is easily proven and enough to warrent it's inclusion to Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Birdie18 for life (talk • contribs) 16:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC) — Birdie18 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - There is no evidence! Reliable sources are needed, not just assertions. -- Whpq (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Of course there is evidence. Evidence is the Award that he received in Munich. How much more evidence of high status within the golfing World, does one require??? You write about needing a link for the PGA website, which is abundently clear in the edit of Charles Mickle and you wrote...."And I have no idea what link I should click as you have not offered it here".

Surely had the homework via the PGA Website etc been done first time around then we would not be having this conversation via transcript.It seems to me that the original edit was deleted on the grounds of no clear research on your part and the second applied for deletion.... is yet again along the same lines...it appears to me and others that it is a personal vandetta of yours to delete if possible, this content yet again, which, if going on any of the comments above, is adequately justified to stay in print.

The edit should remain...92.223.51.226 (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)— 92.223.51.226 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - The onus is on those how are advocating to keep this article to provide reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Telling me to look for myself will not result in this article being kept. -- Whpq (talk) 22:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its an obvious Keep for now Whpq.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is it in any way obvious? There is absolutely no sourcing whatsoever. -- Whpq (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. The "award" is as noted above is "...less of an award and more of a qualification level for coaching." For the same reason we do not include a PhD without any Wikipedia based notability, this "award" does not qualify as a notable achievement – as least as defined by Wikipedia. As also pointed out the burden of proof rests with the author of the article. It appears to me the only thing obvious is the article lacks independent, verifiable, reliable sources that support Wikipedia based notability in either WP:BIO or WP:ATHLETE and the keep comments are not based on Wikipedia guidelines. A note to 92.223.51.226, please do not make uncivil comments about personal vendetta's. I see no evidence of anyone having an agenda and your comments only serve to cloud the real issue at hand – is the article subject notable based on Wikipedia criteria. ttonyb (talk) 22:32, 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. postdlf (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Vicki

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

Not notable, was married to someone notable, and that was 1 time event Mister vicky (talk) 17:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom, and also, WP:ONEEVENT, she was briefly married to a notable singer, but this doesn't make her notable, does she have any other relevance to wikipedia? For further information about Tiny Tim, her article could be incorporated within Tiny Tim's one. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 17:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tiny Tim, and the article name is incorrect, as well. Should be "Victoria Budinger". GoogolplexForce (talk) 17:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting to note, however, the nominators name and contributions. I'm unaware as to the policies for this, but I'll leave a note on his talk page. GoogolplexForce (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tiny Tim (musician). Cullen328 (talk) 18:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Cullen et al. I remember Miss Vicky's wedding (although I did not see it live, as I was a kid and asleep). She got her 15 minutes of fame, which is emblematic of NN. Bearian (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Cullen et al. Dismas|^(talk) 22:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tiny Tim. This article and this subject are too slight for a stand alone article, in my opinion. A redirect to Tiny Tim should suffice. Carrite (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tiny Tim w/ redirects Miss Vicki, Victoria Budinger, Victoria Khaury--Hokeman (talk) 02:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:N. This is detailed/direct coverage of the subject. She was the centerfold spread in Oui (magazine)'s October 1975 issue (11 photographs of coverage)^{[12] and I never thought I'd use a porn magazine appearance as evidence of notability!} Although the Carson show wedding was a WP:ONEEVENT it's also an event that's received at least 35 years of mentions in books and magazines^[13] including The Greatest Weddings of All Time (2002). Despite evidence of notable coverage I was thinking the article should be merged into Tiny Tim until I saw that in 2002 she popped back in the news as she was then the girlfriend of a guy convicted of murdering his wife^[14] That information would not be appropriate as part of the Tiny Tim article. --Marc Kupper|talk 09:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: You heathens should learn your American pop culture better, she really is notable and subject to much coverage a generation ago, and has been revisited frequently with news stories from 1969 through the present day.[15][16][17][18][19] [20][21][22]. In 1838-39, the tabloids celebrated Mary Rogers. In 1969-70, it was Miss Vicki, all notable American pop culture history. Nominator is blocked as a sock, so you should not assume good faith as to this nomination.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 22:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Milowent • ^talkblp-r 22:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems borderline WP:ONEEVENT but I'd give the article a chance.--Sloane (talk) 00:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She gives coverage not just for the marriage on the tonight show, but also for being famous even years later when they ended up on welfare, and when her marriage broke up. [23] Gets coverage of herself in detail Miss Vicki Whatever Happened To That Shy Little Girl, The Evening Independent, Sep 2, 1975 and elsewhere. Dream Focus 20:56, 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 delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Philip G. Bell

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

Fails WP:BIO. Self-published author who hasn't yet received sufficient attention in reliable, independent sources. Only 5 Ghits for his new book[24] No Google News (Archives) hits for him[25], and none of the Google Books seem to be about this Philip G. Bell either[26]. Fram (talk) 07:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 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) 01:24, 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, Big Dom 16:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Per nom. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 17:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete self-published author, not notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:10, 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

G-WAN (Web server)

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

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

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

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

largely promotional article on an unremarkable web server. Claims are referenced with primary sources, other wikipedia articles or blogs. Lacks coverage in 3rd party reliable sources. (hotly) contested prod. RadioFan (talk) 13:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —RadioFan (talk) 13:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I liked the "Lacks coverage in 3rd party reliable sources" comment since the external link targeted here is for a "Swiss Federal Institute of Technology" Laboratory Student involved in the "Distributed Information Systems Laboratory". 1) I hardly can be accused of having any grip on the Academic world ("3rd Party"); 2) the "Distributed Information Systems Laboratory" of one of the most respected universities in the world can hardly be qualified of NOT being a "reliable source". The reason for you to remove G-WAN this time was "addition with no article". Since the G-WAN article HAS BEEN WIPED-OUT by Wikipedia 'moderators' like the one making this remark, this is a vicious circle: they make their own luck to justify deletions. In the past, similar fallacious arguments were used, like removing all references and then claiming that no references were available, or claiming that G-WAN is not 'notable' while G-WAN is the fastest Web Server on BOTH Windows AND Linux (and by a large margin, see the article EXTERNAL links), and whether user-mode or kernel-mode servers are considered. It is also and by several orders of magnitude the smallest in size (server + C scripts = 200 KB that you must compare with Java, PHP or .Net). For the record, "notability" means "the quality that makes somebody or something worth paying attention to". You did not answer any of my arguments - proof that your goal is not to evaluate the value of this article. The fact that you go as far as to deny the EPFL existence *because* it is referenced on Wikipedia reveals how much you value fair talks (to check its existence, you could click on the wikipedia link to reach the EPFL website). Instead of discussing the merit of this article or of your deletion, instead of presenting arguments, you are threatening me of a permanent exclusion. This behavior is clearly NOT serving the Temple of Knowledge: why, on all the Web servers listed on Wikipedia, the only one that MUST be "deleted permanently" (to quote RadioFan) is G-WAN, the smallest, fastest and safest (no vulnerabilities ever, another notable difference) of all. This is a simple question - the only one I am asking.

Bugapi (talk) 13:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not seeing an external link to the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, I'm seeing a reference to the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne Wikipedia page. There is a reference that is labeled as being from a Ph.D. student at the Distributed Information Systems Laboratory of EPFL, however this reference is to a wordpress blog which is a self published source which raises reliability concerns. Is there something more concrete such as a press release or some other page on the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology website that covers this software in detail, if so that would a good reference to include here. a reference to another wikipedia page is not. Looking over the history, I'm not seeing any evidence of references being removed, thats a pretty serious claim to make. I dont think anyone denies the existence of this software or ÉPFL, but existence of this software or any institution involved in it doesn't help establish notability here, References to reliable sources does. Also, please dont misquote, no one has said the article "MUST be deleted permanently". The article will be deleted if the consensus here is delete. Please focus on improving the article, not on other editors. --RadioFan (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No Google news hits that I saw, either from the find sources or my own permutations of g-wan (g wan, g-wan, G-WAN server, etc). Some google hits, but I'm unsure about the ones I looked at as being reliable...and didn't see much to support the notability other than being 'the fastest web server', based on the blog posting. To answer the article creator's question - it probably not the only one that should be deleted, but WP:OTHERSTUFF existing on wikipedia doesn't meant that they too shouldn't also be deleted. Syrthiss (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"notability: the quality that makes somebody or something WORTH PAYING ATTENTION to". You mis-represent the meaning of "notability" by restricting it to "the numbers of links on Google" (or any other media). G-WAN is notable because of its qualities, not because appointed media are publishing about it.Bugapi (talk) 14:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —RadioFan (talk) 14:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, how about "it is difficult to verify the claims set forth in the article with multiple non-self-published sources independent of the creator"? You appear to be getting caught up in semantics where the administrator (I am one too, for disclosure) who reviews this discussion would not have that problem. Syrthiss (talk) 14:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read the G-WAN article? It does not seem so: Check the EXTERNAL LINKS that confirm the SPEED, SCALABILITY, SMALL FOOTPRINT, and LACK OF SECURITY HOLES (all unique characteristics in this segment). Basically, you are judging on this issue WITHOUT even considering the facts...Bugapi (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, strongly, and would suggest speedy deletion. Yet another back office software package. "References" to internal sites claiming that "Ours is Faster and More Secure!" suggest only that this is blatantly promotional and ought to be speedily deleted. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability not established by sources. Bugapi, please note that on wikipedia Notability is a bit of jargon. We don't mean the definition that you can find in a dictionary, we mean the one in the guideline on notability. In a nutshell, that guideline says that an article topic is considered 'notable' when it has been written about by independent, reliable sources. In this case that would probably mean newspapers or IT trade magazines. MrOllie (talk) 14:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Bugapi - Yep. External links that all seem to be self published to the hosting site, a blog (self published) by the PhD student, and the discussion forum hosted on the hosting site. However, none of this seems to be coming across to you so I'm going to leave this discussion now. The reviewing admin has my comments. Syrthiss (talk) 14:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Syrthiss, @Smerdis of Tlön and @MrOllie - 9/10 of all the other Web servers (here for years) published *only* their own links (Abyss, AppWeb, Caudium, Cherokee, etc.) so please tell us all why only G-WAN should be wiped-out THE DAY of its publication.Bugapi (talk) 15:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If there are other articles that don't comply with policy, that means that we should consider them for deletion as well, not that we should allow more articles that do not meet the guidelines. - MrOllie (talk) 15:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@MrOllie - that will leave MICROSOFT IIS and IBM Apache (would then wikipedia remain and "encyclopedia"?). Besides, you did not answer the question.Bugapi (talk) 15:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I did, but I will elaborate: Wikipedia is a work in progress, there is a lot to do, and something has to be first. Today we are discussing G-WAN, perhaps tomorrow we will discuss Cherokee. Since we are discussing G-WAN: Do you have any references to third party sources with editorial oversight, such as a newspaper or a trade magazine? - MrOllie (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@MrOllie - you did not answer the question: PLEASE explain why a GENERALIZED practice (self-links and no appointed PR publication) is OK for 9/10 of the other servers (here since years) - and not for G-WAN (here since 12 hours), while G-WAN also provides 3rd-party links that you simply choose to ignore (About.com, Secunia.com, an independent benchmark, etc.).Bugapi (talk) 15:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have now answered your question twice. I am sorry that you are unwilling or unable to understand, but I will not be answering a third time. Since you have not provided any citations to third party sources with editorial oversight, I will assume that none exist. - MrOllie (talk) 15:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@MrOllie - typical: answering without addressing the question, while your buddy Kuru was erasing G-WAN from wikipedia's "Comparison of Web server Software". Wasn't Kuru supposed to wait for the decision before deleting G-WAN?Bugapi (talk) 15:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to correctly link to the article you've add to the list, a problem might not occur in the future. I'm sorry if the mark-up is confusing for you; you may want to ask for help in the future when you're not sure why something happened. Kuru (talk) 01:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've set the wheels in motion on Abyss Web Server, Appweb, Caudium (web server), and Cherokee (Webserver). Got any more? Glad somebody pointed this out, because Caudium was in fact an ancient Italian city and should not have been squatted on by an article on back-office software in any case, so at least that's been fixed. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have removed the PROD templates from several of these articles and suggested that they, too, go through AfD. Otherwise, I see a huge can of worms being opened up. Strikerforce (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Why stop there? The following servers *also* lack PR support: AOLserver, HFS, IBM HTTP Server, lighttpd, LiteSpeed Technologies Inc., Monkey (web server), NaviServer, Node.js, Null httpd, Oracle HTTP Server, publicfile, pronghorn (webserver), Roxen (web server), Oracle iPlanet Web Server, thttpd, TUX web server, TV's server, UltiDev Cassini Web Server, WEBrick, Yaws (web server), Zeus Web Server and Zope... so, if you are going to apply the rule, they should also be wiped-out.83.77.106.207 (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Smerdis of Tlön, Why do you keep mentioning that the articles are about "back-office software"? Why should that make any difference one way or the other? --Hamitr (talk) 19:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Back office" means "part of the infrastructure that the general public does not see or deal with." As such it's unlikely to be noticed in widely read, non-local, outside the trade publications. Back office products need to have some showing of historical, technical, or cultural importance. "Notability" means "outside the IT department". - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know what "back office" means, but I fail to see how "back office" software would have different notability requirements than "front office" software or any other type of software.

