Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 July 14

< 13 July	15 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. m.o.p 06:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Disney references in Enchanted

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

The article had previously been nominated for deletion; the consensus was to keep and improve the article so that it was no longer a trivial, crufty mess. It has been a year and no significant improvements have been made and the article remains in the same condition; deletion or perhaps a merge would be appropriate. --GroovySandwich 00:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: passage of time does not warrant a deletion nomination; if an article hasn't been improved upon, then take the time to work the article rather than suggesting it be deleted. Agreed the original sourced version of the article (based on official material released from the studio) has turned into WP:OR cruft; would be helpful to have a permanent anon IP block on it. All that said, there have been independent, mainstream news articles written about the many film references, including specific interviews with the film crew about it - thus this article does meet Notability requirements.SpikeJones (talk) 03:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Per above.--Breawycker (talk to me!) 14:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable topic, AfD is not for cleanup. Jclemens (talk) 01:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. m.o.p 06:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Belfast International Sports Club

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

This club falls into exactly the same category as those discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Academy Cricket Club, which resulted in deletion and itself refers to other AfD discussions that had the same outcome. It plays at one of the lower levels of a provincial league in Ireland, the article lacks sources to qualify for WP:GNG and despite a long discussion at WP:CRIN about such clubs there has been nothing provided (so far) in this instance to further the possibility of it reaching either the GNG or CRIN criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. Sitush (talk) 23:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simple, fails WP:GNG and WP:CLUB due to not being notable. Mtking (talk) 23:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. m.o.p 05:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Dawn of the Dead versions

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

Original research all the way through. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The information should probably be included in the parent article rather than spun off into its own. If this were sourced I'd say it should be merged, but since it's unsourced deletion is best. Qrsdogg (talk) 03:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. m.o.p 06:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dinesh Manocha

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

Not notable. Only references are internal press release + one dead link. Undoubtedly a good scientist but not a notably good scientist Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 02:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily passes WP:PROF on several counts: Distinguished Professor/Named Chair at a major university (WP:PROF#C5), elected ACM Fellow and AAAS Fellow (WP:PROF#C3), h-index above 40 (according to this[1], it's actually 55), lots of biographical coverage if one only cares to do a little googling (e.g. here [2][3][4][5], etc). Nsk92 (talk) 03:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF #C1, C3, and C5. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clear keep. Stupendous cites on GS and all of the above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. A course of action often followed by editors who have made an egregiously inappropriate AfD nomination is to withdraw the nomination gracefully and move on to other things. This reduces the workload of other editors. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. m.o.p 06:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sweetest High

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

Non-notable release from a notable artist. Per WP:SONGS, a song which has not charted or received official awards and which has not been covered by several otger ntoable artists is not likely to be notable. In this case, there is also a lack of coverage from reliable third party sources. All in all there is a lot of trashy sourcing and speculation. e.g. comments like "from her second album" which are completely unsourced. It also repeats a lot of info already contained on the artist's page. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 22:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 23:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I love the song, but I agree with Lil-Unique's opinion. I did an extensive search myself and I found neither chart positions nor enough information to warrant a separate article for this song. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 00:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW applies here speedy keep. (former-admin close) Secret ^account 02:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gus Giesebrecht

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

Non-notable profesional hockey player. Gadgetgod (talk) 22:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. The article states, and reliable sources clearly verify, that he played for the Detroit Red Wings from 1938–1942, thereby passing WP:NHOCKEY. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The article by far passes NHOCKEY. Seems like a possible bad faith nom since the only activity by the user is to try to delete this page. -DJSasso (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —DJSasso (talk) 19:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - He played 135 regular season games in the NHL. Dolovis (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per above.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 01:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Pretty obvious, per above reasons. Patken4 (talk) 02:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snowstorm in the middle of July Keep - bad faith nomination, notable per NHL career -Pparazorback (talk) 05:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Massively Strong Keep - I have expanded and sourced the article considerably. Not only did he score the game-winning goal that sent the Red Wings to the Stanley Cup finals in 1941, he actually quit professional hockey to fight in World War II, landing at Normandy 1 month after D-Day and seeing action in France, Belgium, Holland and Germany. Cjmclark ^(Contact) 03:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No valid reason for deletion given, since this player easily meets notability guidelines. Rlendog (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Achaean League. (non-admin closure) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Achaean Federation

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

This one looks weird to me. There is a different article on the Achaean League. This article claims that the League was an early grouping out of which the Federation grew. On the other hand, the League article says that the league was a re-organization of an earlier, unnamed, grouping. To me it looks like a serious contradiction. Now, I tend to trust the League article more, as it has more references and they seem more authoritative; I've also known about the League for... like forever, while the Federation I just heard about. So, I propose to delete this article, maybe salvaging whatever bits of information that are unique to it and incorporating them into the League article. Bazuz (talk) 22:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC) Bazuz (talk) 22:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are a number of references on Google Scholar http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=10&q=%22Achaean+Federation%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 that indicate that the Federation is notable in its own right. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 00:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment to Nipsonanomhmata: Thanks for replying!

OK, I agree that the Federation might be another term for the League (note though that your search returned 18 references, not all relevant). On the hand, I searched Google Books for League and got a lot of results: (~ 2000) [6]. Worse, in my opinion, is that the current Federation article apparently misrepresents the League.

Maybe what we need is a careful merge. How about that? Bazuz (talk) 08:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Achaean League. The Greek word corresponding to league in this name is συμπολιτεία (in full: Συμπολιτεία τῶν Ἀχαιῶν). That word has no exact English equivalent, but LSJ gives as meaning: "federal union", and "Achaean Federation" is by itself perhaps a better translation, while "Achaean Confederacy" is another possibility. However, the translation "Achaean League" is conventional and more common. In any case, these terms all refer to the same historical political entity (which I wouldn't call "a governmental unit"). --Lambiam 18:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. --Lambiam 18:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as well per Lambiam, this is obviously the Achaean League under another name. Constantine ✍ 10:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. m.o.p 06:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FAST São Paulo

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

The article is a hoax. The full name of the team (Futebol Atletismo Sociais de Timorense) looks like a bad machine translation, and makes no sense in Portuguese, the article says that the team will compete in the Campeonato Paulista Série A2 (second level of São Paulo state football), instead of competing in the Campeonato Paulista Segunda Divisão (lowest level of São Paulo state football), as it should be, and the page also says that if the team does not reach the Série C or Série D in five years it will be expelled from the Brazilian football, but that is not how Brazilian football works (check Brazilian football league system to see how it actually works. Besides all that, the only webpage I found about this club is a wordpress blog page, created by some account named "andy1890", which is a similar name to the author of the article, who is named "Andy4190". Carioca (talk) 20:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 23:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A blatent hoax. Fails WP:GNG if it isn't. The stadium section was lifted from Clube Atlético Juventus. Argyle 4 Life^talk 04:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Timor-Leste national under-23 football team could do with a clean-up by someone with more knowledge of it. Apparently his blog is a reliable source. Argyle 4 Life^talk 04:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - probable hoax. Giant Snowman 11:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The "hompage" of this club is a blog..--Langholz8 (talk) 18:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 14:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Balham Alligators

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

Still not notable; two releases on Proper Records but absolute lack of sources — yet more proof that the "may" in WP:BAND's criteria doesn't mean "will automatically". Even if you meet a criterion of WP:BAND, failing to meet WP:GNG should and MUST be more important. Otherwise, even the guy who got to #100 once and was never heard from again will have an article even though Whitburn doesn't know if said guy is still alive.

