Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 September 24

< 23 September	25 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Electro house

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

The music style does not exist. That's also why there ano serious refs for its existance. --Subfader (talk) 22:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saying the musical style does not exist is something that can only be described as Musical Ignorance. While it is a very wide genre, sometimes interwining with Progressive House, at it's core it is different from it. The real problem is that the page for the genre is so horribly written and completely baseless. Instead of an unnescesary deletion, I suggest researching into it (god knows how though..) and completely rewriting the article. Nekumata (talk) 12:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support the rewriting of this article. The genre does exist, and while it may use some parts from progressive house, it is its own unique genre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.254.131.96 (talk) 02:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly support (qualititative support so that it counts because I'm an IP address but that's actually my real username that I made) - why does Wikipedia need more articles about genres of music? What's next? Articles about genres of Pokemon? That's something I'd like to see. -07:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)07:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)07:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)07:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)07:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)220.245.253.81 (talk)

Delete - Totally lacking any WP:RS citations to satisfy WP:GNG … that it "exists" is not in question … that it is notable by Wikipedia standards, and thus worthy of inclusion, has not been shown. Happy Editing! — 70.21.5.28 (talk · contribs) _{08:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)}[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio of http://www.edmtop.com/about-electronic-music/ —SW— ^confess 16:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The supposed copyvio material is actually a copy of an earlier version of the Wikipedia article (circa February/March 2010). I have removed the speedy tag.--ShelfSkewed Talk 19:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any sources on this genre.Curb Chain (talk) 11:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bizarre that a subject with 57 million Ghits and 2 million Yhits can't find a single reliable source for citation. I don't doubt the existence of the phenomenon, but since we can't verify it, I can't see how to keep. BusterD (talk) 20:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fidget house

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

This music style does no seem to exist. No serious sources. --Subfader (talk) 22:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should stay. How can you say it doesn't exist? I think a lot of Skrillex fits the "genre", especially songs like "Rock n Roll" here's a youtube link supporting my argument, can you hear the fidget in it? specifically listen from 2:10 to 2:42 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOofWzI3flA --Dustinross4 (talk) 18:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. Proof its existance and add proper sources. I could also create Cow Jazz and link to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXKDu6cdXLI . Can you see the cows in it? Specifically listen from 1:12 to 2:00. --Subfader (talk) 20:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacking sufficient WP:RS citations to satisfy WP:GNG … that it "exists" is not in question … that it is notable by Wikipedia standards, and thus worthy of inclusion, has not been shown … (1) The article from The Guardian titled "Welcome to the fidget house" is suspect because the first mention of "fidget house" (halfway through the article) is linked to the Wikipedia article in question … (2) The link to googleusercontent.com is just a mirror of an entry from the Rate Your Music database, and it makes no mention of "fidget house" … (3) the link to DJ Magazine has evaporated, so it cannot be counted. Happy Editing! — 70.21.5.28 (talk · contribs) _{09:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete - non-notable neologism. No reliable sources. —SW— ^verbalize 16:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 02:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Querix

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

Small software company. Doesn't satisfy General notability guideline or organizations and companies notability guideline. Consequently, the article violates verifiability policy: the company main business is IBM Informix-4GL compilers, but Google books, news and scholar search for the combination of "Querix" and "4GL" returns nothing useful (not to be confused with Querix natural language interface, another software not connected to the company under discussion). ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the related AfDs of Querix product articles:

--ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. No showing of significant effects on history, technology, or culture outside the IT department. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was unable to find anything more than minor mentions through any of the Google searches. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Msnicki (talk) 03:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dowry law in India. and merge any usable content. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legal terrorism

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

Page seems to be used for advocacy against a dowry law in India rather than for encyclopedic content.

The term 'legal terrorism' is claimed to be "widely used in India" by the page and while a google search does get some hits they are:

a) all tied to a single issue (WP:NOT#NEWS)
b) none of the sources used or that I found are good enough to be considered reliable. In fact the only book I found with a similar name has nothing to do with this topic[1]

The page is also home to some original research and is quite starkly written from one point of view.

On these grounds I believe the article fails both the general notability guideline and WP:NOT#NEWS.

This article should either be deleted, or redirected to Frivolous litigation or vexatious litigation, or failing that what is actually notable merged to Dowry law in India--Cailil ^talk 19:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Since redirect terms don't have to be notable and someone might look for this subject using this search term, it can't hurt to redirect it instead of outright deleting it - but I do agree that it fails the GNG. Kevin (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect as suggested above. The common law has many pleonasms -- redundant lists of synonyms. This is one of a piece with "frivolous, silly, vexacious, and unreasonable lawsuits". There is no need for a separate article on this phrase. Bearian (talk) 20:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - non-notable neologism. —SW— ^confer 16:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Naggy