"Back office products need to have some showing of historical, technical, or cultural importance."

Is that WP policy or your opinion?

--Hamitr (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the notability guideline on corporations and products says, "(w)hen evaluating the notability of organizations, please consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." "Historical, technical, or cultural importance" is just shorthand for all that. This is why "back office" is relevant. More importantly, as Jimmy Wales put it when he started the concept of notability, notability means long term historical notability. Articles on products should demonstrate enough impact on history, technology, or culture to show that they have some kind of long term historical significance. This becomes especially important when the prospect of conflict of interest is raised. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It sure reads to me that your quote from WP:CORP:

"When evaluating the notability of organizations, please consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education."

applies only to the notability of organizations, or else the sentence would include "notability of organizations and/or products." However, the "Primary criteria" section of the same page states:

"A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." (emphasis added)

This is pretty much a restatement of the "standard" WP:Notability policy, so I still don't see how "back office" or similar classifications have any bearing on notability.

--Hamitr (talk) 22:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nom rationale pretty much sums it up. Should have been speedy'd. Strikerforce (talk) 22:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article claims notability (but doesn't back it up with anything more than primary sources), while I agree that it should be speediable, not worth the lecture from an admin about tagging articles for deletion which make some claim of notability and dont read completely like spam cut and paste from a glossy brochure.--RadioFan (talk) 01:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the lecture anyway :) (for Strikeforce): A7 is explicitly not for software, G11 is iffy since the puffery can be cleaned up. The problem is all you're left with is sourced from the developer. In a contested situation, it's best to let it run through AFD and then you can use G4 in the future, presuming a delete result. Kuru (talk) 01:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmmm, good points. I hadn't thought it all the way through. Strikerforce (talk) 06:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per invitation from a rather excitable SPA. The existing references are self-published with the exception of a blog posting from a college student. If there's something more significant, I could not locate it; various forum postings and a slashdot run is all I could see. It may be helpful if energy spent screaming about censorship be directed at locating sources to use for the article that meet WP:RS. Kuru (talk) 01:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: why delete G-WAN and keep the others that lack Press references: Abyss Web Server, AOLserver, Appweb, Caudium (web server), and Cherokee (Webserver), HFS, IBM HTTP Server, lighttpd, LiteSpeed Technologies Inc., Monkey (web server), NaviServer, Node.js, Null httpd, Oracle HTTP Server, publicfile, pronghorn (webserver), Roxen (web server), Oracle iPlanet Web Server, thttpd, TUX web server, TV's server, UltiDev Cassini Web Server, WEBrick, Yaws (web server), Zeus Web Server and Zope... if the rule of law governs wikipedia then it MUST be equally applied to ALL (especially those who, unlike G-WAN which is 24h old on wikipedia, enjoy years of this "unlawful" Squatting which makes it so urgent to delete G-WAN)Bugapi (talk) 05:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists is a good place to start, as far as answering your question. But, the process is the same, regardless... if you feel those articles belong at AfD, it is most certainly your right as an editor to nominate them. Strikerforce (talk) 06:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: When the NORM is transgression, the question is WHY all others can trangress the rules during YEARS while G-WAN is only allowed to do it for 3 HOURS.81.63.122.9 (talk) 09:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per this[27], it is recommended that you log in to contribute to this and any AfD discussion to ensure that your comment is given due regard. Strikerforce (talk) 09:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you (the wikipedia "trusted" Editors and Admins) keep violating the most important wikipedia rules daily, why should others bother to respect the most minor ones? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.77.158.222 (talk • contribs)

Could you help out your fellow editors and please remember to sign your comments by adding ~~~~ at the end? It helps others to know to whom they are responding.Strikerforce (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
you mean, like when the "fellow editors" edited my posts or when the "fellow editors" removed my posts completely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.77.158.222 (talk • contribs)

— 83.77.158.222 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Pretty serious accusation. Can you provide diffs to support it? Keep in mind, users are permitted to edit their own talk pages by removing posts as they see fit (with very few exceptions). Strikerforce (talk) 12:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please let me know how you can *demonstrate* that something has been edited/removed without having access to the same server logs (that can only be altered by the guilty if I am not mistaking)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.77.108.148 (talk • contribs)

— 83.77.108.148 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You can find instructions at Help:Diff. - MrOllie (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was referring to changes/deletes in posts like *this* text (not in wikipedia articles). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.76.183.121 (talk • contribs)

— 83.77.158.121 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It's the same. This page has a history link at the top like any other. - MrOllie (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Just see how FAIR the "fellow editors" ABOVE are, acting in so-called "good faith" (using false titles) to eradicate G-WAN http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_web_server_software&action=history81.62.158.63 (talk) 08:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— 81.62.158.63 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Strikerforce (talk) 09:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the last time (replying here since IP hopping socks are IP hopping) - Redlinked articles in lists are usually removed as being non-notable. Regardless of that, they are not as useful to a reader as a real bluelinked article. Its very clear from my edits to that page that I was fixing your bad faith edits that were restoring the redlinks. I see that you managed to fumble your way through to get them all bluelinked yourself now, after undoing my edit. Last warning - stop with the bad faith claims. Syrthiss (talk) 11:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

anyone looking at your changes will see that you just deleted the whole entries - and did not replace redlinks by bluelinks. Lies have short legs.62.203.188.42 (talk) 12:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— 62.203.188.42 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It is quite clear by looking at the diffs that Syrthiss was fixing your errors and not removing anything from the list. Please acknowledge this and retract your personal attacks. - MrOllie (talk) 14:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite easy to restore his edits and see that they remove G-WAN from the "Comparison of Web Server Software". As you do not even question why I felt necessary to restore G-WAN, your comment is irrelevant.83.77.133.243 (talk) 16:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC) — 83.77.133.243 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Strikerforce (talk) 17:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At this point, I would suggest closure of this debate with a result of delete. The only "keep" commentary appears to be coming from the same individual(s) from a dynamic IP using the same argument repeatedly, while choosing to ignore constructive commentary from other users in regard to standing Wikipedia policies. By now, we have reached the point where the debate is continually running in circles with no new material being added. Strikerforce (talk) 17:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment None of the (serious) questions (in bold) have been answered by a trio of "fellow editors" (who support each-other and make only clueless remarks). Anybody daring to complain is dismissed under fallacious arguments. It is amazing that nobody seems to care: what is at stake is the credibiity of Wikipedia.62.202.125.242 (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC) — 62.202.125.242 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The only "question" that has been posed was "PLEASE explain why a GENERALIZED practice (self-links and no appointed PR publication) is OK for 9/10 of the other servers (here since years) - and not for G-WAN (here since 12 hours". That question was answered - by me - here[28]. In that same edit, I suggested a course of action for you (allowing for the fact that all of these IP contributions appear to be originating from the same person or group of individuals with a single purpose) to you to take, if you feel that the other articles should not be on Wikipedia. To this point, you have not only chosen to utilize a dynamic IP to present the appearance of multiple editors participating in this discussion, but you have also chosen to ignore the suggestion to use a registered account to express those opinions. Please stop your disruptive editing, as it is extremely counterproductive. Strikerforce (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Always the same empty arguments: your "reply" (that's why you provided a link instead of the obviously pointless text) was: "it is [...] your right as an editor to nominate them [for deletion]" (in short: be a vandal, like us, the "fellow editors"). Regarding your accusations of using a dynamic IP address purposedly, sue my ISP for doing that on my behalf. And if I don't always login, that's because I don't see the point: what proves that the trio of "fellow editors" that attack G-WAN constantly are not one single person hidden behind three accounts (used to hide one single ISP)? So, instead of writing crappy arguments and adding more and more warnings on the top of the G-WAN article, start to raise the quality of Wikipedia: if G-WAN must be deleted after 3 HOURS of existence (because it lacks Press Articles), then the * 26 * other HTTP servers listed for YEARS (without Press Articles) should be deleted too (a corrupt judge is corrupt for NOT applyng the rules equally). But since this list probably includes the Web server that you want to protect from G-WAN's comparison then this option does not meet your approval. Glorious way to advance your agenda, really. Just like these INSULTING comments on G-WAN's forum, OBVIOUSLY POSTED BY YOU, the "fellow editors": http://forum.gwan.com/index.php?p=/discussion/comment/1436/#Comment_143662.203.173.195 (talk) 11:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please, for the sake of everyone's sanity, go back and read what has transpired here. I provided a link because the response is there, plain as day, with no need to type it out again. Your original argument of "if this is not allowed to happen, then that should not be allowed to happen" has been acknowledged. It is, procedurally, invalid, as I have pointed out, but if you feel strongly about the argument, then it is your right as an editor to express that opinion by nominating the other articles for deletion, just as this one has been. At no point did I suggest otherwise, sir.

The burden of proof, in regard to notability, is not on me, in this situation. I am doing nothing more than routine maintenance work via my tagging. If you take a look at my edit history, you will see that that is an overwhelming part of what I choose to participate in here on Wikipedia. In no way, shape, or form am I - or any other editor that has tried to help you - targeting you or singling you out. The sooner that you can realize that, I believe, the sooner that you may be able to bring G-WAN up to appropriate status and make this whole discussion a moot point. I daresay that if you had committed as much time and effort to that task, to this point (given that the G-WAN article has been in existence now for approximately 78 hours), as you have in adding text to this discussion, you may have already accomplished something positive, rather than doing very little but running around in circles here.

In regard to your statement that essentially amounts to accusing me of having a conflict of interest, that is not assuming good faith, nor is it accurate. I have no connection whatsoever to any form of computer software (have you read my user page?), as far as advancing one or limiting the publicity of another. My interest here lies in creating an encyclopedia, not a sales brochure, which is essentially what the article we are discussing amounts to... as do many of the articles that you have mentioned in your argument. I have neither the time nor the "dog in the fight" to search through the roughly 3.59M articles currently in existence on the English Wikipedia to go on a witch hunt. I don't imagine that you do, either, but you have identified - in your own words - *26* other articles that you feel don't belong here and I commend you for that. You have been given instruction on how to bring those articles to the same level of scrutiny as G-WAN (Web server). I would suggest that you either take the instructions and begin the process on those articles or commit yourself to finding a better rationale for saving this article, because other stuff exists isn't going to cut it.

Your statement (accusation, really) about "what proves that the trio of "fellow editors" that attack G-WAN constantly are not one single person hidden behind three accounts (used to hide one single ISP)?" is not only blatantly false, but could be proven so via a request for checkuser, if you truly believe that the editors that have contributed commentary that you disagree with are, in fact, one person using multiple accounts through one ISP. However, that is once again something that is entirely your right and your decision to pursue.