Last AFD closed as no consensus due to lack of turnout. Still finding absolutely no sources. Delete or merge to Geraint Watkins. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again I say Merge with Geraint Watkins. This band seems to be mainly him with an assortment of other musicians. Why not just merge anything of note into the Geraint Watkins article? That would preserve a reference of the band in Wikipedia without giving then undue importance. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is how music pages should be done, in my opinion, with the albums included on the page of the band in question rather than free-standing. I'm really puzzled why this band has come up three times, as we have seen in a previous deletion challenge, Geraint Watkins is a major figure in the world of rockabilly. The band has been widely reviewed, which seems to be the metric by which pages are kept or deleted for music groups. Unfortunately, there is no organized fanbase for the musical form at WP, the way that country music or punk has its defenders. Still: do the right thing, this is not a merge situation, much less a straight delete. Nicely done page of a notable band. Carrite (talk) 22:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's evidence of SUBSTANTIAL COVERAGE IN THE VIRGIN ENCYCLOPEDIA OF COUNTRY MUSIC (paywalled). Carrite (talk) 22:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC) last edit: Carrite (talk) 22:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mention in the book The Cajuns: Americanization of a People. Carrite (talk) 22:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of their new release in Keyboard Magazine. Carrite (talk) 22:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Living Blues calls the Balham Alligators "a Cajun and zydeco band. Carrite (talk) 22:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The anthology Crossfade includes the Balham Alligators in the alt.country movement. Carrite (talk) 22:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Punch was reviewing them back in 1985. Carrite (talk) 22:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The NYC scene site Citywinery.com puts the Balham Alligators into context with Geraint Watkins' career. Carrite (talk) 22:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another name-drop, this from Oldies.com. Carrite (talk) 22:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Bear in mind that this is a 1980s English band, that is, a pre-internet institution. Rest assured that if you start digging through Hounsome or the Trouser Press guide or such fare, there's more non-netty stuff out there. Let's just close this as an obvious keep and move along. Carrite (talk) 22:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK then. Why have you let the article languish unreferenced if you think the band is notable and you can prove it? Where have you been? Go ahead - save the Alligators. I can support that. Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If you're gonna spam sources, add the damn things yourself. Every day I see an AFD where someone says "keep because of sources X Y and Z", everyone piles on the "keep"s and yet the article doesn't change an iota for 4 years. Are you gonna add the things or what?! Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This doesn't fail WP:GNG - as stated here the band has an entry in The Encyclopedia of Music and books derived from it, and Google Books also shows coverage from Living Blues. They released 5 albums, at least 4 of which were on important enough labels. The band contained at least two individually notable musicians. --Michig (talk) 06:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is the last AFD by the way (it was bundled with the Geraint Watkins AFD), and it was closed as Keep just over 2 weeks ago. That means TPH has brought this to AFD three times in about 6 weeks. Time to give it up I think.--Michig (talk) 06:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if the people digging up the sources would actually ADD THEM TO THE ARTICLE instead of passing the buck all the time. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 06:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Passing the buck to whom? Please just walk away from this and do something more constructive. You need to stop shouting in AFDs, and that big image wasn't helpful. When I get hold of a copy of The Virgin Encyclopedia of Country Music and can see the whole entry, I'll add it as a source. Doing it before then is obviously not going to be possible.--Michig (talk) 11:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of channels by Jadoo TV

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

WP:V, WP:N issues. Unable to find reliable, secondary sources in order to make any sense of the content dispute about this directory of channels, moreover, an article on the service itself recently was deleted here [7], which suggests that this content fork may wish to head that way as well. joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as wikipedia is not a guide to the "channels" on this entertainment device. -- Whpq (talk) 16:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems to have all been said. No main article and we aren't a guide. Dougweller (talk) 11:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Bandoma

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

Delete. Fails WP:ARTIST. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 23:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is this article about one of the artists exhibitions. However, beyond that it gets rather thin on reliable sources. This BBC article has a short bit on him, but the article is primarily about refugees and he is one of the examples used to illustrate the article. This news item isn't about him, but happens to mention him. Taken together, that's not enough to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Juliancolton (talk) 03:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global storm activity of late 2010

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

The same problems still exist from the last AFD, only there has been no progress on the article. Those specific problems are ones that can't actually be addressed, meaning this article can never be completed. The biggest issue is the scope of the article. Aside from the poorly-defined "late 2010", I find it difficult, if impossible to try and define "global storm activity". There is no rhyme or reason over what storms they include (and in fact flooding isn't even a storm, per se). It tries to be too broad, but it fails at covering anything properly. In cases where there is already an article on the storm event (such as 2010 Thai floods or Carmen (storm)), it copies the info from those articles, often going into far too much detail than would be needed for a broader article.

The article seems to be a depository of random weather events, not nearly the "major" events it says in the lede. Let me point out:

"A thick fog covered Mississauga, Ontario on Nov' 19."
"Met office forecasters predicted that temperatures would to drop to around 2 °C degrees overnight, with patches of mist and fog. They said temperatures would sadly decline at the end of the week for the foreseeable future, with the good chance of a white Christmas"
"Dawn Fischler, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service branch in Reno, warned people about the cold weather and getting stuck in th snow."
"Trooper Chuck Allen of the Nevada Highway Patrol said "the winds were so fierce the snowflakes literally stung as they hit your face"."
"Several forthcoming sporting fixtures could be at risk with racing at Newcastle on Saturday becoming one of the first of the weekend's casualties and Bad weather could also hit tomorrow's FA Cup second round matches."

I could go on. I ask, to anyone who would want to keep the article, how could such an article ever be complete? Weather is happening constantly around the world. If one person gets killed in a storm, that doesn't necessarily deserve mention (see WP:MEMORIAL). Most importantly, I want to emphasize that the article is in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY, in that Wikipedia is not Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics. I would say a list of weather events certainly falls under that.

I'd like to point out a similar AFD for this year's global storm activity article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete though I say it reluctantly simply because contributors have collectively gone to a huge amount of work to get it to this state. Essentially, if these weather events are related, then that would count as OR which is not allowed. If these events are not related, then they do not belong in an article together. And then there is the major consideration, mentioned in the nomination, of how is it decided what's in and what isn't? Because of that, I don't see how the article can really be useful for someone as there's no certainty about the value of or range of information which they will encounter. asnac (talk) 16:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I do agree that the contributors did put a lot of work into the article. I just honestly feel it was for naught. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Although some work has been made, basically the same problems from the last AFD are still there. The article is just way to vague, way too disorganized and way too messy. This really isn't an article of encyclopedic value. Darren 23^Edits|Mail 16:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP is not the Old Farmer's Almanac. Weather happens every day in every place on earth. No need to put together 3 months' worth in one article. BTW storms and floods are often defined by how they affect us humans. If a river's water level rises but no human habitations are affected is it still called a flood? Steve Dufour (talk) 21:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia couldn't possibly cover every major storm in 2010. That's impossible. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a "book of storms in 2010". Delete per above and nominator. Hurricanefan25 ^{tropical cyclone} 17:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Global storm activity of 2010 which should be re-dabbed and have links into article like Tornadoes of 2010 or 2010 Pacific hurricane season. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it can still be deleted and that page can be converted to a dab still. I think this page would ultimately be a rather unlikely redirect term. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above editors regarding the scope of this information and why it is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. The scope is far too large, unlike Tornadoes of 2010 or Earthquakes in 2010. Furthermore, the notability of some of these "major weather events" is also questionable, even if they are sourced. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Smashball (Sport)

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

This article doesn't make a claim to notability and actually asserts its insignificance. "Smashball is a little known sport" Ryan Vesey contribs 15:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom; gsearch indicates that it's of such local application that it's not notable in terms of significant coverage in independent sources. asnac (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sport is not covered by news sources at all. Together with Asnac's comments above about an unsuccessful attempt to find independent sources, I think we can safely smash this one out of the park. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 18:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Actually, the article does contain one reliable source in the form of a weekly community newspaper article outlining how a dad built a smashball court on a vacant lot and has been asked to tear it down for violating a variety of regulations including building things on somebody else's property. However, that alone is insufficient to demonstrate notability although it does put this article well above other WP:MADEUP articles in terms of sourcing. -- Whpq (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sport does not seemm notable yet, and there is a lack of sources backing any notability (or lack thereof) that it has. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 02:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 05:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vermin Supreme