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

This seems to be a non-notable drink just WP:MADEUP one day. I can't read the first citation, but the second one says nothing about the drink, and the third one - used to cite how the drink is supposedly ordered - also says nothing about it. I prodded it, but the prod was removed without comment. LadyofShalott 18:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 19:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks WP:RS to support WP:GNG … too bad there's no WP:CSD category for WP:MADEUP. Happy Editing! — 70.21.12.213 (talk · contribs) _{19:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete as WP:MADEUP bar recipe. Mangoe (talk) 02:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find any sources, RS or not. The first citation is also a ref to the actress, with no mention of the alleged drink. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forgiveness (Emily Osment album)

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

WP:TOOSOON Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 19:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As and per nom. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 10:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ... expected to be released ... Wikipedia is not a CRYSTALBALL.--Ben Ben (talk) 19:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ben Ben (talk) 13:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The article indicates that Forgiveness is merely a "rumoured title" and the tracklist is not yet finalized, either. Recreation is fine once these issues are resolved (via coverage in reliable sources). Gongshow ^Talk 06:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has never been on its nominations day log. So I logged it on today's log.--Ben Ben (talk) 18:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, Ben Ben! --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could find few sources, all throwaway mentions or not RS. Does seem to have a Facebook page, with 16 fans already. I don't think we're looking at a Smile-type situation here. Please come back once released and generates some RS notice. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Jenks24 (talk) 20:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Guerrero

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

~~Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON. Doesn't seem to have played any games at a major level. Doesn't seem to meet WP:NCOLLATH either. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 18:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

Nomination withdrawn - It has been proved the subject meets WP:NGRIDIRON (has played games in the Arena Football League). My thanks to Blueboy96 for managing to dig up this information. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 07:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Played in 13 games for the Arena League's Arizona Rattlers in 2010. [2] Blueboy 96 22:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 01:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Appleseed (film)

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

Reason:There is already a spot for this cartoon, and that's for Melody Time. There shouldn't be another article for something already there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickey798 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC) Mickey798 (talk) 17:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There isn't already an article for it - it is just a section in the Melody Time article. There is no harm for having a section for the film and an article for the film. The film is indeed notable by itself. SL93 (talk) 21:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep—tis true that the article is unsourced, but the film is independently notable, given the range of significant discussion in reliable sources. there is this, and also this, and kind of this, and this too. the last notes that this film contains disney's only significant imagery of heaven. i will throw these into the article as further reading and for future incorporation as sources. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While less notable films "might" have a home at Melody Time, this one has independent notability and meets all criteria for such through WP:NF. We keep it, expand it, and source it so as to improve the encyclopdia and the reader's understanding of this topic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Released on its own, with notable coverage of it existing. Dream Focus 23:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Receiving Theory

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

Non-notable scientific theory that scores just 1420 hits on Google, including Facebook and other self-produced pages. Most hits are about electronics. Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not referenced in any refereed scientific publication. Noym (talk) 17:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' - Not a verifiable concept. —SW— ^confabulate 18:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If you add the author's surname to the searches, Google news finds nothing, and a regular search finds a couple of blog hits that don't appear RS. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 02:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Eyes of Texas (secret society)

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

Unable to locate any significant reliable source to back any of the claims made in the completely uncited article. I am unable to locate anything to establish notability for Wikipedia. Unfortunately the search term, "Eyes of Texas" turns up many links to other thing that are not related to this society, so it is difficult to filter and I could be persuaded to remove the nomination if significant reliable source coverage were discovered. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment - try a search for (what seems to be) their primary award: Eyes of Texas Excellence Award, no comment as to if it makes them WP:Notable. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 18:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It seems like the group is real, but called "anonymous" not "secret" by the sources. It and the award could also be mentioned in the main article The Eyes of Texas. I don't think there is enough information on the group for its own article, plus the other article gives context. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability provided. Article creator removed unreferenced tag without actually supplying references.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable organisation. fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence, also see The Eyes of Texas. Kitfoxxe (talk) 23:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and comment-I agree with deleting the page, however the society needs to be mentioned in The Eyes of Texas page. It does have a number of references that lead me to believe it should be included in the general page. It also is a collegiate secret society by definition and was implicated in a large scandal at UT. That being said, if you delete this page, please take the information given and create a subsection on the other page.Theseus1776 (talk) 14:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I note that the above-mentioned scandal does receive significant Wiki-coverage in the Lance Kennedy article, so adding another section on it to the main Eyes of Texas page might be redundant.Ebikeguy (talk) 15:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability present in article or forthcoming during a news search. Perhaps this is a common problem for entities that wish to remain secret? In any case, Wikipedia should contribute to the secretive nature of this group, IMHO. Ebikeguy (talk) 23:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I think salting Sergey Lepmets would be premature, since this seems to be the first time that title has been used, and this player may become notable in the future. But if another admin feels salting is appropriate I have no objections. Rlendog (talk) 02:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sergei Lepmets