Finally, in regard to your link and corresponding accusation, I am sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about. I am not located in the city that you have identified, nor is that my email address. Strikerforce (talk) 12:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not impressed by the length of your empty comment: I did not expect the guilty to confess his faults. But ~~it has been ruled a criminal offense in the U.S. to post insults under the cover of an anonymous profile, so~~ the "fellow editor" who did it should be banned from wikipedia. Strange that nobody among you guys seem to care about the black sheep "fellow editor".81.63.69.80 (talk) 06:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest reading Wikipedia's policies against legal threats. Strikerforce (talk) 06:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I assume the trio of fellow editors mentioned above is in reference to the the request for comment on user conduct underway concerning Bugapi. For the record there are 7 editors involved in that process, not three.--RadioFan (talk) 13:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am sure that you can invite as many relatives as your long life on wikipedia allows this to take place. However, the number of (one-way) unfair comments against one single person does not do anything to leverage the poor quality of your arguments. Since day one, you have used every possible way to use the 'form' against the 'matter' and this new personal attack is the proof that you just can't stand on the face of a balanced debate.62.202.107.154 (talk) 16:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're trying to debate the policies themselves. You are very unlikely to change policy in this venue. On the other hand if you could work within the policy and provide us with, say, two newspaper articles about G-WAN, I would reverse my vote to a keep. I'm pretty sure everyone else involved in this discussion would as well. - MrOllie (talk) 18:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfair behavior and plain insults from "good-faith editors" are hardly about applying policies. How can we trust "fellow editors" who act like a gang of crooks? How can they be considered trustworthy?81.63.69.80 (talk) 06:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have grown so sick of attempting to get you to realize why this article is up for deletion that this will more than likely be my final contribution to this discussion. My advice to you is, as it has been before, to find better sources for the article. Anything that originates from the publisher, TrustLeap, or from www.gwan.com is - by the boundaries set by WP:RS - not acceptable for use within the article. If you would like to include those "sources" (for lack of a better word, at the moment) as external links, then that may be permissible. I have just completed yet another Google search for information about G-WAN and - through approximately 20 pages of results - have not been able to find sources of information that are not either directly published by TrustLeap or do not originate from (i.e., interviews with developers, spokespeople, etc) TrustLeap. If you can do a better job sourcing the article, I will gladly consider changing my opinion on the subject. That has been my position all along, sir. The issue that I have with the article is not necessarily the notability of the subject (although that is debatable), but the sourcing problem and your continued argument that "if X exists, then Y must also be allowed to exist". The article has now been live for almost 96 hours... that's nearly four full days. What have you done in that time to improve it? I can't see where you have done much other than come here under the protection of a dynamic IP and give the same argument over and over again. For that, you have nobody to blame but yourself, not other contributor's to this discussion. Good luck to you, sir. Strikerforce (talk) 07:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck part of a comment above which appears to me to be either plainly preposterous or in violation of WP:NLT. Either way, we don't want legal threats intimidating anyone's opinion at AfD. Please don't add any more legal threats, or anything that might be misconstrued as one. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incredible, when "fellow editors" violate the common law (in addition to wikipedia's rules) this is of NO INTEREST to other "fellow editors" (too busy breaking the rules themselves). I think that all is said: the only thing you do is acting as a gang, protecting each-other, to advance your agenda at the expense of others.81.62.199.178 (talk) 05:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are just making things up as you go along. Whomever "DRose" happens to be, they did nothing wrong under any form of law on the G-WAN forum. Immature, perhaps, but not illegal. In regard to action on Wikipedia because of the posts that you linked us to, there is very little precedent - that I am aware of - for any sort of sanctions for off-Wikipedia actions like that, even if you could definitively prove the Wikipedia identity (if the individual even has a registered identity; they could be an IP contributor, the same as you are at this point) of "DRose". Please, stick to the facts of this discussion and working on making the article pass the various policy checks, rather than continuing to make attacks on other Wikipedia users. G-WAN has now been online almost five full days. If you care so much about the article, why have you done little (if anything) to save it? Strikerforce (talk) 06:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

StrikerForce, I do not have the power to force (or to pay) any media to publish an article about G-WAN. Nor, apparently, can the other 26 Web servers do it - but this is a problem only for G-WAN - thanks to your war against G-WAN.81.63.74.18 (talk) 13:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My "war against G-WAN"? Well now, that kinda sorta makes my day. I didn't know that I, as an individual with but a modest income, could afford to wage "war". I learned something new today. That bit of humor aside, you are missing the point, once again. "If X, then Y" arguments and unfounded accusations against other editors are not the way to go at AfD. AfD, while it has no set time limit, tends to run approximately seven days when there are editors (or in this case, an editor) strongly contesting the deletion. I mentioned above that G-WAN has been online for about 120 hours. That means that you've got about 48 hours left before somebody may come through here and make a decision on closure, one way or the other. Why not cease your invalid arguments here and focus on improving the article? Or, did you just admit defeat by saying that you "do not have the power to force (or to pay) any media to publish an article about G-WAN"? Perhaps I am drawing conclusions, but that sounds like an admission of non-notability. Strikerforce (talk) 13:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC) I have struck commentary that may be considered in bad taste and/or inflammatory, upon second thought. It was genuinely intended as humor and to attempt to lighten up the situation a little, but given the stress that the IP contributor appears to be under during this discussion, the comment may not have been taken that away, so I offer my apology, in advance.[reply]

Comment Its worth noting that a RFC on user conduct is underway on Bugapi and the anon ip's being used here. Most editors involved in this discussion have been notified and many have participated in that discussion but all are welcome to contribute their thoughts there.--RadioFan (talk) 13:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: Are you sure? This all has now been proved to be a Make-up:

A Cherokee webserver Troll has been identified as (at least one of) the "fellow editor" working behind the scene to eradicate G-WAN[29], after an independent comparative benchmark largely turned in G-WAN's favor 85.2.10.158 (talk) 11:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of things to note about your comment, sir - 1) You should not bold large blocks of text in order to make a point, as it is considered disruptive. As such, I have removed the formatting from that text. 2) Once again, you have shown that you refuse to assume good faith. That link proves very little, if anything, and is largely a theory. (Side note: I have reformatted your remark slightly so that it maintains the indentation and doesn't make the page more difficult to read.) 3) Blogs do not typically qualify as reliable sources, so the second link that you have provided is, unfortunately, only marginally relevant to the discussion. Your article has now been online approximately 147 hours... and you continue to expend effort presenting wild conspiracy theories and circular arguments here, rather than improving the article. Strikerforce (talk) 11:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note Bugapi indef blocked, for blatant valdaism, WP:CIV, WP:SPA and another couple of policies. I initially placed a full protection on the article for three days to prevent more vandalism, but i lowered this to a three day semi now, as that should counter vandalism while allowing for improvements from other editors. Besides this, i'd ask all commentors to keep remember that this is not a ballot, and that using multiple IP's (sockpuppets) and asking other people to comment (meatpuppetry) is not allowed. I hasten to add that using these tactics equally won't sway the result of this discussion, as consensus is reached on the basis of adherence to the respective policies. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability established.--Sloane (talk) 02:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' contra Smerdis of Tlön , notability of back office software is to be judged with respect to other back office software, not to consumer software. Software is not a homogenous group of things, and the sources forthe various markets are quite different. Specialized sources are sufficient for specialized products, and coverage of them in general osurcesi s never needed. Wikipedia combines general and specialized encyclopedias . — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) who should probably know to sign things ;) Syrthiss (talk) 11:14, 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. -- Lear's Fool 13:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nashville Christian Advocate

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

Contested redirect - I tried redirecting this several times to Methodist Episcopal Church, South, as it did not appear to be notable outside the church itself, but the article creator kept reverting. References are all offline and uncheckable at this time. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 13:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks like a valid stub, with potential for improvement. About 400 hits in Google Books[30]. Most of them are just incidental mentions, but here, for example, is material that verifies the earlier history of the paper in A History of American Magazines 1850-1865[31]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources already in the article and those that Arxiloxos has found. There seems to be enough on this subject to make it worth keeping. I'll add that "references are all offline" is not a reason for deletion, and just because you don't have personal access to them, does not mean that someone else can not check them. LadyofShalott 22:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course! There is plenty of evidence of the subject's notability. The proposal to merge with the publishing denomination rests on an erroneous assumption that because church newspapers have a narrow audience in 2011, therefore they must always have had a narrow audience. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 03:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability doesn't require web references.SBaker43 (talk) 13:23, 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 speedy delete per criterion A9. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revolver(Warehouse Republic Single)

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

Fails WP:GNG - no coverage in third party reliable sources. Disputed PROD Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 12:54, 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. -- Lear's Fool 13:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Neil Falcone