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is about an eccentric entertainer with poor sources. The last discussion had no consensus, and thus this article should be relisted. SOXROX (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (a reversal of my previous position) because there does seem to be significant coverage listed in the article. I'm thinking particularly of the NPR source, the Miami Herald and the Boston Globe source, the Internet Archive version of which goes into great detail regarding Mr Supreme. ╟─Treasury Tag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 15:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's about an eccentric entertainer who has, despite the nominator's opinion, garnered several WP:RS. They have no chance of election, but that's not one of our criteria. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per significant coverage in reliable sources. Contrary to what the nominator says, the last discussion actually closed as keep. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Again, just as the previous AFD was a keep, not a "no consensus" (sorry Soxrock24, but the AFD does specifically shows it as a keep per admin User:Spartaz who was the closer). Yes, Vermin Supreme is an oddball, to be sure, but just as User:TreasuryTag points out, research finds multiple reliable sources speaking about the fellow directly and in detail. WP:GNG is met. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the Keep result from the first Afd was controversial, as evidenced by this thread.--JayJasper (talk) 05:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no... not "evidenced" by that link to a discussion edited only by three editors in this current conversation that wish to delete, but thank you. While the notices placed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections,[8][9] do not quite amount to fourum shopping, it did not result in any overturn of a proper close. The previous AFD discussion of one month ago involved a number of respected editors and did not show any conspiracy that the AFD discussion had been "hijacked by a cult". While an editor not liking the result of properly closed AFD might be a reason to take the close to DRV (not done),[10] it does not require a renomination just one month later. As for me, and not being a member of a cult, it is difficult to ignore the intructions at WP:GNG about how significant coverage in multiple reliable sources allows a topic to be considered worthy of note. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete consensus from the previous AFD was misinterpreted by the closing administrator. There was a clear consensus to create a new article that merged all the "satirical" candidates together. The individual is not notable as a candidate nor as an individual; he has received only a handful of mentions for being a "satirical" candidate. He may seem to be the subject of this article, but in reality, the subject is "satirical candidacy".--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel that User:Spartaz erred so greviously in his close, then why no DRV? Extensive and significant coverage for even a "satirical candidate" still makes the topic and individual worthy of note. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. "Vermin Supreme" is not even an individual. As you can see here, it is the character used by a non-notable man interfering in wikipedia's processes and allegedly using a cult to further these goals (see the debacle at the previous AFD for evidence of this). He is no different than Ole Savior, President Emperor Caesar, or any of the other "Satirical candidates". All of the information in this article right now can be added to a small blurb in the proposed article. It would be an accurate reflection of the type of coverage the character receives. --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but not a reasonable argument, as even Luke Skywalker and Captain Kirk are not a "real" individuals. Notability, even for the topic of fictional characters and performance artists are determined by coverage of those characters and artists... which coverage this individual has. And no, though it has no bearing on THIS discussion, the earlier AFD was not a debacle, as it was properly closed after a neutral admin considered the arguments, dispite your (non-DRV'd) stating that the neutral closer was in error, and despite the planning renomination after 1 month. WP:WAX arguments and comparisons aside, we look to WP:GNG for determining notability. For this performance artist it has been met and the presumption of notability has not been rebutted, only denied. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's very disingenuous to compare the character "Vermin Supreme" to such major characters as Luke Skywalker and Captain Kirk. But let's compare G-news figures since that seems to be your measure of notability. Captain Kirk brings up just under 14,000 g-news hits, while Luke Skywalker brings up over 20,000. There is no comparison of these two to a character that brings up only 116 articles. 116 articles from mostly local newspapers of mostly trivial mentions should not allow a character to pass the criteria of notability based only on coverage. You have not disputed that the character is just a (small) part of a notable topic.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a WAX response to your own. Do not take offense by my using a more recognizable example of how non-real characters can be found notable. And while I can thank you for sharing an irrelevant WP:GHITS number, and as I stated above, cherry picking non-significant sources does not diminish nor refute the significant coverage that is found. GNG does not require 20,000 results or 2,000 results or even 200 results. What WP:SIGCOV does require is multiple significant coverage in reliable independent sources. We have those. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I brought up the number of g-hits only because you brought it up previously. I compel you to find several substantial articles other than those continually brought up from the Boston Globe, NPR or Miami Herald. Perhaps you feel differently, but I strongly disagree that three articles covering a subject makes that subject notable. The mentions or blurbs in all the other sources show nothing more than the notability of the "satirical candidacy" subject. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no... I never brought some "umpteen number" g-hits as an argument for or agianst, but I did bring up that "multiple instances of significant coverage in relaible sources" as provided by others adequately meets the GNG for this performance artist, while pointing out that cherry picking a few out of the many does not mean the the more suitable ones are somehow unsuitable. The GNG has been met. Spartaz closed the last AFD correctly and more importantly, neutrally. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's what you continue to assert, but you do so without evidence. Are there more than three significant sources? Have you looked over all the sources listed from g-news to see how many are just mentions and how many are significant? Can you not provide concrete evidence to support your argument rather than repeating the same lines over and over? I'm not arguing that the closing admin was non-neutral, I state that he ignored the arguments of depth of coverage, which you are also ignoring. You also ignore the fact that the subject would be reflected in a more encyclopedic context as part of a broader article (No one has argued against this).--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In reverse order: 1. Tone and style of an article on notable topics that don't violate WP:NOT or WP:BLP are best dealt with through regular editing, not deletion. 2. You have repeatedly argued that you feel Spartaz was incorrect on his close, and yet last June 15 you conceived a plan to either write a different article and redirect (against that keep consensus) and/or renominate the article,[11] which would act to do an end run around DRVing a close with which you diagreed. 3. As for depth of coverage over a many years period and in multiple reliable sources which speak toward the topic directly and in some detail (even if not the primary topic of the coverage), not in sources considered "only local" coverage, and yet available to anyone who clicks the Findsources above, we find the topic sourcable to The Economist Fort Worth Star Telegram ABC News Chicago Sun-Times Hartford Courant Boston Phoenix Concord Monitor New Yok Daily News New York Times et al, as well as to multiple books and scholatic studies. And even with the RS that due concentrate on the subject as the main topic, it is common sense that some of these other reliable sources will deal with the subject in relationship to what he does and how it effects others. THAT allows us balance and context. WP:SIGCOV is met. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what you provided: zero books with significant coverage of the character, zero articles of significance from the scholar search (will you ever learn that g-hits are not a measure of notability?), and nine articles that merely mention the character. Did you actually read any of these pieces?--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good. We're finally not speaking about unfounded claims that a cult has taken over an earlier AFd and we're not besmirching an admin who performed a reasonable close. However now, when provided with specific news citations that show the topic as meeting WP:SIGCOV, you distract by implying that I only offered g-hits. PER GUIDELINE: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". You have been unable to rebut the established presumtion of notability, and now seem to wish to concentrate on the more-than-trivial (even if perhaps less-than-main-topic) coverage of a few books as a means to distract from the topic having been now been well established as meeting WP:SIGCOV through multiples of reliable news sources. And no, I do not have to read all the news articles see the sense of the many I have read so as to see that we have a wealth of information with which to improve and expand this article. So please pardon me, but as irritating as this performance artist is to some for his lampooning what is sometimes-perceived-as-broken electorial processes, I do not believe anything I say will sway from your pre-determined plan to rid Wikipedia of this article, just as you will never convince me that I can ignore WP:SIGCOV. Tone and style of any article on notable topic that does not violate WP:NOT or WP:BLP is best dealt with through regular editing, and not deletion... and not through an unneccessary merge. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per William S. Saturn. Agree that the consensus from previous discussion was misinterpreted. The "satirical candidacy" phenomenon, which Mr. Supreme is a part of, is what's notable rather than the individual himself. A consensus was formed to create a Satirical candidacy article. When it is created, the (brief) content of this article can and should be merged and redirected to that page.--JayJasper (talk) 05:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:Spartaz did not err, and the plans of three editors is hardly a consensus. I do not always agree with him, but Spartaz weighed the arguments per policy and guideline and made a proper close. The GNG is the GNG, and the coverage available is far more than mere "mentions". Yes, as with any topic, one might cherry pick a source that is a mention, but it does not mean we can or should ignore those multiples that are not. And for an editor wishing it gone to state on June 15th "... we could just renominate it for deletion in a month or so",[12] feels, pardon me, of WP:IDONTLIKE and WP:KEEPLISTINGTILLITGETSDELETED. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The closing admin was clearly wrong. He failed to look at the questions of depth at the AFD, and even mistakenly argued that such arguments were not made.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That you and the closer have different opinions is noted,[13] as is his declaration to remain neutral and impartial. Disgreeing with his close, a WP:Deletion review would have been the guideline suggested choice, rather than avoiding DRV and renominating one month later.[14] I do not always agree with Spartaz, but I respect his impartial and knowledgable application of policy and guideline. The arguments herein should not concentrate on what you personaly perceive as wrong with a previous close, and concentrate rather on the topic's meeting of WP:SIGCOV. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding "previous consensus misinterpreted" remarks: please read WP:NOTAGAIN. The previous result does not matter and it is important to address your remarks to the matter at hand, now. ╟─Treasury Tag►CANUKUS─╢ 08:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has certainly received significant coverage as a performance artist, if not as a politician. This includes a two thousand word profile in the Boston Globe and other non-trivial articles (for example [15]). See you all again next month. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Bedford Journal newsletter is a great source to prove notability.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, The Boston Globe coverage is neither insignificant nor unreliable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You feel one source proves notability?--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I read above where others have offered more than one to thus show the topic as meeting WP:SIGCOV. One or five or ten decent sources, supported by the verifiability offered through the even larger amount of slightly less significant coverage, supports notability for this topic. It is worthy of note. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I see nothing wrong with using multiple sources of mixed qualities that converge on evidence of notability. While some of them provide less-than-ideal coverage, there are others that do more than just mention the subject (e.g. The Economist article and the Boston Phoenix article). Also, significant coverage does not mean the subject needs to be the main topic of the source material per WP:SIGCOV. With all the articles that were provided by MichaelQSchmidt (and kudos for the excellent research), there's no question in my mind that this article should be kept. Furthermore, while AfD is not about clean-up, there is surely potential for this article to be expanded beyond its current state with the new sources. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that three news articles and a few others with scattered mentions represents "significant coverage".--William S. Saturn (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then we will agree to disagree about the definition of WP:SIGCOV. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 15:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted per A7 by Lectonar (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shorllynetterz basketball team

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

Per Tenpoundhammer's law (the basketball version). Wikipedia is not for things literally made up one day ago. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 14:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Traffic safety performance