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

Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing andmin - If this article is deleted, please delete salt the redirect at Sergey Lepmets. Existing create protection was bypassed using this spelling. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Still fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 10:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTY--current team is Romanian second division, not first, as this article claims. Translated some of the Google hits, and all appear as WP:ROUTINE as you would expect. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrei Dăruială

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

Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence this article would pass the general notability guideline and Dăruială has yet to play in a fully-pro league. Jogurney (talk) 19:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plays in Romanian second division and has not played for senior national team. Fails WP:NFOOTY. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 06:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Still fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 10:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is no evidence of significant attention to this topic from reliable sources either within the article or in this discussion. Rlendog (talk) 02:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Enchanted: Once Upon Andalasia

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

Does not appear to meat Notability. I look up sources for critical reviews on Gamerankings, and couldn't find one single review. The Lovable Wolf (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found zero reviews also. SL93 (talk) 22:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Enchanted (film)#Merchandising where the game is briefly mentioned.--70.24.211.105 (talk) 22:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
redirect as above. No RSes but a reasonable redirect target. Hobit (talk) 03:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - received significant attraction. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 07:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you demostrate where this significant attention has come from? Currently the article has no sources at all and the nominator has mentioned that they could not even find a single review for the game which would be very unusual for a game that has received significant attention.--70.24.211.105 (talk) 21:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Amazingly, I haven't been able to find ANYTHING, ANYWHERE about this game other than the fact that it apparently does exist. Apparently the guy Disney sent to do PR on this game just up and died. Trusilver 01:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 02:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hüseyin Yüce

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

I don't see sufficient evidence that this fellow meets WP:PERP. (Expanded to add: Narrow coverage on one crime also brings up BLP/BLP1E issues.) joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:PERP, WP:GNG, and WP:NOTNEWS. I'm not sure where the author got his information as the two news sources in the article only give trivial mention to the subject and do not support the assertions in the article. "Hüseyin Yüce" or "Huseyin Yuce" with "-wikipedia heroin" only gets 7 hits. Location (talk) 18:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: with "-wikipedia eroin" (using the Turkish spelling of heroin) I get several further hits from RS, but on closer inspection these appear to involve perps who are merely namesakes of this subject. --Lambiam
Delete. Fails WP:CRIME. - DonCalo (talk) 20:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Selim Ishmaku

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

Delete as non-notable. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 16:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable. He was a guitar player and music teacher for children. I am Albanian and I know the Albanian musicians pretty well. There are lots of them who deserve to be in Wikipedia, but Ishmaku is not one of them. He doesn't meet the notability required for WP:COMPOSER, because he never composed anything (probably 1 song?). His highest achievement was that of being artistic director of an Albanian festival in 2009, but he never was its conductor, so that he could have satisfied (at least partially) WP:Entertainer. He was a "redaktor muzikor" (some sort of "music editor", a position needed in Communist Albania and envisioned to distinguish and possibly eliminate Western forms of music expression) for 7 Albanian festivals, which is not something that makes you notable. As a conclusion there is nothing that could make this person notable in the Albanian music world. Morepizevenger (talk) 21:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 02:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dan O'Connor (Politician)

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

Fails to meet any form of notability. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He fails WP:POLITICIAN as an unelected candidate in a primary race, and there are no reliable, independent references in the article, except routine coverage in a Chinese newspaper of his campaign announcement. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There seems to be only a tiny bit of stuff out there, relating to his potential campaign. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Secret Circle (TV series). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Secret Circle characters

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

List of characters in a new TV series that started airing 9 days ago. The "references" are just brief mentions of the series, but don't mention (let alone describe) all these characters. For a new series like this, for which there is no evidence as yet whether it will become a success or whether these characters will become notable. In any case, at this point, the whole list is pure unsourced WP:OR and does not meet WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Crusio (talk) 15:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability for the list is derived from the notability of the series, which the nominator admits has aired on a major network, so WP:CRYSTAL does not apply as the show is already notable. Yes, it's kind of early for there to be a separate list of characters, but not so early that deleting it makes sense. Oh, and while OR isn't a reason to delete an entire article (just offending content), the brief character sketches appear to be sourceable to the primary source itself, rather than veering off into fanwank territory. Much better to expand it. Jclemens (talk) 18:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not proposing to delete the article on the series itself (and it wouldn't be the first series to get cancelled after just a few episodes, even on a major network). At this point, this list has only in-universe info and consists 100% of OR without any real sources. The descriptions of the characters are just snippets of plot. However, if I understand you correctly, if a TV series is notable, then any list derived from it is notable, and whether or not there are independent sources doesn't matter, because it can all be sourced to the primary source, the show itself? --Crusio (talk) 20:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- notability of a character list is not inherited from the parent work of fiction. This article is almost entirely plot summary, and its content is already adequately covered in the main article about the series. These kinds of articles - where plot summary is taken, rearranged and repackaged in a multitude of different ways to make a bunch of redundant plot summary articles - are a problem on Wikipedia, and are not how to build an encyclopedia. They are contrary to our content forking guideline, and to the spirit of WP:UNDUE in that they cause disproportionate coverage of the work of fiction and artificially inflate its apparent notability. Our verifiability policy and notability guideline discourage articles like this by calling for reliable independent sources that cover the subject- if you want an article on a list of characters, you need sources about the list of characters. The work of fiction itself, and sources that cover it broadly rather than focusing on the list of characters, do not suffice. Reyk _YO! 23:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Secret Circle (TV series). Sometime in the future, there may be more information about these characters than can be accommodated in the main article about the series. But for now, that's not the case. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and the characters of this one have not been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, so the topic of the list does not meet the general notability guideline. Furthermore, the content of the article is a summary-only description of a fictional work, making the article fall into what Wikipedia is not and, thus, not suitable for the criteria of appropriate topics for lists. The list itself is an unnecessary split of The Secret Circle (TV series), which has an article size of 13.5 KB, below the recommended article size, which would be the only justified reason to split this type content. As such and as the content is barely referenced, I believe that deletion is the best alternative. Jfgslo (talk) 01:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Telivision shows in general get WAY too many pages, and this is just another show that will quickly devolve into having an entire article about each episode. Not notable enough yet. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Caron