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

This article is not quite the same as was deleted per previous AFD as it contains more recent information~~he has now been published offline.~~ So rather than overturn the previous AFD or delete as substantially identical, I am opening a fresh AFD to see if consensus has shifted. Ϣere SpielChequers 12:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. He has not been published offline yet. His story will allegedly be published in an anthology in June 2011 by MayDecember Publications. That in itself does not make him notable as an author at all. This is basically an unreferenced (and seemingly unreferenceable) biography of a living person, apart from the fact that he has published various short stories on e-zines. I have removed per WP:BLP biographical information including where he lives and the name of his child. No reference whatsoever was provided for those personal details and until one from a reliable source can be found, the material should not be re-added. I have {{fact}} tagged the rest. I also changed the text to reflect what the reference actually said concerning his story "Six". It generated seventy on-line votes not "reviews" as had been stated in the article (link now broken). (This story also generated 5 two sentence comments by other website users.[32]) All sources are merely links to his own online published stories and a couple of very brief mentions in blogs and other self-published websites. Comprehensively fails WP:AUTHOR as well as WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO, just as it did the first time. Voceditenore (talk) 13:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Voceditenore (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. - As is detailed below by talk below, the Falcone article fits within the general community acceptance standards previously articulated in this area of coverage. Having said that, all should applaud [User:Voceditenore|Voceditenore]] and her excellent contributions to the article. Her position on the article here and below is the only really detailed enuciation of the standard, followed by an application of facts. The entire detractors' argument effectively collapses into her (or his) argument. Coldplay3332 (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. My mistake. Forgot to sign in. This URL above is me having my morning Starbucks's.Coldplay3332 (talk) 12:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. One more note. After doing the cite-checking for this author, I contacted some of the magazines and have further documentation to track down. Allegedly, he has been accepted for anthology publishing three more times. “Home to Meet Mother” will be appearing in ‘Dark Secrets’ some time this year. “White” and “Slay Bells” have been accepted into a winter-themed horror anthology entitled ‘Winter Chills,’ again this year. “Meat” is moving to print, in ‘Dark Gothic Resurrected Magazine.’ I will follow up on these; though I am not a fiction reader, this is the great thing about being a part of Wikipedia. You learn so much (such interesting title!). Coldplay3332 (talk) 12:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete and salt - It is pledge season at Cornell University, and I fear that the Cornell chapter of Phi Kappa Psi has made spamming Wikipedia with articles about their recent graduates one of their pledge projects. While I think that learning about alumni is an admirable undertaking for college freshmen, I suggest that they temper their urge to share their research on Wikipedia. Racepacket (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have no CoI in this proceeding; did got to college in the city Falcone grew up in, but his ties to Syracuse University seem to be limited. Also, I am not a co-worker of another editor in this AfD, nor am I a frat guy. I did post the common network tag, just in case. But as we all know now that we are moving to behavioral analysis, the CU process is being hampered by new technologies. The best defense against conflicts are well-argued, documented positions the Administrator can follow and verify. Am troubled that Racepacket is a former Trustee of Cornell and has not stated so in this proceeding, but has in the past. I can see why a University media office may not want a horror writer put forward as an examplar of the Old School, and how someone with ties to that school could influence debate. But again, if the arguments are strong and well documented, an Administrator can plod through. There is no evidence Racepacket is speaking for the University. Nor is there evidence that Phi Kappa Psi, or the Irving is representated. Lots of folks from last fall are not here. Coldplay3332 (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Unless there is some COI, the discussion should be standards based. The new material indicates notability, and the sources are independent of materials posted by the author. There appear to be some researching requirements, but we've all dealt with those issues in the past. What concerns me is the vision of a small elite within Wikidom is becoming he equivalent fo the French Salon of the 18th century, over-defining what is culturally acceptable to the exclusion of diversity. That is not Wiki; at least from this Syracuse grad's view.Coldplay3332 (talk) 20:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The COI is without question, but that has no bearing on notability, which is the sole criteria being considered here. Can you please state which of the notability criteria this article currently satisfies—not what you think they ought to be, but the existing ones? Can you please supply evidence that the article's subject, Ryan Neil Falcone, has himself been the subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, not simply that he got his short-stories published in various e-zines and allegedly will be published in the future in an anthology? Simply being published does not make the author notable. Voceditenore (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
State the Conflict of Interest Reviewed last falls discussion, and checked the participants against this discussion (including the Speedy Delete discussion), and I am not seeing the CoI. I think that should be discussed first: where is the CoI that is "without question"? Coldplay3332 (talk) 01:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As stated above, COI has no bearing on AFD policy. Its discussion here would therefore be both irelevant and inappropriate. Any COI concerns should be addressed at Talk:Ryan Neil Falcone. The previous AFD discussion mentioned COI because of the possibility of sock/meat puppetry being used in an effort to vote stack. There is currently no reason to suspect that puppetry is influencing this discussion, and therefore no reason to bring up COI at this particular AFD.4meter4 (talk) 01:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sources may perhaps be independent of the subject of the article, but are they "reliable secondary sources" that demonstrate notability? Would these editors be fighting to include the subject of the article if he was not a Phi Kappa Psi recent graduate? Racepacket (talk) 02:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. Again, lots of conjecture here. Behavorial analysis can be an avenue for spreading rumors. We need to be careful. Coldplay3332 (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per voceditenore. The subject clearly fails the notability guidelines at WP:Author and more generally at WP:N. To Coldplay3332, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Notability, and Wikipedia:Verifiability as you seem to be completely ignorant about the purpose behind wikipedia and what it is trying to accomplish. 4meter4 (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Conclusory argument stating some standards, but not applying them. Effectively, an echo of Voceditenore's argument. Coldplay3332 (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Voceditenore. The article still fails WP:AUTHOR, as noted. Enigma^msg 03:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Again, a conclusory argument with some standards, no application of facts and an effective echo of Vocediternore. Coldplay3332 (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, refs do not establish notability, it's not even close. Hairhorn (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Comment. Conclusory argument, no standards and no echo. Coldplay3332 (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing this writer's achievements passing WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. I would need to be seeing discussion of the writer's work in reliable sources, independent reviews, nominations for recognised awards, and while this writer may have a promising career ahead I don't think he notable yet to the degree wikipedia accepts. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 23:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This editor over applies the standard. All the on-line sources are reliable and independent; awards are certainly good evidence, but not required. The question this editor poses is really not about Falcone, but about Wikipedia. Has it become so conservative that it is culturally limited to traditional media, such as print. Coldplay3332 (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The Falcone article meets the Wikipedia standard for notability and sufficient reliability to ensure independence. Unlike a blog, competitive publication requires peer review. “Six” in Lighting Flash Magazine appears in a eZine compensating for the use of author’s works, and targets authorship of speculative fiction from the genres of science fiction, fantasy, and horror; exciting stories showing why writing is vital and compelling, and readers remember brilliant fiction years after they read it. Falcone’s work in Macabre Cadaver was selected for publication and received a reader rating of 5, out of 5 (“Awesome”). Subject’s work in Absent Willow Review met the criteria of that magazine, which is designed to highlight new talent. The Review is the fastest growing online magazine of its type and publishes great works of speculative fiction. So while the actual works are primary sources, the competitive rating of the article and the magazine editors’ decision to publish them are secondary sources of note in this eZine genre. With respect to reliability, Macabre Cadaver and the Review serve as aggregators of talent, vehicles of competitive notability; the subject of the article is more than a happenstance author in this genre; and the publisher stands aloof from the author, surveying the genre field. As for notability, significance is achieved in that original research is not required. The work is reliable for the reasons stated above. The two sources are secondary, in they themselves are not the work of the artist, but rather the aggregator of promising talent. Independence is achieved by the competitive process; the editors are deciding what is published, and not an editorial blogger. Beyond Macabre Cadaver and the Review, there are nine or fifteen other sources (depending on which ones you accept), secondary or otherwise, serving as a vehicle for the publishing of the subject’s primary works of art. Black Petals is run by book reviewers, and screens competitively. Micro-horror published a subgenre serving as the flash fiction or short-short venue. The general goal of a microfiction is to tell a story, set a mood or depict a scene in as few words as possible. Selection is competitive. Dark Fiction Spotlight specifically features the horror genres secret and established talent, it compensates, and the works are published based on reader review and assessement. The Foliate Oak Literary Journal is a student-run publication, but it publishes both student and non-student work. The decisions of each of these editors and their readers, in the aggregate, provides sufficient reliable sourcing establishing notability of this Wikipedia article. The article is within the WP:Author standard. For these reasons, ‘Keep.’ Lebowski 666 (talk) 00:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Since your argument above is largely copied (in places verbatim) from that written by Cmagha (the article's original creator) in the previous AfD, my response will be in a similar vein. All this wall of text says is that you think Falcone passes the notability criteria because he has verifiably had x number of stories published, and that links to these stories satisfy the criteria for significant coverage of him by secondary sources. Being published by "aggregators of promising talent" may be an achievement of sorts, but is no evidence of notability whatsoever. No awards, no reviews, no articles about the author or his work which are key to establishing the notability of an author. Macabrecadaver.com publishes lengthy articles, interviews, and reviews, but has nothing actually about Falcone or his work [33]. Absentwillowreview.com also has interviews [34] and "Editor's Choice" Awards [35], but Falcone appears in neither. Lightning Flash Magazine gives a "best fiction prize" to one story in each issue. Observe the results for the issue in which Falcone's story appears. Yes, Lightning Flash does compensate some authors, but only those whose stories win the "best fiction prize" and Falcone's did not. Voceditenore (talk) 08:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. The fact that Falcone's work will be availabe on Amazon.com and available for the Kindle makes Mr. Falcone significant. Lebowski 666 (talk) 17:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. Amazon stock on demand books and downloads of almost anything. In a couple of AfDs concerning books or authors, I have even commented that they weren't listed on Amazon as being something unusual. To be published in hardback by an established publisher (as opposed to our old friend lulu and others similar) is possibly more of a claim than Amazon listing (they sell lulu published stuff - if anyone wants it), but to have one short in an anthology published by a small publisher seemingly only a couple of years in the business is not much of an indication of notability. As I say below - come back when there's a real claim. Peridon (talk) 21:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- 'Comment. Again, missing the point. The on-line sources publishing Mr. Falcone's work are independent and reliable in and of their own. Coldplay3332 (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete due to lack of significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. Cind.amuse 05:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - my research turn up the same results as Voceditenore and Cindamuse. Kudpung (talk) 11:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The significant standard is not as strict as is implied, above. This is a debate about quality of citation, and that is tricky. The detractors are looking for culture endorsements of a specific nature not required for notability. Coldplay3332 (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see non-independent sources, unreliable sources, web pages by (not about) Falcone, etc etc, but no sign of anything that satisfies Wikipedia's requirements for establishing notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I am troubled that someone 'voting' was also the Administrator who ruled to not let the author join this discussion. Not sure how our CoI rules apply to these situations. Administrators making signficant decisions on the process ought not to opine on the merits, at least from my perspective. Coldplay3332 (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even the May December deal doesn't give notability. First, it's not out yet, and to judge by their pay rates for novellas (which wouldn't fill the tank on my car), not exactly going to make him rich from one story in an anthology. Don't get me wrong - I wish him success in a difficult field. This sort of stuff is good practice and good to show in a portfolio when you move on to the next level. I hope to see an article on Falcone which tells of his successful release by a more established publisher - but that time is not yet. Use all methods of publicising your endeavours - but not Wikipedia. We will wait to record them. Peridon (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Again, this is a debate about the type of sourcing, not its reliability or independence or significance. Old school saw print as the preferred medium, but the internet has changed that paradigm. Coldplay3332 (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - Reviewing the criteria for retention, Falcone’s notability is achieved by a minimum of two secondary sources. Despite its overbroad application by the elitist detractors on this AfD, notability is not a high standard. “Two secondary sources” -- that’s it. Mr. Falcone is listed in three issues of an regional Upstate New York newspaper (The Auburn Citizen), and the hire at his firm was the subject of Tweet, which is akin to a press release, which is also a secondary source. Four total, double the standard. Add the publishings (which are not on his personal blog) and you are at 15 secondary sources, seven times the standard. Excluding the multitude on-line publishings as a secondary source, the standard is met. The next question is whether the sources are sufficiently reliable so as to be independent, and if so, whether there are enough sources to establish ‘notability.’ Reliability is assessed through three criteria: (1) the nature of the work; (2) the creator; and (3) the publisher. These three indicia are also assessed in the context of the article’s subject. With respect to notability itself, look to three different criteria: (1) significance not requiring original research; (2) reliability; (3) secondary sourcing; and (4) independence. Significant coverage does not require the article to hold the subject as the main topic of the work. Reliability requires verifiable citations; sources may be published works in all forms and media. In additional, literary work falls under notability guidelines for people, but “[f]ailure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.” The context framing this article subject is electronic magazine, or “eZine” horror, supernatural and psychological thriller writing; this is not a Pulitzer genre but is worthy of coverage by Wikipedia as it is reflective of American popular culture. Within the eZine context, the subject has been published in two secondary sources, and publishing was competitive. Unlike a blog, competitive publication requires peer review. The decisions of each of these editors and their readers, in the aggregate, provides sufficient reliable sourcing establishing notability of this Wikipedia article. As for the newspaper articles, they are published in the routine reporting of an independent corporation, held to a community standard for accuracy. Hands down, this article wins on notability and sufficient reliability proving independence. So I vote to keep. Effete elitist snob (talk) 01:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC) — Effete elitist snob (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

NOTE: Account Effete elitist snob was created on 22 March 2011 ostensibly to post here. A WP:SPI will be filed shortly. Kudpung (talk) 04:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a large chunk of this is copied verbatim from the arguments of Cmagha in both Articles for deletion/Peter Shalvoy and Articles for deletion/Aaron Raitiere and the rest paraphrased, I refer you to the arguments from other editors at those AfDs, although the subject under consideration here has even more trivial coverage. Voceditenore (talk) 08:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Appears to have been adapted for this argument; the debate is available to all, and Rap style sampling ought not to be discouraged. If a previous approach is fine, it is fine. Again, this comment above shows that we are not undestanding that the medium has changed. Coldplay3332 (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Remember, the medium we are reviewing is the EZine; though not binding precedent, I think everyone needs to review the other work we have approved, explicitly, or implicitly (through acquiescence), as a Wiki Community. I just went through the letter “A”, for Authors, and this is what I have found. Folks, if you are convinced that this author is notable and the article reliably sourced – Mary Raymond Shipman Andrews – then only no sense of shame would allow you to not approve the article on Mr. Falcone. And look at this one:Jami Attenberg. Another reason the Falcone article meets the Wiki standard. Other articles serving as persuasive precedent for allowing the Falcone article: Mohammed Naseehu Ali (notability and source reliability on par with the article we are discussing); Steve Almond (though the article has a little more style, this author’s work and development as an artist is on par with Mr. Falcone); Lisa Alther (notability and source reliability on par with the article we are discussing); Brian Antoni (I see little difference between the notability of Mr. Antoni’s work, and Mr. Falcone’s, and Mr. Falcone’s seems better documented); Shaila Abdullah (which was flagged as having potential notability problems over a year ago, and which has been left up, showing disparate treatment of subjects); Jacob M. Appel (you’ve allowed this article to stay up since October; his work is about on par with Mr. Falcone’s); Rilla Askew (ditto with this one); William Austin (author) (ditto with this one); Jody Azzouni (ditto with this one); based on these examples, I vote to retain the article. Charles2001 (talk) 03:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)— Charles2001 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment As this is simply a close paraphrase with only the article names changed of Cmagha's final argument in Articles for deletion/Peter Shalvoy, I refer you to my reply there, especially Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 08:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. At the argument is presented, rather than just making an 'echo' using another editor's name. And the material is worth reviewing. Coldplay3332 (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Account Charles2001 was apparently created on 22 March 2011 ostensibly to post here. A WP:SPI will be filed shortly. Kudpung (talk) 04:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. For the reasons articulated above. The numerous sources used in the article provide sufficient evidence of the notability of Mr. Falcone and the credibility of his work. Rippntwinkie (talk) 21:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC) — Rippntwinkie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

NOTE: Account Rippntwinkie was apparently created on 22 March 2011 ostensibly to post here.4meter4 (talk) 21:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The element within the standard governing this is whether , given the lack of substantial depth in coverage, the remaining multiple independent sources establish notability or whether those multiple sources are ‘trivial coverage’ insufficient to establish notability. Given that the subject has published through a minimum of 11 competitive processes, which include eZine reviews and hardcopy acceptance for publishing, the remaining independent sources do establish notability. We should be cautious in making statements which rate “hardcopy” published more significant than digital medium. There is also a troubling tendency in some editors’ comments to say that “independent” excludes digital sources, or blogs. “Independent” means “independent” of the subject. The subject’s blog would be a poor source, but not necessarily others’ blogs. Increasingly, authors are using Twitter, Linkedin, Facebook and other venues to by-pass those who would curtail speech, public and private. These sources are acceptable, neutral and not trivial. The horror eZine “scene” is anti-establishment, and was created by a group of artists marginalized by a cultural elite. These marginalized artists are significant in and of themselves. Accordingly, I vote to keep. Guille1292 (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)— Guille1292 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Reply This nothing to do with rejecting out of hand eZines as sources. The fact is that there is no coverage of Falcone in the eZines either, apart from their having published his stories. There are no interviews with, articles about, or prizes awarded to him by their editorial staff, although they have covered and awarded prizes to many other authors. Voceditenore (talk) 08:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. Indeed, that is the point: they published his work. Coldplay3332 (talk) 12:23, 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 speedily deleted (G3) by Ponyo. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Kreisling

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

This is an article about someone that, as far as can be determined, didn't exist. While the original information is almost certainly a hoax, the article was likely created in good faith. I originally prodded it but another editor has pointed out that, given the high chance the article will be recreated at some point (disinformation on the internet being what it is), an AfD would be better to get a mandate to salt the article against recreation.