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

Partly WP:NOTDIC, partly WP:commonsense, I don't believe this article achieves notability. While a google search does get some hits, they appear mostly to be uses of the phrase. If you think about it, "Traffic safety performance" is a fairly common phrase that could mean many things. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 14:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Note that the creator of the article has created a similar article that has been proposed for speedy deletion. And here's another. Note to the author: it's not personal, and it's great that you're contributing, but these expressions are more suitable for a dictionary than an encyclopaedia. asnac (talk) 15:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Fastily has speedy deleted all three. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 20:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, none of these claims are assertions of actual notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Marshall (Author)

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

Author and Twitterati. Claims 3000 Twitter followers and 250 daily visits to Tumblr, rather underwhelming numbers. She has also published a novel though it seems to exist solely as an e-book. I couldn't find any non-trivial coverage by independent sources but I'll admit that searches are complicated by the fact that "Elizabeth Marshall" is a rather common name. Still this search comes up basically empty. Pichpich (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahn Tae-Yoon

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 13:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Life^talk 13:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not made his professional debut and there is no indication of significant coverage, meaning he fails both WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Saint9016 (talk) 16:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination, has played no professional games, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Zawed (talk) 07:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daryl Horgan

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 13:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Life^talk 13:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is no indication of significant coverage meaning he fails WP:GNG, and he has not played in a fully pro league, meaning he fails WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jesús Fernández Sáez (Suso)

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 13:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Life^talk 13:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. There is no sign of significant coverage, and he has not played in a fully pro league, meaning he fails all relevant notability guidelines. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG. Warburton1368 (talk) 21:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Cake (novel)

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

Doesn't appear to pass WP:NBOOK Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 18:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can find a mention of the book here and a two line review here. The book is shortlisted for local competitions here and here but the only full length review is here. As it stands I'm not really convinced it passes notability criteria but I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 20:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep - This is a borderline case. There is some minimal coverage of the book, including a full-length review, so it might just pass WP:NBOOK. The article is decently written, so I'd say let it stay. —SW— ^talk 18:10, 11 July 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, Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep Has been reviewed in some sources. So notable enough to draw at least some reviewere attention. Which means someone sometime might come looking for it here. Jewishprincess (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CSD#A7 without prejudice to recreation: The article in its current state makes no claim to notability and has no references. If nobody has bothered to add them during this AfD, it is unlikely to happen any time soon. Sandstein 05:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since starting this, I've been wondering if a Redirect to the author might be the best way to go. I've done that with the titles some of the other non-notable books she's written that we had articles for. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 09:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as suggested above by User:Sandstein. Completely unsourced. Book doesn't yet meet any section of WP:NBOOK, since the few references User:Ka Faraq Gatri have found lack the critical content to take the page past a basic plot summary. Here's another review, but that's a commenter's review, not by anyone at the Guardian. None of the references provide information on the characters sufficient to build that section, so that's clearly WP:OR. Problem with the redirect is the target article is a BLP with virtually no sourcing. BusterD (talk) 12:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No quorum, can be speedy renominated. (non-admin closure) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Consulate-General, Buffalo

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

Also Canadian Consulate-General, Monterrey

These consulates don't seem to be covered significantly in independent reliable sources ╟─Treasury Tag►District Collector─╢ 13:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question What about redirecting to Canada – United States relations and Canada–Mexico relations respectively? Given the photographs that seem to show that the buildings are unremarkable and not historic, I doubt that coverage exists for the buildings themselves, so we definitely shouldn't keep the articles. Nyttend (talk) 02:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 1 July 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) 00:27, 7 July 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, Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The sources given in the discussion suggest that it ought to be possible to expand the stub somewhat; if that does not happen it can eventually be renominated. Sandstein 05:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OmniPeace

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

This charity used to be borderline notable, but it appears that the reason for notability no longer exists. In short, it was accused of being a fraudulent charity - but the fraudulent nature has since been disproven, and all the sources have vanished. I'm not sure the charity is notable anymore. The Cavalry (Message me) 12:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.

Comment. If they were ever notable in the past they are notable forever; which is why "notability" always means long term historical notability, and needs to be more about achievements confirmed by sources rather than simply counting sources. Almost all the Google News hits I find on this are about celebrity endorsements. (Hollywood actors, it seems, just can't give to the United Way like mere mortals.) I find nothing about the alleged scandal; the versions in history that mention it are referenced only to a website that now 404s. I tend to doubt it was ever notable. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think what the nominator is saying is that in this case our assessment of their long-term historical notability was mistaken and they were not in fact notable to begin with but the people that argued to keep last time formed a consensus. I agree that the consensus was incorrect then, because though I'll give the benefit of the doubt and assume it had sources then, they seem to have evaporated. HominidMachinae (talk) 07:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"...our assessment of their long-term historical notability was mistaken" - exactly. Well put. The Cavalry (Message me) 13:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as SPAM. It is a company rather than a standalone non-profit humanitarian organisation. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:32, 3 July 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) 00:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

relisting comment. HominidMachinae seems to be suggesting that there was a previous deletion discussion for this article though I can't seem to find one. If one does exist under another name it would be helpful to see it before we punch this one "delete". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of a prior AfD. The nominator talked of a prior notability discussion, perhaps it was on the talk page? HominidMachinae (talk) 03:41, 7 July 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, Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable, although you'd never know it from this stub of an article. The charity/company gets a lot of hits at Google News Archive - many of them because of its patronage by Jennifer Aniston and Courtney Cox.[16] But aside from the celebrity/gossip type items, the organization itself appears to have earned significant coverage from the Chicago Tribune (behind a paywall), the Miami Herald, and U.S. News and World Report. Somebody should add this stuff to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 23:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 16:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mercury grove

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

Does not appear to be a notable company. Once you start removing the non-independent sources (including "startupottawa.com"), there's really not much there outside of blogs. Singularity42 (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Mentions in Globe and Mail ^[1] , Techvibes^[2]^[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masonmike (talk • contribs) 19:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC) — Masonmike (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another company that designs, develops, and markets consumer based web applications, as well as offering professional services to a profile of corporate clients advertising on Wikipedia. Also patent nonsense: Leaders in startup company community in Canada, Mercury Grove offers space in their offices to blossoming entrepreneurs to work and collaborate, and forgo the cost of office space for early stage startups. (They rent out desk space too, apparently.) Incidental mentions in one paragraph of a long unrelated story in the hometown paper and press releases based stories on tech websites do not establish that they've done anything history is going to remember. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 7 July 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, Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It appears to be one of many small businesses, which isn't sufficient for notability in itself, and the article doesn't provide any further justification of notability through sources Pi (Talk to me! ) 17:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Has been expanded with what is probably an excessive number of references in an attempt to establish notability. There have been no comments thereafter, so I'm closing this as no consensus for now. Sandstein 05:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Analytica (software)

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

Appears to be non-notable. Google search failed to provide non-trivial, reliable, third-party sources. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 17:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks significant coverage; article has no 3rd party refs to establish notability. Dialectric (talk) 13:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 17:24, 12 April 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) 01:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. I originally closed this as "delete" back in April but I'm restoring and relisting the article for further comment per a request by email. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:54, 7 July 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, Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Author's Response: I have made modifications to the article to address the concerns that have been voiced. I'd like to see the up-for-deletion status removed soon. Please post additional concerns and let's get it done. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldc (talk • contribs) 20:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan Waldman

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

Almost completely unsourced BLP written mostly by a user with the same name as the subject. G-hits excluding Wikipedia are virtually non-existent. The article was prodded several years ago with the claim that he was never fully professional. I don't know enough about how soccer leagues work to know if that's true, but what I do know is if there's nothing resembling a reliable source, we should delete the article, especially so when it's a BLP. B (talk) 12:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Yunshui (talk) 12:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete done my own search, nothing comes up to suggest notability.asnac (talk) 13:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's poorly sourced 11coolguy12 (talk) 13:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Life^talk 02:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 04:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-verifiable unless someone can come up with reliable evidence. plenty of wikiscrapes and facebook references, but nothing reliable to verify he played in HK league. 6 references supplied in article only back up peripheral information, none even mention Waldman. --ClubOranje^T 10:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination. Adam4267 (talk) 23:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Boyd

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable person. Seems like promotional article. The references are no authoritative sources to proof notability. (BTW, I don't know if this person is the same as the previous AfD from 2005.) P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find any references to this Andy Boyd specifically in Google news either related to his work with Shell. There are indeed a few Andy Boyds on GNews, but none of them seem to match the Andy Boyd here. Current references are also insufficient as noted by the nominator. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 13:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nothing in the article to suggest notable. Reads like an autobiography. May be significant that the main work on the article was created by two single-purpose accounts. asnac (talk) 13:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An active career, but has not made the impact needed for GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Australia's Got Talent (season 5)#Auditions. There was strong consensus that there should not be an article on this subject, however, there was really no consensus to delete. Therefore, I've defaulted to redirect as the less restrictive of the options. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chooka Parker