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

Nominate for deletion Can find nothing on Google or in article to support WP:NOTABILITY. Has been tagged as of dubious notability for 4 years. Boleyn (talk) 16:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. I found this OC Weekly article that commented on an exhibition but that's far from what's needed to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 02:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 14:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. - DonCalo (talk) 11:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SpongeBob's Surf and Skate Roadtrip

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

I only found a single news article in a reliable source about the subject. Fails WP:GNG. Prod was opposed. Odie5533 (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I only found press releases. SL93 (talk) 15:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 14:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Products which aren't yet for sale can have articles about them, but only if they have significant coverage prior to their release. —SW— ^prattle 18:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Akira Nishitani

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

I couldn't find a single source offering significant coverage of this game designer. Del per WP:N. Author contested prod. Odie5533 (talk) 01:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Odie5533 (talk) 01:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I spent many quarters playing Street Fighter, but alas, I was unable to find any significant, reliable sources about him. Bgwhite (talk) 06:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He co-creating a game that made over a billion dollars. Dream Focus 00:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for more information I don't see how being a co-creator to a game with a sales revenue of a $1.5billion is an automatic keep. Would you provide the justification why this person should have his own stand alone page? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 14:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 15:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to agree with Bgwhite: there's one fairly tenuous reference to him having authored this game, and nothing else. It's not clear that any of the English-language sources given is not some sort of Wiki, and most info here is unsourced. Mangoe (talk) 02:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no doubt that his name is in the credits, and that he did in fact author these games though. That one accomplishment should be enough to prove him notable. Dream Focus 02:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's all he is, though, when it comes to sourceable facts: a name in the article for each game. Mangoe (talk) 02:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Among 100s of verifiable game authors, there is no justification why this man should be assigned his own stand alone page. In absence of it, it does not pass the Pokemon test. I believe it should be deleted unless something to substantiate his prominence over plenty of other game producers can be established through reliable sources. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing sufficient in-depth coverage to verify notability or justify a self-standing article. --DAJF (talk) 11:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PlaceSpotting

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

Does not meet notability. Content is mostly instructional. Cited Telegraph article is not about PlaceSpotting, but about "fun things to do" with a Google product. Veggy (talk) 15:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: Although most of the sources cited are not particularly reliable, there are a couple German references that seem to establish at least some notability. However, I do agree with the nominator that it is written like a how-to and would require a significant amount of rewriting to bring it into line with Wikipedia guidelines. I might change my vote if this were to happen, but, as it is now, I don't believe this really adds anything substantial to the project. Topher385 (talk) 13:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 3 September 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) 01:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 01:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a how-to manual for non-notable memes (or even notable ones). KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At least some editors seem to disagree in that some memes are notable; Category:Internet memes Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 18:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is nowhere near the detail that would disqualify it as an how-to . And the Deutschlands Radio reference is substantial, especially taken together with the other European references (in Google translation). The GNG is met. DGG ( talk ) 00:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 14:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Stern article in conjunction with the Telegraph article and the fact that "there is an app for that" get it past GNG. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 18:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Missouri Eat Smart Child Care

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

A set of guidelines issued by a state department, of the sort that every department of every state's government issues all the time. I'm not finding the sort of substantive coverage in independent sources that would satisfy WP:N. (Note that the department helpfully supplies "a sample press release for the local paper announcing your achievement" to facilities meeting the guidelines, so some of these may show up in Google News searches.) Deor (talk) 14:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a good sign when there are no GNews hits. Mangoe (talk) 02:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL. —SW— ^yak 20:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Freeman

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

One of the many who went down with the Titanic, but whose remains were found. There seems to be little noteworthy about him except the Titanic connection. Much of this isn't biographic, and it generally reads like a memorial Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not independently notable. A name listing in the Titanic article would suffice. Mangoe (talk) 02:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO1E. —SW— ^converse 20:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No bar against incorporating any relevant, sourced information into the 1976 film article via this article's history, if anyone is so inclined. Rlendog (talk) 02:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sparkle (2012 film)