Related Milhist discussion here. EyeSerene^talk 10:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blatant hoax. Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - obvious hoax. I'm fine with salting as well. Parsecboy (talk) 11:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notwithstanding the bizarre claims made about this person (which do yell "Hoax" or myth to me too), there is no sign of any Reliable Sources to prove they existed so the article fails under that respectGraemeLeggett (talk) 11:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - blatent hoax - needs salting. Speedy close if possible Kernel Saunters (talk) 11:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax as established above. I'm wondering if this is more than just something made up one day, and if there might be notability to the hoax itself. bahamut0013^words _deeds 12:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I originally tagged it for multiple issues because I was not sure if it was a hoax and I could only find one (non reliable) source. Further research reveals no substance to the article. Kudpung (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I thought this was a hoax, I have tried to find sources and have found none that would pass RS. Most of the article is unreferenced any way (including the more bizarre claims). No sources for White Wolf of the luftwaffe either (and this sounds a bit like She wolf of the SS to me). Given the nature of the claims I would have thought that there would have been at least one RS (or photo) on line and there’s none (also only the SS were admitted to his round table, not members of the Luftwaffe). The while thing stinks of hoax.Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The linked sources are unreliable and appear to replicate each other. Any pictures I've seen of "Kreisling" actually appear to be Hanna Reitsch. There's been a fair amount of discussion about this on some aviation message boards, and it's been roundly debunked. But the hoax has made its way into answers.com and some other places, so it's got legs (and has taken some funny turns...here. Himmler's "round table" was reserved for Gruppenfuhrers, so they got that part wrong (in addition to everything else).Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Ugh, there's an article on Kreisling? Here? Please just slap a {{db-hoax}} and be done with it, this is a well-known and long-debunked hoax within WWII circles. Tarc (talk) 14:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why the surprise, this is whre all internet hoaxes end up. Its why we need to slap down on them harder.Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a fairly extensive search turns up no reliable refs and so I can only conclude that the existence of this person is a hoax. The idea of converting the article to deal with the on-going hoax is interesting, but again there are no reliable refs that say it is a hoax! - Ahunt (talk) 14:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (I've already !voted above). I think we should speedy this now and salt it) Kudpung (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is wrong on so many levels.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As no attmept has been made to defend this page I think Speedy would be good.Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main reason to complete the AfD as opposed to CSD is that will prevent it being re-created in the future. We could call WP:SNOW and close the AfD early however. - Ahunt (talk) 15:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly right Ahunt :) EyeSerene^talk 15:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are just deleting the de:Anna Kreisling as fake. --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 15:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No this debate is about the English Wikipedia version, but I note that the German language article is up for AfD as well and the same points are being made. - Ahunt (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's what Eingangskontrolle was trying to tell you ;-) --El Grafo (talk) 15:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake, I thought it was a question and not a statement. - Ahunt (talk) 15:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth noting that the German Wikipedia article has now been deleted as a hoax. - Ahunt (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a blatant hoax and salt. A hoax in the conspiracy and counterfactual history blogosphere:Google hoaxilicious coverage. The article is bound to get re-created otherwise.Ironically, if she got discussed in books and mainstream media articles about myths, legends and hoaxes, the story might become as encyclopedic as articles about the Easter Bunny, Paul Bunyan, and the Tooth fairy. Her mythical exploits are not yet reliable covered enough to justify such an article where they are labelled as a myth. Edison (talk) 17:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd like to reiterate that it appears that this article that was created in good faith and that no sanctions should be taken against the originator. Carrite (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We generally do not block for a first creation of this kind. It's a hoax, but it's not egregious. Kudpung (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have speedily deleted the article as an obvious hoax and salted against recreation based on the consensus above.--Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 18:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't argue with that, we were into a WP:SNOW situation here pretty clearly. - Ahunt (talk) 18:51, 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 KEEP. Article has already been retitled as User:Location describes below. postdlf (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Magdalena Stoffels

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

A tragedy with front page news coverage, several high-ranking officials commented on her death. Still this is largely WP:ONEEVENT with no historic significance. The person itself is not notable per own achievements. Pgallert (talk) 09:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Keep Although the article now is not written in proper WP style, the event seems like it might have had some lasting impact. Kitfoxxe (talk) 10:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A tragic murder, but then again, all murders are tragic. See WP:VICTIM for consensus on dealing with such sad stories. Cullen328 (talk) 19:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - needs additional sources, but seems to have had an impact in the nation.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. But needs serious cleanup to become NPOV. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Murder of Magdalena Stoffels since the article is about an event and not a true biography. I will admit that I do not follow the news in Namibia, however, this murder appears to have sparked a large amount of outrage and generated a large amount of news coverage. I have had a go at making this a properly worded and formatted article, but I've saved the original incarnation for other editors to view. If someone wants to remove that section now, they are certainly free to do so. Location (talk) 05:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Substantially delete: yes, crime was covered by media, but actually every crime is. Yet I can't understand why this crime should be more notable than similar ones. We're not a newspaper. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 12:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - evidently it is an event with consequences broader than the immediate family and friends and the inevitable legal consequences, so I think it falls the right side of the boundary. The Land (talk) 23:13, 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 DELETE. Anyone who wants to merge it somewhere can follow Dream Focus' link below for the content. postdlf (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the Triad

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

Clearly non-notable, this article has only one source, and not enough sources to improve the article. JJ98 (Talk) 08:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Entirely in-universe trivia. If you like the show watch it. Retelling the story has no value to non-fans, or to fans either. (i.e. If you are a fan you already know this stuff, if you are not it is meaningless.) Kitfoxxe (talk) 10:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Improper content fork with no inherited notability. Search mentions are minor and usually related to plot citation, not any in-depth analysis. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I transwikied it to http://venturebrothers.wikia.com/wiki/Order_of_the_Triad so anyone who cares about the article can just find it there, full history and all. Dream Focus 22:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to one of the character lists. Jclemens (talk) 22:33, 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 speedy delete. G12 Copyvio of en.metapedia.org/wiki/The_Initiate. No judgement with regards to notability. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Initiate (Journal)

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

Article de-PRODded by creator, PROD concern was "Non-notable magazine. No independent sources, no indication that this meets WP:GNG in any way". A few apparently independent sources added, but none of great import (and at least one probably not a reliable source). Crusio (talk) 07:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Intiate is used as source in at least two wikipedia entries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy_Southgate and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicol%C3%A1s_G%C3%B3mez_D%C3%A1vila), contains new translations of several well known authors and is widely available. There is no reason to delete the article, though additional external sources should possibly be requested/added.--BenthamBrackets (talk) 07:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems like the type of serious topic WP should have articles on. There is at least some secondary sourcing. I'm aware that some people "don't like it." I don't like it myself. Kitfoxxe (talk) 10:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 11:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments 1/ Whether a magazine is cited in WP articles or not, is immaterial to questions of notability. 2/ The "secondary sources" mentioned by Kitfoxxe consist of an obscure Norwegian magazine and another magazine for which the URL itself (http://www.users.on.net/~mmellors/TheInitiate2.html) already indicates that this is not a reliable source. 3/ The current article consists of mentioning that there have been two issues published and that a third is planned (violates WP:NOTCRYSTAL: note that this nominally "biannual" magazine has published one issue in 2008 and one in 2010), tables of contents and quotes from articles (violates WP:NOT) and from the publisher's website promoting the second issue (violates WP:NOTADVERTISING), and a description of a "controversy" consisting of an article in the first issue with apparently an angry response in the second issue, making for quite a circular argument for notability. As for "don't like it", I don't care what this magazine publishes, all I care about is that there is no indication that this meets WP:GNG. I have not addressed the problems signaled here, because I did not want to remove that text (most of the article) just before taking it to AfD. --Crusio (talk) 12:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to make these well expressed comments. I agree that the case for delete is very good. I almost "voted" that way myself. I also wasn't saying that your nomination was based on "I don't like it." The ideas which this magazine seems to promote are very dangerous and, to me at least, distasteful. So "I don't like it." But still it could be important. At least this is a serious topic.Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's a potential copyright issue with this article. The text as it was originally posted appears to have been copy-pasted from Metapedia (I can't give the exact url as it's blacklisted). This discussion at ANI suggests that is a problem. If it's decided to keep the article it will need a re-write. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 20:12, 18 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 speedily deleted as unambiguous copyright violation. Page was a cut and paste of this site; changing pronouns from "we" to "they" was about the only change made here. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Business Alliance for Vietnamese Education

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

fails WP:ORG. 6 gnews hits in 15 years of existence is hardly significant. [36]. looks like a copy and paste of its own website. LibStar (talk) 06:48, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ethocentric

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

Contested PROD; unreferenced apparent neologism. Feezo (Talk) 06:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dictdef. —Lowellian (reply) 10:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if "ethocentric" was an established word it still shouldn't have an article by "WP is not a dictionary." The concept should probably be a section in Ethics, like "Ethics in society" or something like that. Kitfoxxe (talk) 10:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'd suggest redirecting this to ethnocentrism as a plausible misspelling. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so too at first, but there are enough hits for "ethocentric" at Google Books[37] and Scholar[38] to suggest that this is a real, if jargonistic, word, used notably by the philosopher Philip Pettit and used by others as well. Here's one explanation of the word, from a journal called Inquiry, that describes Pettit's "non-sceptical solution called the ethocentric account of rule-following, because it is based upon the habits of response and the practices of negotiation that make up the ethos of the subjects involved."[39] --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Kitfoxxe. GoogolplexForce (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - dictionary definition of obscure neologism. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 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 : snowball deletion, not notable/unreferenced. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 13:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 First Flight High School protests and walkouts