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

Non-notable reality TV show contestant. Ozurbanmusic (talk) 11:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ozurbanmusic (talk) 07:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 08:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The information could easily be incorporated into the article below by merging it, and has been documented in multiple, reliable sources. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Jenks24 (talk) 01:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this, but that doesn't mean the information needs to be deleted. I think the information on the subject would be more appropriately placed in the season's "Audition" section. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the show, valid search term. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails because this is a non-notable, unimportant person, and I say that in the nicest way possible 11coolguy12 (talk) 12:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The subject does appear to have notability for the event, as he is covered in multiple sources as I mentioned below. Also, your arguments that the subject is "not important" do not help your case. Please read WP:NOTIMPORTANT to understand what I mean. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that reading WP:NOTIMPORTANT doesn't help User:I Jethrobot's case. BusterD (talk) 12:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Duffbeerforme. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 05:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of good worldwide references. Five out of the six refs are reliable.--Dmol (talk) 08:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Australia's Got Talent (season 5)#Auditions per Duffbeerforme. this and this article, both from Australian sources, seemed provide some evidence of notability, albeit it does appear to be a case of WP:BLP1E. The appropriate information can get merged to the above section in the article. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RECENTISM and WP:BLP. Sources are insubstantial and mostly blogs. No direct detailing, just a bunch of trivia. Nothing to merge to the show and no place to target (unless we're talking about sourcing this completely uncited list of living people). If Kylie Minogue voted for him in the final, it's possible he's got a music career in his future, which means better sources, which means eventually we may be proven wrong. But that's all WP:CRYSTAL. As of this timestamp, the decision should be delete (and redirect to the show as a relevant search term). BusterD (talk) 12:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Australia's Got Talent (season 5)#Auditions as a valid search term. Failing that delete. This is a WP:BLP1E situation - after such reality/talent show appearances there is always a transient burst of publicity but something more lasting is needed for notability. Bridgeplayer (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Hoban

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

This is essentially an unreferenced article that reads more like a resume. There's no real indication of notability. The only references given are to his home page and other Wikipedia articles.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 00:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be a possible copyright violation since much of the text is from his bio at livingvalues.com. I don't see any significant claims of notability. I also didn't find independent sources that support notability. The closest thing I found was an interview in the Chicago Examiner (not a major paper, not sure how reliable it is) that his company originated. Astudent0 (talk) 12:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 04:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually a user removed this AfD from the July 13 AfD log (you can check the history of the log or my edits). Papaursa (talk) 22:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability criteria, lacks reliable sources, and appears to have been written by two SPAs. 131.118.229.18 (talk) 17:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a worthy individual. However, he has had no particularly significant achievements and doesn't meet WP:BIO. Bridgeplayer (talk) 12:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as self-promotion and not meeting WP:GNG or WP:MILPEOPLE. Zero independent coverage. Page is a clear copyright violation, taken word for word from here. Given references are links to works (essentially one work) subject has written. BusterD (talk) 12:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 were a number of arguments on both sides of the debate, but those arguing to keep the article have failed to show significant coverage of Ratliff himself in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Atama頭 01:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Joe Ratliff

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

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

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

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

Non-notable musician, failing NMUSIC. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 00:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I want to protest the action of deleting Tommy Joe Ratliff. It was proposed by one of the many "haters" who roam the internet at all times. Tommy is a celebrity in his own right. He has approx 29,000 followers on Twitter, and has fans all over the globe since he toured as Adam Lamberts bassist. He has the #1 selling picture for the NOH8 campaign, and is an open minded and caring individual.Adams kitty (talk) 02:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

And none of those are valid claims to prevent the article from being deleted. Please see WP:NMUSIC for the criteria that he must meet in order to be notable under the policy governing the notability of musicians. Oh, and by the way, please do not refer to me as a "hater". I don't appreciate that, nor does it fall under "Asssume Good Faith", which is one of the pillars of Wikipedia. Thanks. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 07:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even if not notable for his music alone, Tommy Joe Ratliff is a person of interest in the controversy surrounding the American Music Awards kiss he and Lambert shared on national television, and by extension, the ongoing social concerns surrounding the double standards in our society in regards to gay rights. He has become notable as a strong, calm supporter of both gay rights and gender defiance, using his influence as a musician on a small scale to lend his support to worthy charities and causes. People want to know about him, who he is and what he does, the projects he's involved in, his music, his influence on society, all things Wikipedia covers. He fulfils requirement 4 of the criteria for notable musicians. Rightsareright (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Re: "He fulfils requirement 4 of the criteria for notable musicians." - Can you cite reliable sources for that? The article does not prove that claim. As to the rest of your comment, the "controversy surrounding the American Music Awards kiss" and the rest of that sentence is not a valid claim to notability, as the article currently stands. Your statement is original research, not a verifiable fact. The "People want to know about him.." statement is also OR. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 19:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm also here to protest the deletion of Tommy Joe Ratliff's page. He is a known celebrity in his own right and there's no reason to remove his page. As stated above, he is a known globally and has thousands of fans that benefit from having a central location to find his information. I looked through the Wikipedia:Notability (music) page that was linked above and he fits several of the requirements.

1. Performance liner note credits: Adam Lambert's "Glam Nation Live" dvd and cd; Adam Lambert's "Acoustic Live!" EP

2. He plays bass for Adam Lambert's and Monte Pittman's bands, both of whom are notable musicians; and guitar for Ravi Dhar and the Heartless.

2.1 He "Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country." with Adam Lambert's Glam Nation Tour.

3. He has been in the following music videos:

- Adam Lambert: For Your Entertainment, Whataya Want From Me, If I Had You

- Steve Cooke (musician): Radio (article listed below)

- Sutan Amrull/Raja: Diamond Crowned Queen (article listed below)

4. Tommy has been the subject of public works all over the world:

-http://www.rockstarweekly.com/adam-lambert-bassist-tommy-joe-ratliff-loses-father.html

-http://www.rockstarweekly.com/adam-lamberts-orchestra-of-glitz-welcomes-2010.html

-http://www.rockstarweekly.com/adam-lambert-the-complete-vancouver-concert-rundown.html

-http://ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=7648&MediaType=1&Category=22

-http://axestaticprocess.com/2011/04/14/monte-pittman-tommy-joe-ratliff-on-steve-cookes-radio-video/

-http://www.unrealitytv.co.uk/american-idol/adam-lambert-kisses-bass-player-tommy-joe-ratliff-on-stage-video/

-http://www.thedragqueenposse.com/2011/06/19/raja-diamond-crowned-queen-official-music-video-by-austin-young-forever/

4.1 Japanese magazine InRock interviewed Tommy alone on September 18, 2010. (English Translation)

5. "Has been the subject of a half-hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network." Quote from Wikipedia:Notability (music)

-After the American Music Awards on November 22, 2009 Tommy's name was forever linked with Adam Lambert's in a controversial debate about gay rights and censorship on national television. Immediately after the performance they appeared as a band on Late Night with David Letterman (Taped 11/23/2009, aired 11/25/2009), The Ellen Show (Taped 11/30/2009, aired 12/1/2009), The Early Show (11/25/2009), The Jay Leno Show (12/21/2009), The View (Taped 12/8/2009, aired 12/10/2009). The band performed and the controversy was discussed in Adam's interviews. There were also countless print articles about the debate. Tommy and the debate subject was also parodied by Jay Leno on December 1, 2009.

6. It could also be argued that Tommy's page should be kept based on section 2.7 of Wikipedia:Notability (people).

- Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following: 28,000+ twitter followers

- Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment: When asked, Adam Bouska, the co-founder of the world renowned NOH8 Campaign stated that Tommy's NOH8 photo is the most requested. Bryce Ferguson, the NOH8 Campaign merchandising manager confirmed the claim. http://www.noh8campaign.com/article/tommyjoe Rae 1985 (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Rae 1985 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

So, basically what you're saying in 4., above, is that he is "notable" for a single act. Generally, that's not enough to pass under GNG. Your commentary under 5. above is marginal, at best, as his appearances were - by your own words - "as a band", not as an individual, which is a requirement under NMUSIC ("independent coverage"). Your statements under 6. above are referenced to Twitter accounts, which are generally not accepted under RS. The comments under 1., 2., and 3. are generally true about just about any member of any backing band or support to any notable group or artist, so they, too, are marginal, at best. Sorry, but although you make a solid argument and are the first person to have actually presented examples, I still don't feel that you've proven independent notability for this individual. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 20:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I'm saying at all. You can see that the November 22, 2009 American Music Awards and the subsequent controversy gave Tommy a name in the media. He was specifically mentioned by name in many of the interviews and articles from both sides of that debate. Following that the musical credits, world tour, other band credits, NOH8 involvement, and large interested fan base made him a person of interest. I added another reference to how he meets NMUSIC in 2.1 and an article in 4.1 above.

According to those notability rules Tommy as "a musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria." He meets the following criteria:

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

- NOH8/InRock article/NAMM musician

- Tommy is listed as an artist joining Orange Amps for NAMM 2011.