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

Too soon for an article of a film said to be released in 2012, but the actual release year, at least according to IMDb, is 2014. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 12:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination (WP:Too soon). Novice7 (talk) 12:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Metropolitan90. I should have researched well before commenting. Redirecting to the original Sparkle article is the best choice, atleast for now. Novice7 (talk) 06:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Filming is scheduled to start October 10. Since the film is a remake, we could easily merge existing content to a "Remake" section at the original film's article. No need for outright deletion. I'm also fine with keeping the article temporarily since filming is imminent. If there are any problems with starting production, then we can do a merge until it actually gets started. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sparkle (1976 film)#History for the time being, or as a second choice userfy, per WP:NFF. The film should not have its own article at this time, because the cameras haven't started rolling yet. But, on the other hand, there are sources that suggest that this film will indeed begin filming soon, and it features some well-known performers and is likely to become a wide release. Therefore, the information can be stored here on Wikipedia assuming that principal photography will start next month; it doesn't need to be deleted altogether. At that time, the article can be re-created. Regarding the release date issue, if Entertainment Weekly is reporting that the film will start shooting in October, it's likely that the film will actually be released in 2012 and that the 2014 date cited in IMDb is inaccurate. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of the sources say anything about this movie being released in 2012 or for that matter in any specific year. There's no real reason for a redirect given that the "2012" is almost certainly wrong. Mangoe (talk) 02:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That the release year is in doubt is a reason to consider not having a seperate article, but not to oppose a redirect of a reasonable search term that Wikipedia readers might use in a wish to learn more.... though Sparkle (remake) might be another logical search term to set as a redirect to its precursor. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could accept that as a redirect, but is there really some urgency to this? Why can't we wait until there is some film in the can at least? Mangoe (talk) 02:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article was nominated for deletion 20 minutes after creation, and now that it's here, we decide how to best address the issue per application of policy and guideline. Applying guideline, we see that that the topic might not be ready for an separate article. Applying policy we see that a sourcable topic might still be worthy of discussion if more suitably placed somewhere else. Someone took the time to write a premature article, thus showing an interest in the topic of the remake of the film Sparkle. If something does "get in the can", then a nicely sourced article would meet WP:NF and not fail its subsection WP:NFF. And in THAT case, the redirect can be reverted and the returned article expanded and sourced accordingly. Not urgency, just a response to the sourcable topic and where it might best be discussed in context. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sparkle (1976 film)#Remake. It does not matter that the release year is not confirmable, as per WP:FUTURE the planned film has enough coverage to be mentioned therein, even if not yet meriting a seperate article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ja imam talenat! (series 3)

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

Future event / series Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:14, 17 September 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, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Giga-Tube

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

Delete per WP:PRODUCT. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:17, 17 September 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, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks WP:RS to satisfy WP:GNG. Happy Editing! — 70.21.12.213 (talk · contribs) _{13:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete per nom, non-notable. —SW— ^confer 18:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Several !voters support that, only one objects, the rest don't seem to raise arguments that would negate a redirect. Rlendog (talk) 02:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of Android

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

An unneeded two line excerpt from a 6 paragraph section of an article here. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 09:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Android (operating system)#History where there is more info on it than there is in the current article. L888Y5 (talk) 11:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because an article on a topic should include the information on its history. Unless it's a very major topic (like the United States for instance) a separate topic on history is not needed. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd like to read this, and there ought to be scope in such a topic that we can support such an article. However this one very clearly isn't it. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think there's even need to bother with a redirect. The topic belongs in the main article and will easily be found that way through any search engine, including WP's own, which also turns up Android version history. Msnicki (talk) 17:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's plenty in the main article, and the history belongs in there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and convert to a Redirect to Android_(operating_system)#History where the topic is adequately covered already and where further expansion should go. PamD 23:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is desirable: may help a reader find the article, and helps deter another future editor from re-creating this without realising where the topic is already covered. PamD 08:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect sounds very reasonable, I'd be happy to go along with that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, though deleting it and creating a redirect is probably not a good idea as it may one day become an article again. L888Y5 (talk) 21:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Fisher-Becker

AfDs for this article:

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

Entirely non-notable so-called actor. Not covered directly and in detail by multiple reliable sources. ╟─Treasury Tag►high seas─╢ 07:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is clear from WP:BEFORE sources that Fisher-Becker is indeed an actor (not a "so-called" one) with appearances in Dr Who and a Harry Potter film as well as theatrical work. What may be more questionable is whether he meets notability criteria, but we should be careful not to disparage in discussing that. AllyD (talk) 08:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question What has changed since the previous decision to keep this article? Tryphaena (talk) 21:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC) — Tryphaena (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Are you seriously asking, what in our notability policy has changed since 2006? ╟─Treasury Tag►First Secretary of State─╢ 07:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This subject has been discussed before and a decision taken that it was worthy of an article. To reopen the discussion suggests that the previous decision was mistaken; that the subject has got less worthy of notice; or that the standards for inclusion have got higher. Which is it? Tryphaena (talk) 10:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC) — Tryphaena (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
In the 5 years since the last discussion, the standards for inclusion have been, shall we say, codified; see WP:NOTE. To meet the notability guideline, subjects must have received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Has this person? Yes or no? (Incidentally, you may also find WP:NOTAGAIN interesting reading.) ╟─Treasury Tag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 14:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of notable roles in a variety of major productions. For example, see 'Doctor Who' actor Simon Fisher-Becker joins 'Game of Thrones'. Warden (talk) 21:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than subjectively and arbitrarily classifying a couple of C-list roles as "notable" could you perhaps cite some significant coverage of this person, since that is the standard required? For instance, the DigitalSpy article you linked to does not cover Mr Becker-Fisher "directly and in detail" – it's a short, ~5-sentence interview with him solely focussing on the production rather than on himself. Thanks. ╟─Treasury Tag►First Secretary of State─╢ 07:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh... but that short article covers him directly and in detail and is not simply a brief or trivial "mention". The example offered is only one of many available that speak toward his roles. Guideline does not demand that sources on the subject be extensive, nor does guideline demand that the sources be solely about the subject. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aother question Since Mr Tag did not like where I responded to his anonymous little jabs, and so chose to remove them, let me ask my question again in a place where I hope he will approve. He pointed out that I had made edits mainly to this topic. So what does that have to do with the price of fish, or the question of whether or not this subject is suitable for the encyclopedia, or the question I asked, which was, why is it necessary to discuss it again? Tryphaena (talk) 06:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had made edits mainly to this topic. So what does that have to do with the price of fish? Because it suggests that you may have a conflict of interest (ie. may be associated with Mr Becker-Fishery somehow) – see also WP:SPA. Why is it necessary to discuss it again? I have answered that question exhaustively. WP:NOTAGAIN is the shortest version of that answer. All clear now? ╟─Treasury Tag►Clerk of the Parliaments─╢ 08:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So why not ask instead of leaving the snarky little notes and deleting my reply? Anyway, if that was your concern then I am happy to confirm that I have no connection of any kind with the subject of this article and do not stand to gain in any way from its retention or deletion. Since Mr Tag is so anxious to have it deleted, perhaps it would not be entirely out of place to ask if he can make the same claim? I presume that "Becker-Fishery" was a simple typo rather than a feeble attempt to be amusing at his expense. Tryphaena (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not sure about his notability, but I think the "so-called" in the nomination was unnecessary. Just because an actor has not had starring roles on screen does not make him any less of an actor. It just makes him the norm. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep increased notability is no reason for deletion. Agathoclea (talk) 10:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have no opinion at this time on this actor's notability but I have to agree with TT wrt the first AFD. There were 3 "keep" !votes, 2 were based on his IMDB profile and ghits, the 3d was just a vote. None of these arguments would cut any ice here and now in 2011. The first AFD is not helpful in determining this actor's notability. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as satisfying Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Entertainers (1). Tryphaena (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aston veyron

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

non-notable rapper with no or hardly independent reliable hits on internet. Night of the Big Wind _talk 07:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I searched and was unable to find anything mentioning the author beyond his own social networking skills. He does seem to have a bit of an internet following, but at this time he just isn't notable enough to warrant an article. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

If U Delete it! Keep It That Way So I Thought My Publicist Could Handle It But Whatever. I Don't Care About Being On Wikipedia I Just Don't Want Anybody To Write About My Life. So If You Delete It Make Sure To Block This Article So No One Can Write About Me. Astonveyron (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry, but articles about living persons have to be sourced by reliable third party sources. Sources written by yourself (like Facebook) or by somebody who has a professional interest of you (like your producer, manager etc.) are not considered reliable. But if you storm the important hitcharts, you will get an article soon enough. Night of the Big Wind _talk 10:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever Dude! I Don't Really Care, I'll Have My Publicist Write My Bio On My Website. I'm Just Sayin, If Somebody Ever Write An Article About Me On Wikipedia, Somebody Gon Get Sued. Thats All. Astonveyron (talk)12:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.212.51.239 (talk) [reply]

And who do you want to sue? Me? Try it... But err, do you know this one: Wikipedia:No legal threats. Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm guessing this counts as a delete and salt vote? Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notableTigerboy1966 (talk) 20:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as subject does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO at this time (without prejudice to recreation by an independent editor if/when situation changes).
I'd like to direct the creator to this guideline (which may be useful if the article is recreated in future) and reassure him that the WP:BLP policy demands that unsourced and potentially libelous material be removed from biographical articles. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Understood Thank You ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak That's All I Wanted To Know. Astonveyron (talk)17:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea Jones