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

Unremarkable essay on a local event based solely on original research. Lacks any coverage in 3rd party sources, Google News is bring up nothing on the subject. RadioFan (talk) 03:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. —RadioFan (talk) 10:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —RadioFan (talk) 10:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, utterly non-notable, not mentiomed in the the third party refs given. Hairhorn (talk) 13:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was absoulutley referenced. That is not a reason for deletion.--71.80.52.242 (talk) 22:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of third party coverage is a reason for deletion, sorry. Hairhorn (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I say delete it. There's close to zero sources on this walkout, and if so it's only a couple high schools, and relatively unimportant. If there were protests in the streets of the capital city, like in Wisconsin or Ohio or Michigan, then it deserves a spot on 2011 United States public employee protests, but not it's own article. When/if there are major Wisconsin-style protests in North Carolina, then yes give those protests it's own page. But when it's a relatively minor high school walkout, then no. It could get a mention on the page I posted earlier, but nothing other than that. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 18:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One out of 4 students participated in the walkout and most supported it. That should be pretty notable.--71.80.52.242 (talk) 22:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - totally non-notable and un-noticed. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I say keep. People have gotten arrested and suspended. There has been internet censorship at the school on Wikipedia over the protests.--71.80.52.242 (talk) 22:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have reliable sources that can be referenced describing those arrests? --RadioFan (talk) 01:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable at all. Locally important but no impact outside of the school or town. --Tainter (talk) 22:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While recording the history of such local strike actions may be important to their participants, Wikipedia is not the place for such unsourced original publications. Carrite (talk) 01:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a marketing tool. S51438 (talk) 03:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is referenced only to YouTube and Facebook (neither of which is an independent reliable source), and to sources that don't even mention these walkouts. If this incident isn't even being covered in the local media (or, for that matter, media anywhere else), it seems unlikely that it could be notable enough to be worthy of coverage in an encyclopedia directed at the entire world. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment all guidance to source this article has been ignored. Please dont ignore guidance to avoid inclusion of names of students or anyone else unless it is properly referenced. This appears to be a cute hoax but including names could lead to far more serious accusations of libel.--RadioFan (talk) 21:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The more I read this article, the less convinced I am that these protests and walkouts occurred in the first place. One would think that if there were noticeable protests like this at a high school, they would at least receive some media coverage as the subject of a moral panic being portrayed by local television stations and newspapers. Of course, I could be wrong, but until I see some reliable sources covering these events, I'm going to take this article with a grain of salt. (Note that the YouTube videos formerly used as sources for this article didn't depict any event that was recognizable as a protest or walkout.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've seen no media coverage of this, and if North Carolina is not a unionised state, then this makes even less sense. Seems very likely to be a hoax, or some minor things planned by local students (made all the more likely by the multiple mentions of 'Wikipedia collaboration'. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, absence of evidence for the existence of this event isn't evidence of absence, but absence of evidence is definitely evidence of nonnotability. Without solid references, this easily fails one of our core policies. Nyttend (talk) 03:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable in the least bit. Strikerforce (talk) 04:26, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Miller (writer)

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

A novelist who has not released his first novel fails any reasonable definition of WP:NOTABILITY Nat Gertler (talk) 02:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. This young man is just starting out and is not an established author in the remotest sense. Seaphoto^Talk 03:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 02:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject of this article does not appear to meet the guidelines WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. WP:CRYSTAL also applied here as we cannot predict if this person will eventually meet the guidelines. VQuakr (talk) 03:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article lacks reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for authors. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 03:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promo page. —Lowellian (reply) 10:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 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 merge to List of The Venture Bros. characters. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Molotov Cocktease

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has no sources to establish the notably and no real world coverage, it contains OR. JJ98 (Talk) 00:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is unsourced, but references do exist, even though I can't add them myself (I'm saying this because I did a small research about the character) she is relevant to the series (The Venture Bros.) because she is important for a back story, so what the article needs is a clean up and reference additions. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 02:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to one of the character lists for The Venture Brothers. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 03:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - to the character list article. Yaksar (let's chat) 04:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to one of the character lists, per the IP. Jclemens (talk) 22:34, 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 merge to List of The Venture Bros. characters. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Myra Brandish

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

Only 8 sources, this character is non-notable and it has no third party coverage and no real world coverage. JJ98 (Talk) 00:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This character has a (limited and) small role within its series, it is relevant to the series, but this is debatable. Maybe move and merge the article? Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 02:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of secondary characters from The Venture Bros. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 03:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per the IP. Jclemens (talk) 22:35, 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 merge to List of The Venture Bros. characters. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom Limb (The Venture Bros.)

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

Clearly non-notable, this article has only one source. JJ98 (Talk) 00:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to one of the character lists for The Venture Brothers. 184.144.160.156 (talk) 03:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per the IP. Jclemens (talk) 22:35, 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 delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Social productivity

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

Original research basically unchanged since 2006. It is weird that it was frequented by many to fix typos and links and other subuseful stuff, but nobody actually paid attention to its content. Lom Konkreta (talk) 19:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Clearly an essay. Unfortunately for this process, it does appear to be a notable term. See for example a paper by Wahrendorf and others on social productivity and the elderly, by Barnett on social productivity and the law and a definition on its use in social science. I suspect that is why it has survived and it probably needs a clean up rather than deletion. The approach delete and let somebody else recreate may not be the right one if the article is salvageable. Unfortunately, I'm not sufficiently familiar with the topic to judge. AJHingston (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Unfortunately, I'm not sufficiently.." -- You nailed it. Who guarantees that this text is not a complete bullshit? And that is why it survived (virtually unchanged for 5 years): nobody knows and nobody cares. Lom Konkreta (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. The exact same situation was with "Economic progress". Lom Konkreta (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 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) 01:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete what seems to be an OR-laden, barely sourced essay. Kansan (talk) 02:41, 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the top and tail sections which seemed to be just dictionary-esqe definitions of the words; I hope that leaves just the core. But even there, it is needing significant cleanup - references for the assertions etc. Maybe it can be tidied and taken further from this kernel, but I suspect not, so weak delete. AllyD (talk) 22:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. & others, as well as WP:OR. While there is a list of references, none are cited in the text of the article, and it is far from clear how they substantiate the content. --JayJasper (talk) 21:55, 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Trungelliti

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

appears to fail WP:NTENNIS: no Challenger titles, no main draw ATP World Tour matches played, a top junior ranking well outside the top 3 (or 10 even) Mayumashu (talk) 01:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the nom says, the subject does meet WP:NSPORTS and, after a google search, I can't find any evidence that he has received significant coverage in reliable sources, so doesn't pass the general notability guideline either. Jenks24 (talk) 12:46, 13 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} 00:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. LibStar (talk) 06:50, 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 no consensus. A close debate, but I don't see it leaning either way significantly. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spring 2004 Dior couture collection

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

As a previous editor's PROD stated, a designer can obviously be notable, but individual shows/collections are not. I agree for the most part. If this show represented some sort of milestone or landmark in fashion design, I wouldn't find an article objectionable, but as it is, it appears to be just another show, no different from countless others that have received similar coverage but no Wiki articles. As a result, I don't see how this article has any more encyclopedic value than articles on a random political speech or rock concert the media commented on. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 02:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 03:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as Dior is one of the most influential fashion houses in history and present, making this collection, and any other collection they've presented, notable. Just because we don't have proper coverage on Wikipedia of those other collections, or collections by other notable houses, doesn't mean that we shouldn't have this. We suck at fashion coverage, and this article is meant to spur on those with appropriate knowledge to correct our unintentional blindness to the industry, write about other collections. -- Zanimum (talk) 03:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Dior is a fashion heavyweight, but trying to rank designers/fashion houses by influence in order to decide whose collections all deserve articles and whose don't would be subjective. All collections by all notable designers should be allowed or none should be, and frankly, I don't feel Wikipedia needs hundreds or thousands of articles providing little more than aesthetic descriptions of clothing. The vast majority of these collections have no lasting significance. They're debuted in a fashion show and the media covers it only briefly—just like a news item. The "Further reading" section for this article demonstrates this; it's entirely composed of reviews written within a few days of the show (while the lone reference written later devotes only a single sentence to the collection in passing), clearly failing WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Not to mention, this article has been here for seven years and it has not spurred anyone into thinking more of them are needed. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 15:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A good case could be made to keep, since the event was well covered in the media. However the one event issue mentioned above seems to be a problem with "WP is not news." Also the there was no information on the real lasting importance of the event, just rather overenthusiastic impressions of the event itself-- I am sure reflecting the sources. To improve WP's coverage of fashion it would be better to work in the other direction and explain larger topics, as well as articles on important individuals, for the general reader. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could the article be renamed Dior couture collections, 2000s, and be kept without pruning? It would of course need expansion, but would that work? -- Zanimum (talk) 18:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)'[reply]

It would be better to cover the material in the main article on Dior. (There is a section titled "21st Century.") I wouldn't expect that any secondary source has covered the topic of the 2000s collections as a whole. Otherwise you would just be putting a bunch of non-notable articles together on one page. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:53, 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even though the event was about a major high-fashion clothing producer and retailer, the article itself is limited and it crashes with a Wiki guideline WP:ONEEVENT, because it was one event and one event only, and the article itself is written like a promo or advertising flyer. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 02:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This aesthetic work is more along the lines of a movie or book (or maybe a tv episode) than a news item. There is plenty of independent third-party coverage. It doesn't matter that this most reviews and commentary happened at the time of its release - Dior is a hugely important designer, and Dior collections are an important part of fashion history. We wouldn't delete an article about a movie (another aesthetic work) simply because most reviews of the movie were contemporaneous. Such a thing is to be expected. Also, as noted in the article, this was one of Galliano's most celebrated collections for Dior. We should have more articles like this, not less. (I have actually been working on one as a proof-of-concept in my sandbox for a while... See User:Calliopejen1/WIP/Spring 2009 Chanel couture collection.)Rebutting invalid reasons: WP:ONEEVENT has to do with biographies; promotional tone is fixed by editing not deletion. "Over-enthusiastic"? These are reviews by professional fashion critics, who have no more reason to be "over-enthusiastic" than film critics, for example. All or none? inability to use subjective criteria? This is the whole point of the notability guideline. We don't say that all books are notable or none are. And as far as a merger (because this should be preserved rather than deleted), what would be wrong with combining it with other shows? For a similar example of combining more minor happenings onto one page, see 2010 Stanford Cardinal football team. The idea of merging to Dior is silly, because this level of detail should not be crammed into the general page. It is ridiculous to think that all worthy information (that is, the information that Wikipedia should contain eventually) about Dior, which has a long history, could be combined into one page. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does matter that the reviews/commentary happened immediately after the show—WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE very specifically states that events are generally not notable when this is the case, and Dior being "hugely important" does not refute that. Not to mention, relating fashion shows to movies is not an apt comparison. I just googled Black Swan and three and a half months after its US release it's still receiving coverage and will likely be continually referenced for years to come. That's what happens with films. With fashion shows, on the other hand, after just three and a half days the coverage is over. Just the fact that one can argue that this show was one of Galliano's most celebrated and yet in terms of continued coverage it's received one measly sentence years later goes to show that even the supposedly-renowned shows/collections do not have enough lasting significance to warrant an encyclopedic article. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 13:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE doesn't apply to aesthetic works. Sure, Black Swan is still receiving coverage, but many movies are not, and we don't demand that they do. (Inclusion is okay as long as "The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.") If an art installation, for example, received full-length reviews from The Age, The Guardian, the New York Times (three reviews!), AFP, the Telegraph, and the New York Post, I don't think there would be a fight over whether it was notable. A movie also has a title for easy searching. Try going through these search hits to find all the relevant long-term coverage! There may be more, it will just be difficult to dig up. The most important industry publication, Women's Wear Daily, is also entirely behind a paywall, so it's possible there is more there. I'd concede that this coverage would probably be better if it were grouped with the other 2004 Dior collections (a la 2010 Stanford Cardinal football team, but I don't have the time to write that article right now, and to preserve information it's better to keep it where it is than delete it (and better to keep it where it is than merge it to Christian Dior S.A.). Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE pertains to events, and that's what we're dealing with here. Sure, you can call it an aesthetic work and say that's all this is about, but the coverage is all of a fashion show. Why else would the sources make note of models used and celebrities who showed up? Why else would the coverage be linked to a very specific time frame? If this collection had not been released via a fashion show, would it have received any coverage? No. Clothing designers put out new lines all the time and the media pays no attention without the fashion show - without the event. In that sense, a clothing collection has no notability at all. The event is what garners the coverage and this event fails WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 19:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? The article is titled "collection", and that's what is the most important point here. The event as such is of secondary importance. Lately you see more and more designers doing presentations rather than shows--see, e.g., this story. (Tom Ford had no problem getting people to review his collection, even though he did not have a "show" as such. Alexander McQueen's last collection wasn't in a "show", but it was in every paper imaginable.) If Christian Dior decided to present its next couture collection without a fashion show, reporters would still cover it. Fashion shows are simply the traditional way to "premiere" new collections. And major designers aren't just putting out lines willy-nilly. Designer clothing generally comes from two major collections per year (spring, fall), with adaptations from the runway. (There is also "resort" and "pre-fall" but these are generally commercial and not so directional--not where designers' big ideas go--and they generally receive little to no coverage.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:26, 22 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) 23:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Wight