4. He may not have been the headliner, but his was a name of interest in press related to the tour. Articles linked above, but more can be provided.

6. He is or was part of a band with 2 or more notable musicians:

- Adam Lambert is a well known singer.

- Monte Pittman has released albums of his own and played for Madonna for years.

- Longineu W. Parsons III is their former drummer and is a member of the band Yellowcard.

- Camila Grey is their current keyboardist and a member of Uh Huh Her.

- Isaac Carpenter is their current drummer and a member of Loaded (band), Loudermilk, and others.

- Lisa Harriton is their former keyboardist and a member of the Smashing Pumpkins.

- Zac Baird is their former keyboardist and a member of Korn.

- Also note, these musicians all have Wikipedia pages of their own.

As for Wikipedia:Notability (people) Entertainers:

2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.

- 28,000+ twitter followers

- Two merchandise stores: TJRMerch and Angel Batz

- TJRPics is a team that documents all photos

3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

- The AMA's controversy (linked below on the actual American Music Awards 2009 wikipedia page) is part of the larger ongoing gay rights, equality and censorship debate. Tommy was one of two people that started the debate. This event could be argued as being as significant as the 2003 MTV Video Music Awards Madonna and Britney kiss.

- His is the top requested NOH8 photo. I realize that twitter is a shaky reference, but Adam Bouska is the co-founder and Bryce Ferguson is the NOH8 Campaign merchandising manager.Rae 1985 (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter who the individual is; Twitter does not meet RS. If the information that was given in the tweets in question is factual, then it exists somewhere else in a form that does meet RS. Find it, put it in the article, and you're in much better shape. That is true for everything else that you've presented, as well... improve the article with that information, properly referenced, and the article will be in better shape to avoid deletion. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 01:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My argument above

Question - The AMA controversy is significant enough that it is specifically mentioned on both the American_Music_Awards_of_2009 article and the Adam Lambert article. If it is worth mentioning there, isn't it logical to include the one other person directly involved in the controversy? Cassieloon —Preceding undated comment added 20:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Under GNG (under "Presumed") , no. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 20:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Under GNG (under "Significant coverage") , yes. Rightsareright (talk) 20:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But, not if said "Significant coverage" is as a result of SENSATION. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 20:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the argument against sensationalism states "Tabloid or yellow journalism is usually considered a poor basis for an encyclopedia article, due to the lack of fact checking inherent in sensationalist and scandal mongering news reporting." In this case the facts are both on camera and registered in the courts. Adam Lambert did kiss Tommy Joe on national television, that is not in question. An official complaint was lodged by the Liberty Council with the FCC . There is no sensationalism in the facts of what happened. Cassieloon —Preceding undated comment added 23:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

You're interpreting the statement incorrectly. The sensationalism of the event is merely that, "Oh my God, a man kissed another man on live television! The horror!" I've read the complaint and that is the gist of the argument that it makes. That single, sensationalist, event does not make Tommy Joe Ratliff notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Some of the other arguments that have been presented since I opened this discussion - at the request of another editor in another AfD discussion[17] - might be enough, but I'm not convinced and will leave that decision to the closing administrator. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 01:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, you should delete his page. he's a nice guy, but this is just the attempt of some obsessed fans who can't get close enough to adam lambert to make a hired musician/friend seem more important than he really is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.13.237.169 (talk) 03:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
lol his only claim to fame is that adam lambert kissed him on national tv. desperate tommyberts may try to make him a celebrity, but he's not. He seems like a good guy, but that's not enough to warrant a wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.13.237.169 (talk) 03:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, notability isn't inherited from Adam Lambert to his bass player. The sources are basically about Adam Lambert, not about Tommy Joe Ratliff. But, the fact that he isn't notable doesn't mean Tommy Joe Ratliff has to be a redlink. The best outcome here would be a WP:SMERGE of a short paragraph to Adam Lambert, and turn Tommy Joe Ratliff into a redirect.—S Marshall T/C 23:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to write-up bio paragraphs for all his band members, dancers, and tech people? Several of his other band members are of note and his previous dancers have posed for the NOH8 campaign. I don't see the point of singling out his bassist. Ratliff is not notable outside of the context of Adam Lambert and even then, including a paragraph about the early life and "philanthropy" of the backing band's bassist on a solo artist's page doesn't make sense to me. - 75.129.228.122 (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, but other people might want to. As and when there's sufficient information for a separate article on Adam Lambert band, then it can be fissioned off.—S Marshall T/C 11:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Either delete the Tommy Joe Ratliff entry or let it stay, but I respectfully request that Adam Lambert's entry not be cluttered with extraneous hired musicians, dancers, and other craftspeople. Each of them is important in their own way, Tommy Joe Ratliff included, but none of them belong as an addendum to Adam Lambert's page in my opinion. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.94.110.197 (talk) 21:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— 75.94.110.197 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep - Tommy Joe Ratliff is a talented musician and artist. He has an interesting connection to Adam Lambert and it would be such a shame to loose his Wiki page. The work he does for the NOH8 campaign has brought him even more fans. Please keep Tommy Joe Ratliff's page. --Eastlea (talk) 23:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

KEEP! I am here to try to prevent the deletion of Tommy Joe Ratliff's Wikipedia page. I am a fan of his as are hundreds of thousands. He has earned respect as an amazing musician and I see no reason to delete his page. People should be able to read about all his accomplishments and all that he will continue to do in the future. Tommy is very active in the NOH8 campaign and has the most requested/purchased celebrity photo on said campaign, donating all profits to NOH8. He's an amazing person and we should all know who he is! Please don't delete his page! - 99.53.224.202

— 99.53.224.202 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Redirect to Adam Lambert, lacks independent notability. The above claims of notability are a major misinterpritation of the guideline and at best support a redirect. (note, if this is somehow kept a history merge with TommyJoe Ratliff is needed as this article was created with a cut paste move). duffbeerforme (talk) 02:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find it very telling that, after ten days of attention and criticism, this article still can not substantially prove the notability of the subject in his own right. Nearly every reference provided in the article - at the present time - is a reference that is talking about Adam Lambert, not Tommy Joe Ratliff. Despite the presence of a few "keep" comments above, I still suggest that this debate be closed with a result of - at the very least - redirect, if not delete altogether. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 11:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the string of SPA's that have shown up here to argue for inclusion, the notability is just not there. "I am a fan" "He has followers on Twitter" etc. are not valid arguments; neither is insulting the editors who are trying to apply Wikipedia's criteria to this article. Although the article has 22 "references", most are not to Reliable Sources, most are about Adam Lambert rather than Tommy Joe Ratliff, and some do not even mention Ratliff. BTW I don't know how they did it, but somebody managed to remove this subject as a title/subhead on the July 14 AfD page, so that it's hard to tell where the Jack Hoban nomination leaves off and the Tommy Joe Ratliff nomination begins. --MelanieN (talk) 00:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Barely notable for one event. Not notable as part-time model. Philanthropy doesn't establish notability. Not notable as sideman. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 21:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage of the article subject aside from WP:ONEVENT, no criterion of WP:MUSICBIO is met. Hekerui (talk) 12:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Anyone know why this debate is still active, almost a month after it was opened? LOL Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 17:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Significant coverage for the subject is limited to being kissed by Adam Lambert during the 2009 AMAs WP:N As the Ratliff entry itself states, since then the subject has been a member of an ever changing backing band. He has no history with notable bands. He has no music of his own. He has not been noted for his skills as a bassist or a musician. Lesrhea (talk) 16:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC) — Lesrhea (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that there was insufficient coverage by reliable sources to meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Billiter Partners

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

Fails WP:CORP. No significant coverage by third party sources. Cntras (talk) 09:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

Delete. Another business intelligence and investigations firm advertising on Wikipedia. No evidence of any significant effect on history, culture, or technology of the sort that leads to long term historical notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Previously worked for this firm as well as other business intelligence firms and have added to the article. There should be articles on these companies as a means of monitoring them and scrutinise their activities as wikipedia is a resources used by many to quickly examine a company. These firms are hugely influential in the US and UK and I am amazed for example that there is no article on Risk Advisory Group which is another significant firm in this sector. Just because the firm is not commented on in the mainstream media doesn't mean the company isn't notable. Everyone in the legal and compliance field know of Billiter. These BI companies are very good at staying out of the media or ensuring that they have only positive coverage, after all that is what they do for their clients. If the decision is to delete then the articles for Control Risks Group, Hakluyt & Company and Eurasia Group should also be deleted as these are blatant advertising and containing only positive new stories and no balance. I would suggest that instead of deletion all articles are edited - I am happy to spend time doing this but don't want to waste time if the decision is that they be deleted anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cclaw (talk • contribs) 04:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC) {{SPA}Cclaw}}[reply]