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

Given that this was dePRODed by a harassment-only sockpuppet, I don't know if the normal procedure is just to restore the PROD tag, but: Non-notable teen actress with minor roles in a few series. Maybe she'll be notable one day, but right now, with no significant roles or coverage, it's too early for an article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks WP:RS to satisfy WP:ACTOR or even WP:GNG. Happy Editing! — 70.21.12.213 (talk · contribs) _{13:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)}[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ENT no evidence of significant roles. LibStar (talk) 15:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Annalise Woods

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

Given that this was dePRODed by a harassment-only sockpuppet, I don't know if the normal procedure is just to restore the PROD tag, but: Couple of minor/guest appearances, fails WP:ENTERTAINER. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete There is a lack of notability. Intoronto1125 TalkContributions 02:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charity Hill (novel)

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

Brought to OTRS' attention as a possible hoax article (ticket:2011092310013012). NW (Talk) 04:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although Anya Seton was a real author, I can't find any non-Wikipedia sources that confirm that she published a book by this title. Therefore, even if this article is true, the subject is probably not notable. And if it's not true, the article should be deleted as a hoax. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found plenty about Anya Seton, but not one reliable blip about Charity Hill. Of all the bibliographies and list of works I found (e.g. Amazon, FantasticFiction), I didn't find a single record about this novel, so delete as non-verifiable. TheTito ^Discuss 04:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find a single source referencing this book that is reliable. The single entry I did find was a one sentence statement on a somewhat dodgy website. There's no record of this book existing as far as goodreads and WordCat.org go and they generally have everything. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unverifiable, likely a hoax. Nothing on WorldCat or anywhere on Internet. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No verifiability so no notability. SL93 (talk) 22:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, G3 Nothing on Worldcat, Goodreads or Google Books. In all likelihood, this is a hoax. Blueboy 96 23:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete; per G3 11coolguy12 (talk) 12:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another hoax from this editor. Bad news. Binksternet (talk) 22:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Making of Short Stack

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

Future documentary not notable according to WP:NFF. HairyWombat 03:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. HairyWombat 03:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks WP:RS to satisfy WP:GNG … violates WP:CRYSTAL. Happy Editing! — 70.21.12.213 (talk · contribs) _{13:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete: I found zero sources. SL93 (talk) 16:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources and WP:CRYSTAL. -- Alexf^(talk) 17:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WWGB (talk) 01:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no references and must be required for future projects for verification. None found when searching.Curb Chain (talk) 05:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vlasopulos family

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

Fails WP:GNG A family name, with no reliable sources given. I could not find any third party sources. Thoughts? Tinton5 (talk) 03:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article looks like an almost direct Google translation from the corresponding Greek Wikipedia article. Note that the article name is not ideal as a search term - the name can also be (and is) transcribed as Vlasopoulos, Vlassopulos and so on. Not that I've (yet) turned up anything useful by doing this. PWilkinson (talk) 01:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Someone has removed the deletion notice. I do not know how to get it back. Tinton5 (talk) 03:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 03:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks doc. Tinton5 (talk) 05:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your good work Tinton5. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 14:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Users,

there are free pictures and sources of Vlasopulos family in greek sites and specially in personal site of this family. The user talk:Dr.K. makes huge efforts to destroy or dissapear the Vlasopulos family article and Stylianos Vlasopoulos article and I do not know the reason. I would like you explain how the same article in greek is acceptable from greek wikipedia and in english wikipedia it is not. I wait for your comments soon.

Yours sincerely

Michaelglem 18:00 27 September 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelglem (talk • contribs) 15:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Michaelglem. None of your sources satisfy our notability requirements. What they do at the Greek Wikipedia is their business. What we do here is ours. Also do not make personal comments about me. This is very bad form and it is a personal attack. See our WP:NPA policy about personal attacks. You are also misrepresenting the facts when you say that I make huge efforts to delete the articles. You are making huge efforts to delete the notices on the articles that connect to this AfD page. You are making the huge effort to keep this uncited stuff on Wikipedia and you are edit-warring, personally attacking and cluelessly removing AfD notices despite multiple warnings. Not me. You are also blanking your talkpage so that others will not see the warnings you get. I am not the one with the agenda. I would suggest you get a clue. And soon. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 15:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is a Google translation of the corresponding Greek Wikipedia article, and if it is to be kept it will need substantial rewriting to put it into something more like English. However, there is little point in taking the trouble to do that, as there is no evidence whatsoever of satisfying English Wikipedia's notability guidelines. In a nutshell, the content of article is "Vlasopulos is a Greek surname. Some people with this surname have been politicians, writers and artists. Someone has collected together the names and dates of some members of a family with this name. Some members of that family have attempted to aggrandise their family by trying to get an official title given to their family, but failed in their attempt. Some members of the family were worried that the name was approaching extinction, so they have got female members of the family, so as to keep the name to stop it dying out." The only "references" given are links to the Greek Wikipedia article and mirrors of that Wikipedia article on other sites. Not remotely notable. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is an automatic translation. Its main source is family memory. It is also more than borderline in regard to WP:BLP, naming several people born in the last half of the 20th century. Note that the author of the article seems to be one of them (born 1987). There are too many red lines crossed here. Place Clichy (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The author is related to the subject of this article and also featured himself in the other Vlassopoulos article, therefore has a WP:COI. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zeroshift