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

The article subject is at best a "fringe" journalist and there have been repeated requests by various editors for his notability to be ascertained without any success. Sitush (talk) 03:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not state notability, and seems to be a promotional/ resume. Sumsum2010·T·C·Review me! 05:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a losing candidate, he fails WP:POLITICIAN. As a journalist, he has had articles published, but as far as I can tell, has not himself been covered in depth by reliable sources independent of the subject. Cullen328 (talk) 05:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article does not denotes his notability, he also fails to meet WP:POLITICIAN, his writing works are not covered by major writing industry or even if he is an independent writer he is not notable in that area. The article also does not references if his works have been published or not (in any newspaper, book or whatsoever), thus failing WP:NRVE. And the article's creator has only contributed within this article, Special:Contributions/Noradavison, if investigated further, that would be a case of either WP:PROMOTION or WP:MYSPACE. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 02:48, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SceneStream

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

Non-notable production company lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Unable to find any evidence of awards. Fails WP:COMPANY. ttonyb (talk) 05:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; repeated creation by SPA, likely promotional/conflict of interest. Notability questionable. --Ckatz^chat _spy 09:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:39, 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only other entry by the creator of this article has been to edit the Morning Star entry to place Wight's name between two well known figures. This does look like prmo / resume. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doranoyce (talk • contribs) 11:33, 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. Enough significant coverage in reliable sources distinct from myki. Whether it looks like an advertisement is irrelevant. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kamco

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

Speedy delete queried by the following discussion in my user talk page. It was also marked for delete with {{Copyviocore}} as a suspected copyvio of http://www.kamco.com.au/myki.html . Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just wondering why you deleted the Kamco entry. It is not only a registered company in Australia but is quiet often in the headlines in Victoria, Australia. There was some referenced material not copyrighted that was deleted. Why do people spend time updating this only to have Admins delete it. Disappointed and still confused why. Signed 'Insider' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.27.69 (talk) 09:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC) [reply]
- Page Kamco looks a lot like advertisement to me. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Having a heading of "Controversy in Victoria" would not appear to be an advertisement to me (which was all referenced). I would like to request re-instatement please. Still disappointed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.27.69 (talk) 10:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – notable as the contractor responsible for myki, the eticketing system for the state of Victoria (pop 5.5 million). The system is overdue and way over-budget and the state government is trying to decide whether to dump it, modify it or keep it, depending on the costs of terminating the Kamco contract early. Currently, most of the stories say "myki" rather than "Kamco", but that could change. - Pointillist (talk) 18:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It says that Kamco is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Keane (company), which has a very short article. In addition, interest in this company is confined to the myki smartcards. So why not cover this topic in those articles? Abductive (reasoning) 23:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, most of the detail should be in the myki article, but Kamco should be kept as the place for contract info like my links above. "myki" is the name used by the Transport Ticketing Authority for the smartcard system, whereas "Kamco" is the prime contractor (like TranSys and the Oyster card in London). The state could apparently replace Kamco as supplier and redesign myki without changing the name. That possibility is being investigated right now: Deloitte has prepared a confidential assessment that is currently being reviewed by the state Treasury. This is a big deal: the original 12-year contract to develop and operate the system was for AU$494 million, expenditure to end 2010 was AU$790 million and it is now being called the "troubled $1.35 billion ticketing system", which would be AU$245 for each man/woman/child who lives in Victoria. Keane (company) may have a short article but it is a subsidiary of NTT Data who turned over US$13.7 Billion last year. - Pointillist (talk) 00:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Kamco is generally more well known in Australia than the parent company.
This company has been active for further smart-card systems which will not be called Myki due to ownership of the name sitting (I believe) with the Department of Transport/TTA.
Kamco is currently being taken through the courts by Metcard and whilst it is Myki related, is more related to Kamco itself.
Newspapers: There are two main newspapers in Victoria where Myki is available. "The Age" has 285 online entries for "Kamco", the Herald-Sun has 54 according to Google search as of March 10th.
Now that the blatantly copied Myki advertorial section have been removed, the article can grow organically. This is difficult to do with the copyvio and deletion messages peppered throughout the article as it puts off new editors.
In twenty years, the Kamco experiment in Victoria will still be relevant and topical. There will no doubt be changes in the consortium through time through mergers and acquisitions. Longevity of this entry should be assured.
I would suggest (but cannot verify) that most Melbournians would know the name Kamco. Few outside the industry would know Keane

202.161.27.69 (talk) 20:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User Johanna Waldon (talk · contribs) (identified online as the "Communications Advisor at Kamco") turned the page into spam in January. It showed up in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as spam a couple of days ago, so I studied the page history and rolled everything back to the version prior to Waldon's edits (diff), but user 202.161.27.69 (talk) complained about that on my talk page so I self-reverted. There seem to have been two groups of anonIPs editing it post-Waldon, some removing unflattering information à la Waldon, others adding it back in. – Athaenara ✉ 19:42, 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The page looks like an advertisement. The company itself is limitedly notable in Australia and it is just a subsidiary, would it be the case to merge this article into the small article of its owner? Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 02:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another business that describes its industry as IT consulting, Software Services, Application Outsourcing, Business Process Outsourcing. Any claim to fame this business has is already dealt with quite adequately at myki. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'll be waiting for the disclosure of this XfD to propose a merge of Kamco into Keane article. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 17:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep again, because:

I blanked the "like an advertisement" material on Feb 28 (diff) well before this AfD, because it was copyvio. Unfortunately I didn't remove the {{advert}} template, and perhaps this was what precipitated the current AfD.
I still have work to do about sourcing but reliably-sourced criticism has been so easy to find that the current article could never be considered to be in Kamco's favour.
Sources for the contract at vic.gov.au are being taken offline, and Kamco is the only article where sources are being archived via webcitation.org. If Kamco is deleted, the links to archived sources will disappear.
It seems that the myki project will continue even if the contract with Kamco is terminated. If the Kamco article is merged into the myki article, the material about Kamco will be buried and perhaps eventually lost because they are no longer the contractor.
Kamco is only a small part of Keane, which is a small part of NTT Data. If the Kamco article is merged into the Keane article, the material about Kamco will be buried. Wikipedians from the state of Victoria are unlikely to watchlist Kamco's American and Japanese holding companies.

This article is nothing like an advertisement. In fact the main effect of deleting it would be to help Keane do news management around the myki debacle. - Pointillist (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC), updated 07:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you cannot !vote twice. LibStar (talk) 04:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most of the coverage relates to myki not the company itself, take away myki and you don't have much of an article. LibStar (talk) 04:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't want to !vote twice, of course, but I do want to emphasise that the article has been substantially rewritten since it was AfD-nominated (diff). There are now seven more references and the majority of them are specifically talking about Kamco's role in myki, which has not been covered properly in the myki article – and would not be maintained there if it the two articles were merged. - Pointillist (talk) 00:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. - Pointillist (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. - Pointillist (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. - Pointillist (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Have any of the delete !voters actually read the sources? This and this are directly about the company rather than just mentioning them in passing, and would certainly seem to meet the guideline over at WP:SIGCOV. Two reliable regional/national sources offering significant coverage is enough to meet WP:CORP, regardless of what some essay says. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Several articles that do not have enough notability have few websites pointing out to them, but essentially why does this company deserves to have an article within Wikipedia? It is a subsidiary, it is responsible for myki, but everything that is contained in Kamco article, is already written in myki's article, and also its owner article is very small. The company itself is not notable and I have made a research about it, because it is known as myki, not as Kamco, if the company had a variety products it would be notable, this is a case of WP:1EVENT. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 19:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:1EVENT applies only to people, not to companies, otherwise this would indeed be a concern. As far as I'm aware the presence and quality of articles about the system and the company's parent are irrelevant to whether or not this article should exist, at least as far as policies and guidelines are concerned. As for why they deserve an article... well, blame whoever wrote WP:GNG and WP:CORP, both of which they meet. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kamco is a household name in southern Australia and have been in discussions with other state governments. The Victorian government has already committed 1.3bn AUD and as a cause celeb in removing the previous state government, deserves a place. It is not only a IT shop, it changed the political party from left to right in Victoria. 101.109.93.1 (talk) 16:00, 22 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Final Departure (film)

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

Article about a non-notable film which fails to meet the basic standards of Wikipedia:Verifiability. The "director" of the film is the user who created the article. --LoЯd ۞pεth 18:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Administritive note - this AfD was createsd at the time based on the sig, but wasn't listed untiljust now. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no references, no apprent coverage from independent sources. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The film and filmmaker fail WP:V. Searches find only unreliable sources, most of which themselves point back to Wikipedia. Possible hoax article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:47, 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly a case of failing at WP:V, but also it goes against several guidelines and policies, including (but not limiting to) WP:NOTBLOG, WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:NOR. The article also fails WP:NOTFILM. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 03:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If this article eventually gets deleted wouldn't be convenient to also delete Rodolfo Esteban as it is just a redirection page? Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 03:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the redirect goes to this one article, when the article is gone, a redirect to a redlink will be taken care of. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:07, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vik Foxx

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

Non notable topic that does not meet WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pretty much everything I found was about Enuff Z'nuff or other bands, mentioning Vik Foxx only in passing. Seems to have no notability outside of these bands, notability is not inherited. Rehevkor ✉ 14:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd have to agree with Rehevkor, I can't find anything establishing notability for this person. Not to mention the dangerously unsourced material under the first heading... :) [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 17:02, 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:20, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sand and Foam

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

There is no evidence that this book meets the guidelines of WP:BOOK or WP:GNG. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 15:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 15:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, Twinkle hates me. :P Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A completely undeveloped microstub. --Kumioko (talk) 14:46, 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's almost nothing here. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 02:28, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Anderson (singer)

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

No sources at all! RockyMM (talk) 12:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, now there are two sources. J04n(talk page) 22:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per JO4n .... two more sources since afd started.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:52, 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, UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article was nominated twice, but not listed in the log. Dumbbot caught the second one and listed it on March 8, but this afd is the only one of the two that has comments. So I closed the second and relisted this one. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:52, 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources added by J04n demonstrate the subject meets WP:GNG. Gongshow ^Talk 04:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources are not non trivial coverage of Anderson. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:39, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mónica Villaseñor

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

Long-term unreferenced biography of a living person. No reliable sources found despite searching in the usual places. CharlieDelta (talk) 21:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —CharlieDelta (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a listing at ANN Encyclopedia but this can't be used as a RS. There's nothing at [40] (which can be regarded as a RS. No GNews hits. Articles on voice actors can be hard to source but mostly I find something. This time I've come up blank. I posted a request for help at Wikiproject Anime and Manga with no response.--CharlieDelta (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 22:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:14, 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sorry, I can not find any good sources. Bearian (talk) 00:42, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mercedes Benz Limousine W126

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

This article isn't needed as info about that model is included in Mercedes-Benz W126 article, it's written like an advert, furthermore it is a duplicate of article: Mercedes Benz Limousine W126 (1000SEL) (which I also nominated for deletion for the same reasons). SHAMAN 15:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: and merge any verifiable information into Mercedes-Benz W126. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I added a bullet about the "SEL1000" into the article, it was a tuned version, not manufactured by Mercedes.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 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.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:34, 13 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} 00:17, 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 redirect to List of awards and nominations received by Reba McEntire. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards received by Reba McEntire

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

It is an out-of-date list superseded by List of awards and nominations received by Reba McEntire. Michaela den (talk) 13:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 14:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: Given the quantity of awards won, I don't see it feasible to have an article that contains both awards won and nominations. If anything should be deleted it should be List of awards and nominations received by Reba McEntire, which has the capability to become a huge list of un-useful listcruft. The article is already set up for awards won by being in bullet-point format as it is only a COPY of a previous revision of the won-article. Both articles are poorly designed (listing dates mixed with award sections), but with work I feel that this article is the one worth keeping and fixing up. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 14:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've completely re-sorted the article by award vs. date. None of the information was verified, I simply re-organized all of the information on the page exactly how it was written before. I've also added a basic infobox. This article's new format should, at minimum, be merged with List of awards and nominations received by Reba McEntire. But my vote is still to keep. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 15:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as content fork of List of awards and nominations received by Reba McEntire. Carrite (talk) 22:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Content fork that adds nothing. Duplicative articles duplicate the trouble without any gain. Shadowjams (talk) 03:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge into the main article on Reba McIntire. SanchiTachi (talk) 12:30, 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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