Delete - I didn't see any notable third-party mentions or news coverage results on Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. If the company has "been very good at staying out the media" then they will also stay out of Wikipedia. We do not decide who is worthy of being talked about or who we think the public "ought" to know about; we only reflect what has been reported on by independent, reliable sources. No coverage = no notability = no article. --MelanieN (talk) 00:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I work for Billiter Partners in Corporate Communications. The company has not sought a Wikipedia article and would kindly request that the editors delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BilliterCorporateComms (talk • contribs) 07:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No significant independent coverage. No assertion of notability in pagespace or during this procedure. BusterD (talk) 12:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhet Genç

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

Unreferenced WP:Autobiography of associate professor, non-notable per WP:ACADEMIC. Gurt Posh (talk) 09:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 09:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the mentioned WP:ACADEMIC. Also, cannot find any third party sources to confirm anything but the intro paragraph (which is basic detail only). Nik thestoned 11:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A WP:BLP without any independent references. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 00:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough on GS or GB. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Aguilera's upcoming album

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

Article discussing probable upcoming album. No title, no release date; hazy on whether anything has yet been written or recorded for it. Clearly no sign of notability yet; pure WP:CRYSTAL. Was PRODded (with my second); Prod removed by the creating editor. TJRC (talk) 08:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NALBUMS: "a future album whose article is titled "(Artist)'s Next Album" and consists solely of blog or fan forum speculation about possible titles, or songs that might be on the album, is a violation of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball". See also WP:HAMMER. JohnCD (talk) 10:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This entire article is based on a single interview where the subject suggested she might be making a new album, a rumormill website, and speculation based on prior albums and single releases. Singularity42 (talk) 10:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. All sources come from blogs and nothing is concrete yet. Lugnuts (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete textbook WP:HAMMER, some fanboy probably just wet himself because he was the first to get the info out. Relax, o fanboy. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Sk8erock has a history of creating useless Christina articles (I've actually talked to him about that before), but besides the fact, this article is useless, and there are no real sources for any album coming our way. And we all know how long Christina takes to record albums (well, if you didn't - you know now). WP:CRYSTAL ℥^nding·start 02:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh you mean Sk8erock actually communicates? —Mike Allen 10:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER of course —Mike Allen 10:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SNOW delete, exactly as argued. DGG ( talk ) 03:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow of Israphel

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

Contested proposed deletion. Rationale for deletion was: "Non-notable youtube series. Article is entirely plot, all citations come from Wikia or creators sources themselves. A search for sources gives no results for this series, although the creating group do get a few mentions in PC Gamer - But no mention of this series from what I have looked through."

Prod was contested by User:Moomoohk with rationale: "There is no primary source of information on this show anywhere (as far as i know). Wikipedia is as good a place as any. I would also consider a very notable series with thousands of viewers worldwide"

As no sources have been found/added with the removal of the prod, I am listing this at AfD. In addition to the sourcing problems, the article is also unencyclopedic as it is currently just a big list of plot. I don't think there is anything encyclopedic to document due to the lack of sources. Taelus (talk) 08:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is the Yogscast wiki and the videos themselves. I did start to clean up the article a bit and make it less like what you're saying. moomoohk —Preceding undated comment added 11:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Another wiki is not a reliable source, nor are the videos themselves. In order to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia, the series must be covered in reliable secondary sources, for example in gaming magazines or websites. At this time this hasn't happened. Check out WP:N for information on our notability policy, and as another user posts below check out WP:PRIMARY for information on why the current citations are not adequate. --Taelus (talk) 11:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry then. I just thought they were secondary sources. Side note: There's no need to rip on the Yogscast. To us gamers they make great helpful and informative videos about video games which are quite the opposite of unremarkable. moomoohk —Preceding undated comment added 14:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I have nothing against the Yogscast, nor any youtube groups - They just rarely belong in an encyclopedia. As you have linked to a Yogscast wikia already, perhaps you could take these contributions there as that is the place that would have the correct audience. Remember that deletion from Wikipedia doesn't imply anything about the popularity or quality of a group, it just means that they do not meet the criteria to have an encylopedic entry covering them. Regards, --Taelus (talk) 14:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That side note was aimed at MikeWazowski. moomoohk —Preceding undated comment added 15:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Taelus (talk) 08:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I could not verify information about this series through reliable secondary sources, nor establish how it might be notable. I recommend that Moomoohk enlightens himself by reading WP:PRIMARY. Marasmusine (talk) 09:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yet another attempt by fans of an unremarkable podcast to find a way to promote themselves on Wikipedia. See the deletion logs for The YogPod, The Yogscast, The yogscast, and Yogscast. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Marasmusine basically. WP:GNG requires multiple reliable secondary sources with significant coverage and none are given and I cannot find any, including for parent topic Yogscast. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 19:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per MikeWazowski's rationale. Sergecross73 msg me 19:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete Again, no success in finding significant coverage of this show in third party, independent sources. I'm quite tired of seeing articles about this group when they consistently have sources that do not comply with notability standards. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 09:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Edgepedia (talk) 12:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evan E. Eichler

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

Delete. Fails WP:PROF -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance of letting us know what leads you to that conclusion? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - Keep Passes WP:PROF criteria 1 (over 200 published articles which appear to be widely cited in the field (see gbooks results); sits on several national advisory councils) and criteria 8 (Principal editor of Genome Research journal). Either one of these is enough to make him notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yunshui (talk • contribs) 13:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. AAAS Fellow (that alone is enough to pass WP:PROF#C3), several notable awards. I did not look further but fairly clearly passes WP:PROF on several counts. He is usually referred to as "Evan Eichler" (w/o middle initial), so the page title will need to be moved. A filtered GNews search for "Evan Eichler" gives 268 hits[18] - so probably passes WP:PROF#C7 as well. Nsk92 (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF #C1 and #C3. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator wishes to withdraw the AfD. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 04:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Margie Schoedinger

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

No reliable sources on the subject. There was an article in her local newspaper, however looking at its website I am not impressed. Her allegations were clearly insane (read the complaint linked in the article) and the only sources on the topic are extreme left wing, bordering on conspiracy theorist websites, so as it stands an accurate article would be impossible to build at this time. LegrisKe (talk) 06:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The lack of investigation regarding the circumstances surrounding the death of the subject of the article warrants inclusion. The notoriety and circumstances of the rise to prominence of the subject, in addition to the subject's lack of history of mental illness indicate worthiness of record. Regarding the lack of reporting, the lack of traction of the subject's circumstances within mainstream media should not be considered lack of significant coverage, considering the untimely demise of the subject. Excen

Delete: Clearly fails WP:SIGCOV. (refer to third bullet point). --TimL (talk) 07:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO, no significant coverage to demonstrate notability. ukexpat (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Schizophrenia is a tragic disease, but we simply cannot list everyone whose mental illness leads them to believe that they have been personally wronged by a public figure. Ms Schoedinger was not Margaret Mary Ray. I'd even say she didn't really count as a vexatious litigant, seeing as how she died before doing very much. I advocate deleting this article. DS (talk) 01:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What separates Margie Schoedinger's suit from the thousands of other frivolous lawsuits that are filed every day? Quanticle (talk) 01:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One local news story is not significant coverage. Dcoetzee 02:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRIME. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 02:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability. Shearonink (talk) 14:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Thailand Cultural Centre#Facilities. Seems the logical solution DGG ( talk ) 03:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thai Life Permanent Exhibition Hall

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

fails WP:ORG. unreferenced for 3 years. nothing in gnews. 5 gbooks hits. [19]], only 1 could be considered indepth. but you would expect an active exhibition hall to at least get some newspaper coverage. LibStar (talk) 05:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG There are articles that summarize the Hall, but no articles whatsoever to suggest notability. --TimL (talk) 08:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Thailand Cultural Center of which it appears to be a part (more here). There's some info on an official Thai site which seems to provide some legitimacy to it, although I don't think it warrants its own article. StarM 02:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ETA already mentioned there. Just redirect. It's a valid search term. StarM 02:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with star that a redirect would be best, given what he turned up. The reason I declined the prod initially was the combination of the one 200 pageish book about it, and the fact that, presumably, most sources will be in Thai. I would not expect an average notable exhibition hall in a non-anglophone country to necessarily have any english language newspaper coverage. Kevin (talk) 00:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As usual, I will userfy on request. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Belding

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

A Canadian actor. I believe this is a case of WP:Too Soon. Has stared in one independent film, Campus Radio. Campus Radio was released early in 2011, but there is not alot about the film out there or even if the film had a semi-wide distribution. Stared in three episodes of a web series, currently filming a new independent movie and played a couple of bit parts. Bgwhite (talk) 05:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 05:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Okay with userfication to author. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not yet meeting WP:BIO. Bridgeplayer (talk) 12:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per not meeting WP:NACTOR or GNG. One indy film? BusterD (talk) 12:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) —Tom Morris (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xanadu Houses

AfDs for this article:

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

To reiterate a quote from the talk page:

I agree. Mason invented the Xanadu House, a specific example of a hi-tech house, and promoted it via his 1983 book. The promotion was picked up at the time and mentioned in a few places, including a business publication and apparently was promoted as a tourist attraction. However, there is no evicence of an enduring effect of the Xanadu House concept. Are there any mentions in architectural reviews? Any recent mentions that the Xanadu House plans are even remembered? Is it still a tourist attraction? Are the three houses still standing? I have modern architectural reviews of the period that do not mention it. The two "Further reading" books appear to deal with how technology affects the economy, rather than addressing specifically the effect of Xanadu House.