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

Article appears to be entirely self-promotional and speculation. LRT24 (talk) 01:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Pure weapons-grade vanispamcruftisement lacking WP:RS to satisfy WP:GNG … appears to violate WP:CRYSTAL … nothing but WP:SPS references (links to subject's own website) … I'm surprised that it has been around for so long. :-) Happy Editing! — 70.21.12.213 (talk · contribs) _{13:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)}[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 01:56, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spellfury

AfDs for this article:

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

Yeah. No. Only cites are either not significant in themselves to demonstrate any notability (some nothing blog does interview) or are significant sources but cover this topic trivially (mere mention as one item in a short article listing lots of topics, for example).

Article is and has been nothing but free advertising space. DreamGuy (talk) 01:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dreamguy is incorrect, Spellfury has been deemed notable, the show has been mentioned in Wired.com and Ain't it Cool News those aren't "some nothing blogs". Although this isn't reflected on the wiki for it but their last episode has a Coors Light product placement in it this is very interesting and notable in the webseries world. The results of the last discussion said "The result was keep. SPAs and poor arguments aside, there does seem to be a genuine case for keeping, if a somewhat weak one. Shimeru 07:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.9.239 (talk)
Keep A show covered in apropriate genre sourses Tubefilter, Wired.com and Ain't it Cool News (as shared in previous AFD) has enough notability for Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article as it stands, is poorly written and unenyclopediatic. But AfD is not for cleanup, and as noted the series has established notability. A notable topic that is horribly written shouldn't be deleted unless it's to be started over, and this one isn't bad enough to need that. (Also, deletion rationales that start out "Yeah. No." are asking for trout.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was scooped. Can be made to a redirect if the cookbook proves notable enough for its own page. Recipe links don't establish notability, just how to make it. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kitty Litter Cake

AfDs for this article:

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

Mar2194 (talk · contribs) nominated this as an RfD with the following rationale:

This page does not meet wikipedia's guidelines for significance. It also lacks evidence showing actual notability of the subject

— Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 18:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 19:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Most of the references I can find are all in relation to The Kitchen Sink Cookbook. If someone wishes to create an article for this cookbook, which seems to be notable, then we could redirect this article to the book it appeared in. Pburka (talk) 19:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We have recipes available here, here, here and here, along with pretty disgusting images when searched using Google. Are these good enough for a keep? Ratibgreat (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – to The Kitchen Sink Cookbook. Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only problem with merging to the KSC is that the cookbook by itself isn't really all that notable either. It's no longer in print and I can't find anything about the cookbook that isn't linked to a website trying to sell a used copy. There does seem to have been a PW review at one point, but one review doesn't meet notability guidelines for a cookbook. As far as the dessert itself, it is somewhat popular but not really notable in and of itself to warrant a wikipedia article. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While it is true that offline sources may exist, they must be presented to actually count. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

D.H.Kawthekar High School

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

Advertisement of school Day000Walker (talk) 17:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet notability requirements. --Noleander (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is this an advertisement? It has no promotional content whatsoever. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no good reason to delete a major high school. Indian schools have a notoriously poor Internet presence and the better way forward is to look for local sources and expand the page from them. Merging into a new umbrella Pahandharpur Education Society would also be an acceptable way forward. TerriersFan (talk) 03:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's nothing notable about this school and I can't find anything on google about the school. Most of the info that comes back refers to either the wikipedia entry or the entry for Pandharapur itself. At the most this deserves a redirect to the city's page. As far as giving anything an internet presence goes, wikipedia isn't really the place for that. Fails WP:Notability. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Comment - no-one is suggesting that we are about giving this school an Internet presence. The point being made is that because of Indian schools' poor web presence Google searches are well nigh useless in finding sources. Time needs to be given for local sources to be researched and added. It is is not possible to say, at this time, that the school is not notable - only after local sources have been researched can we say that. Experience indicates that high schools throughout the world, each of which are a major presence in their communities and directly affect thousands of lives, are notable. If this school was located in the US, because of the good Internet coverage there, there would be no suggestion of deletion. Attempting to delete based on web searches is an example of systemic bias, and this should be avoided. When, as here, an article is on a likely notable subject we don't delete; we tag and improve over time. TerriersFan (talk) 00:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - the school is not being advertised, however the article is not meeting the general notability guideline. 11coolguy12 (talk) 02:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gnifrix

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

I only found two trivial mentions here and here. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 15:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any sources at all about the company, aside from Wikipedia mirror websites and a Facebook page. SwisterTwister talk 04:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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