City High School, Nairobi

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

School indicated closed in 1995 in web site referenced in article Chris55 (talk) 23:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. That "source" you added was a Worldlingo site that is a mirror of Wikipedia. 2. Notability is not temporary: if it was notable before it closed, it is notable now. 3. High schools are generally considered notable. That said, we've not yet verified the school exists and was opened by the Sharma family, which I'm not finding easy. Fences&Windows 22:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, could be derived from List of schools in Kenya article where it has been flagged for some time. I know nothing about the school - was just doing cleanups when I came across it and thought something should be done about it. The entry in List of Schools was added by IP 71.149.142.85 also on 2 Feb 2007 (same date as this article was created). Whether this is the same as user:Karaoo I don't know. You could ask them. Chris55 (talk) 22:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If this 20-year old (as of 2009) went there it can't have closed in 1995. Either way it exists or existed, and so the article should be retained. I'm not convinced about the policy of automatically regarding High Schools as notable, but given that's what we do, and we have articles on American high schools that might not pass the gneral notability guidelines, to exclude this one on that basis would only contribute to Wikipedia's systemic bias. --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are still a lot of holes in the story of this school, but the article now cites several sources and lists 3 notable alumni (not even including that 20-year-old who attended a school by this name). The school looks notable. --Orlady (talk) 04:44, 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article appears notable, is useful for countering systemic bias. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep schools are notable and this one existed. Chris55 (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - high school; notable; we should await a search for local sources which always exist for high schools. TerriersFan (talk) 19:00, 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Turkmenistan national rugby union team

AfDs for this article:

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

No sources and no information to suggest the team exists (the team is not ranked by the IRB) Intoronto1125 (talk) 03:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkmenistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 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) 00:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No content. No references. No notability. That's 3 good reasons to delete. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 21:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. RossRSmith (talk) 00:00, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chromatabs

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

Non-notable Firefox extension. Was previously deprodded, so bringing it here. B (talk) 03:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable software that fails the general notability guideline. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 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) 00:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 17:43, 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 both. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nestor Filotti

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

The claim for notability for these two fellows seems to be that they owned some land and a big farmhouse, and had lots of children, a handful of whom (or of whose descendants) went on to become notable in their own right. I'm afraid I don't find that very convincing. For Filotti, the only source presented is an obscure book by a descendant which hardly even mentions him - check for yourself. For Taşcă, we have as the main source a lecture delivered, as well, by a descendant. The sort of ample coverage in independent sources we might expect is completely lacking. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page:

Delete both, per nominator. The only claims of notability appear to be relationships to other notable people (contrary to WP:NOTINHERITED) and being "considered" patriarchs of non-notable families (one family article deleted at AfD; the other looking likely to head the same way) - again contrary to WP:NOTINHERITED. These are part of a set of articles which have been created about several linked families which do seem to contain one or two notable individuals but that notability does not extend to everyone else. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both This is part of the Filotti-Taşcă clutter that has been catching a free ride on wikipedia for a scandalously long time. See related discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taşcă family, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Filotti family, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ligia Filotti, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ion Filotti and so on. Dahn (talk) 14:55, 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:08, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Finch-Saunders

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

This person is a political candidate only, currently non notable and failing WP:POLITICIAN if elected of course will warrant an article. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 20:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She would qualify in May if she's elected. Mandsford 21:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per past outcomes interpreting our guidelines on politicians. In her case, she has been involved as an advisor on Concervative party local government issues, and has been elected to office in Wales, albeit a relatively minor post. I would put her in the same category as Harry Wilson (businessman) and Pete Williams (journalist) as a political figure. Bearian (talk) 18:05, 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) 00:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not think that she meets the notability guidelines for politicians. Her appointment as a political advisor to an assembly member is clearly outside the guidelines, since it is non-elective, unpaid, and what might be called a political aide elsewhere. And although she is an elected councillor on Conwy County Borough Council that authority serves a population of only 112000. AJHingston (talk) 00:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a candidate means she does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. LibStar (talk) 15:26, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Semibeings

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

Confusing restoration of a previous Prod, CSD??? Article contains no references from Reliable sources to verify, and does not meet WP:N. I like to note that its very essay like. Phearson (talk) 21:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to try and clarify the history somewhat - this was previously located at The Semibeings where it was prodded and had the prod declined in March 2010. Apparently that went unnoticed since it was then prodded and deleted in December 2010. It was recently recreated from a mirror site so I restored the article history for attribution taking it as a contested prod per WP:REFUND. Given the history of prods, the likelihood of recreation, and the assertions of reviews by Option and RollingStone.com I declined an A7 tag. I have no opinion on the article's notability at this time. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's a short bio and reviews at Allmusic, an Option review is partially visible via Google Books, WZBN News TV item that confirms some of the other parts of the article ([41]), plus two albums on significant enough labels (C/Z Records and Shimmy Disc) - passes two criteria of WP:BAND. --Michig (talk) 07:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 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) 00:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:BAND per criterion 5. I agree that the article could use a lot more references, but the band has certainly released two albums on the "more important indie labels," as Michig points out. --Theodolite ➹ 19:48, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. De Wilde

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

Delete Non-notable fictional character. Wouldn't be a plausible redirect to the show's page. Swarm ^X 18:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to no reliable third party sources to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:13, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Young (Jewelery Designer)

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

Fails notability criteria, lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources (6 of 8 references are sourced to subjects website and the rest may or may not be notable but not providing any depth of coverage about the subject) Warfieldian (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lacks notability - appears to be a series of minor achievements. FieldMarine (talk) 12:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks sufficient significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:10, 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:05, 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 partial delete. This is going to be kind of ignore all rules close, because the situation is complex. Everyone, including the nominator, agrees that the subject is notable. All experienced editors agree that the article has been built out of a pastiche of copyright violations. Werldwayd tried to build a version of the article that was acceptable, but, upon questioning, agreed that copyright issues remain with his version. I can't see a way to adequately clean this version. I can't see a standard way out of this. So, here's the result. I'm going to delete the article. I will restore the initial one-line plus infobox stub. I'm going to protect the result for two weeks, to give Werldwayd a chance to build the new version he agreed to create. If that is done before the two weeks are up, I'll do a history merge and undo the protection. If someone wants to suggest a better way out, I'm open to suggestions.—Kww(talk) 03:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)}}[reply]

Elissa (singer)

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was deleted after discussion only a few weeks ago. The subject is notable, and the article has been recreated, but what has been recreated is, if anything, even worse than the previous version -- a collection of text copied from other sites (some mirroring the deleted article), OR, subjective commentary, and unreliably sourced (at best) gossip. The previous AFD nomination characterized the page as "a good thorough violation of WP:BLP," and this one appears to compound the problem by including similar BLP violations about "rival" performers. Between the pervasive copyright violations and BLP failures, I don't see any good alternatives to wiping this off the public record and starting over, repeating the consensus action taken in January. Something drastic needs to be done; there's not even an acceptable stub here to revert to. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If there is "no an acceptable stub to revert to", create one. Simply nominating for deletion is unhelpful, and you admit yourself that the subject is notable. There are several reliable sources used in this article, instead of just drive by deleting, check the sources one by one and prune the bad ones out (such as the link to a Google search).FunkMonk (talk) 23:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. That wasn't the consensus reached only a few weeks ago, and it will leave the copyright violation and BLP violations publicly accessible. I suspect the article is speediable under G4, but the history appears too messy for me to assert that. Copyright and BLP violations support speedy deletion of articles on notable subjects; I just think this case may be too controversial/convoluted for a speedy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This really is not fair. You are free to remove sections that you don't think should be there but deleting the article is just not acceptable. Tell me what I need to do to prevent deletion? I am really frustrated, as a fan and a Wikipedia editor. Please do not put this article up for deletion and help improve it. If you feel that I should no longer interfere that is fine but please don't delete this article. This artist deserves more credit. Thank you Thamerr (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, specific issues should had been addressed on the talk page, and only if these problems were not solved, the article should had been nominated for deletion. No one has the right to say you should stop "interfering" by editing any article on Wikipedia, unless you are doing it with malicious intent. FunkMonk (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second time! I have worked so hard to improve the article, over and over again, complying with the rules carefully yet the admins just feel the need to simply put the article up for deletion just over a few broken links. I am glad I have somebody who agrees with me. Leave Elissa ALONE!!! Thamerr (talk) 23:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You must just be more thorough when finding reliable sources, though. A link to a simple Google search doesn't cut it, for example. Search on well known English language Arabic news sites, or you can even use sources that are solely in Arabic, there are some policies that concern that, I can show them to you. But bottom line is, the sources have to be reliable, and you shouldn't add anything not found in them. FunkMonk (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Can you be specific about the copyright violation argument? That trumps pretty much everything, but I'd need to be persuaded that it's uncorrectable.—Kww(talk) 01:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright problem was raised, and not disputed, at the initial AFD; I haven't checked it out independently, but relied on the determination there. When the article was recreated, it began with a cut-and-paste from the lyricsfreak site by User:MohamedShaer [42]. It was developed, with additional cutting-and-pasting, for several days. After others' activity on the article tapered off, beginning on March 4 User:Thamerr more than tripled the size of the article with text that was mainly cut-and-pasted from the elissalovers.net site. On March 8, Thamerr cut-and-pasted even more text from the elissalovers site, including some fairly overt BLP violations, particularly in the "Rivalries" section. After I removed sections with RS and BLP issues, Thamerr edit warred to restore them; I looked into the sourcing further, reviewed the initial AFD, and came to the conclusion that this version was basically a recreation of the version deleted by consensus, though I couldn't verify that it qualified for speedy deletion and therefore brought the matter here. I'm not certain that the initial claims of copyright violation, standing alone, were themselves sufficient to justify deletion -- at least one of the supposed "sources"/"references", the elissalovers bio page, is a Wikipedia mirror -- but the combination of cut-and-pasted text and the major sourcing problems generated the initial consensus to delete the article. I see only two options, both of which would support deletion of the current article:

The initisl deletion was correct. Then this version, even if not sufficiently identical on its face to justify speedy deletion, is flawed in the same way, to the same or greater degree, and should be deleted; even the initial recreated version was a copyvio.
The initial deletion was excessive. Then the deleted version should be restored and the problem text stripped from it (which will clearly require extensive deletions, or reversion to a greatly different version). The current version cannot be preserved; aside from the copyvio it began with, extensive portions of the text, probably the great bulk of it, came from a Wikipedia mirror of the deleted article. Recreating the text, severed from the legitimate edit history, is a violation of the attribution requirements of the licensing the text was originally created under. (I'm hardly an expert on the licensing, but I recall a DelRev discussion which concluded that, even in userspace, recreating the text of a deleted article without preserving the history was a licensing violation.)

In short, this is an utter mess, and the content problems so severe there's no problem-free text to salvage. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's no reason for deletion. Cut it down to a stub, or rewrite it, anything else is just laziness. FunkMonk (talk) 06:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Laziness" comments are unwarranted. I'll look it over. Even if the article itself stays, it sounds like some history excision may be warranted.—Kww(talk) 14:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Elissa is undoubtedly a very significant artist indeed, a majour one if I may add. The problem with the article may be in too much detail of individual albums on the main page. In this case, "less is more" as they say... Most album information should be transferred to the related album pages. Only the essential non-album material should be kept in the main page and only main significant changes of albums need be reflected on main page. All other details can be accessed through the already existing wikified discography section. Another section "Criticism and controversy" reads like a gossip magazine and has no place in Wikipedia. A small mention of rivalry is ok, but the contents of this section should be trimmed extensively as most of it is irrelevant. With these two amendments, the article can stay and must stay actually. I envision an article just one third the size of the present one suffices. As a compromise, I suggest this alternative Elissa page Elisa Proposed article werldwayd (talk) 09:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposal looks nice, but really needs more reliable sources still. FunkMonk (talk) 12:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am volunteering to write an article from scratch with just the basics and independent sources in about a week werldwayd (talk) 01:03, 16 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} 00:02, 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.