I agreed with Mattisse in 2009, and still agree today.

Looking at the keeps from the last AFD, one thought that the subject was notable because the subject's book was in the Library of Congress, which is fallacious on its face. The others were two WP:ITSNOTABLEs and a WP:PRETTY from an editor with a long-standing vendetta against me. Also, I think the last AFD was swayed because the article was ranked as FA at the time despite being woefully lacking. As a result, I procedurally withdrew the AFD and took it to FAR, where it was demoted.

However, there hasn't been an iota of improvement since it was demoted. Almost all of the article is sourced to the architect's own book. Sources #7 and #13 are tangential mentions in the subject of something greater — #13 gives two whole sentences. I couldn't find any better sources. The article has been tagged since August 2009 for primary sources. It's still completely devoid of non-trivial secondary source coverage, because none EXISTS. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There were several secondary sources with non-trivial, non-local coverage provided in the last AfD, and they are no less valid now. In addition to those, it didn't take long to also find this from Compute! magazine in 1982. I believe that the primary notability of this subject lies in its curiosity as a tourist attraction rather than as a concept that had any impact on the field of architecture, but it is notable regardless. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 06:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Orange Suede Sofa. Sorry TenPound, but the precedent is against you, unfortunately Mattisse (talk · contribs) isn't around here today and Mattisse is currently blocked for abusing multiple accounts. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 08:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here's a 1352-word article about the subject from The New York Times. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not a key building in the history of architecture but clearly above current threshold of notability for similar articles. If this was a delete, thousands of other articles would need to be deleted as well. Seems however somewhat overlinked-to with 40 articles linking to it. For example I doubt that it's demolition in 2005 was of significance in the history of architecture. --Elekhh (talk) 02:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are lots of Google News hits about the Kissimmee one and a few on the Wisconsin one. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 04:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Radies Man

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

Unsourced, unnotable. Huh direction (talk) 04:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, no coverage. Claim to fame is minor contribution (1 of 30) to a minor album. 04:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorgenev (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Technical non-admin close. Article has been redirected.brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Leibby Kletzky

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

This is a shocking and disturbing murder, however I'm not sure that it warrants inclusion here as an encyclopedic topic. I think this would be great at Wikinews, but the entries here are not just news stories. Additionally, the article draws comparisons to the murder of Etan Patz. The Patz murder apparently lead to national movement in regards to solving child abductions and was instrumental in taking down NAMBLA. We don't see that here. This murder is disgusting, but I don't think it belongs here. AniMate 03:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. If it becomes important, the article can be re-created. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The news of the murder has also reached Italy soon, a notable murder. User:Lucifero4
Merge to Murder of Leiby Kletzky, a more encyclopedic treatment of the subject which shows worldwide coverage in top media outlets such as The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, ABC News, CBS News, Arutz Sheva. Yoninah (talk) 22:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I just looked over the current article and see it is almost entirely based on the New York Daily News, a rather unreliable source. I'm changing my !vote to Delete this page and save Murder of Leiby Kletzky with its plethora of worldwide, reliable sources. Yoninah (talk) 22:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 04:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oren Fuerst

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

I have no reason to believe that this person is notable. The article, now trimmed, was a puff piece with a likely COI. No references to reliable sources were removed from the article since none were provided; I couldn't find any either. Drmies (talk) 03:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A WP:BLP with no independent references. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 00:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some decent cites on GS but not enough yet. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I could only find these two pieces [20] [21], which fall very short of being significant coverage - frankie (talk) 01:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 am willing to userfy, and would have done so, but the author has not yet indicated that he/she is interested (the comment on MQS's talk page fell short of that). If anyone is willing to work on it in userspace, drop me a note and it will be done. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still Small Voice (2009 Film)

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NFILMS. Singularity42 (talk) 02:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Close~~ without prejudice for renomination AFTER editors address issues through regular editing. Article was sent to AFD one hour and 10 minutes after creation. My thought is that per WP:Deletion policy, it would have been better to tag the article for concerns and have themn addressed, rather that placing it so quickly into a deletion discussion and thus forcing immediate cleanup. Yes, it needs citations and improvement. But why the rush to delete? Why not give the thing a chance? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't rush into this AfD. I did a search online for any references that demonstrated this met WP:NFILMS. I couldn't find any. Hence the AfD. You ask "Why not give the thing a chance?" I ask "If an editor searches online and cannot find any sources that support that this article meets notablity guidelines, why hold off a nomination?" Singularity42 (talk) 02:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To you one hour and 10 minutes after creation of an article may not be a rush. As for myself, in finding available reliable sources, I saw a verifiable film topic that did violate WP:NOT. In less than that hour and ten minutes, I found sources, added them as citations and began cleaning up the article so that it met WP:V. Then I tagged it for concerns. The way I interpet Deletion policy, that was perhaps the thing to do. If the article does not then get improved, an AFD would be fine, as the opportinuty to improve it had been offered to the community. As for "Why hold off", I look to WP:WIP, WP:IMPERFECT, and WP:DEADLINE. We have a 2009 film that received coverage in New Zealand. If tagged, New Zealand Wikipedians could look to those New Zealand databases and hardcopy sourcesto which I myself so not have access. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I spent about twenty minutes looking for sources. I went through the IMDB page to see in detail to see if there was missing. At the end of the day, there are a lot of YouTube videos, there are blogs (most of which are not even independent of the film), and a local paper that celebrated the movie as being from their local town. I even tried to see if I could find movie listings from New Zealand in 2009 and early 2010 to show this move was featured anywhere but a community centre. There was nothing. You added some additional citations from the same local paper. That's great, but not that helpful to WP:NFILMS. Also, it's not as if an AfD means an immediate deletion. It means there will be a seven-day discussion. Singularity42 (talk) 10:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Local" is a subjective term. If the papers are major (for the area), are indepencdent of the subject, and offer critical commentary specifically about the film and its production, THAT is what WP:NF is looking for. Per WP:CSB, we do not expect nor demand that an independent low-budget film from New Zealand will make headlines in the New York Times or be written of in Variety. Even the biggest newspaper in New Zealand will not have the circulation of a smaller paper in a larger demographic. What is cogent is that Fairfax New Zealand is the largest media company operating in New Zealand, and is part of Australia's Fairfax Media, and so has national coverage, even if "national" only to New Zealand and Australia. Perhaps we are using different Google--Foo, but my point in sugesting a close is that even that much was easy to find and add, and that if I found that in a very quick time, there may well be more that I did not find in a search due to my not having access to other New Zealand databases or hardcopy sources. I would be fine with a renomination in 30 days, and feel that apprising New Zealanders of the concern and allowing them to make input and improvements would serve the project. Heck, even a userfication back to its author serves better than an outright deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is it policy that an AfD should only be started on an existing film 30 days after a maintenance tag was started? There's various views about WP:BEFORE (which I believe I have complied with anyway, despite the issue of it being a requirement currently being up for debate), but I've never heard that argued before. In any event, as I said, coverage by the one local (subjectively speaking) paper is not enough. There are zero criteria met at WP:NFILMS which is the relevant guideline:

There is no coverage by multiple, third-party, reliable sources in a non-trivial way, and therefore does not meet WP:GNG
It has not been widely distributed, and has not recieved full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics
It is less than five years old, so criterion two has no application
It has not recieved a major award for excellence in filmmaking
It has not been perserved in a national archive
It is not taught as part of a notable film program at an accredited college or university

I agree that it has been covered by a single, local (again, subjectively speaking) paper, some blogs, some forums, YouTube, and Facebook. It also appears that the author of this article is trying to promote this movie (such as having the death of one of the actors of this movie listed as a "notable death" in 2010 in film. But it does not meet WP:NFILMS. 'Nuff said. Singularity42 (talk) 22:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

30 days was just an arbitrary number, and we have notable topics that have had maintainace tags on then for far longer periods. It was only a suggestion out of courtesy to the newcomer author(s)... and as stated, I would not have been adverse to a renomination if improvemnents were not made within a reasonable length of time. And toward your use of "attributes to consider" as if they were mandates... many are as totally inapplicable to a two-year-old film as they are to a five-year-old film. We did have 2 in-depth artcles in at least one publication major and notable to New Zealand, suggestive that there may be more either online or hardcopy souces unavailable in the US, giving thought that the GNG might be met with time and patience. While not distributed internationally in theaters, it is avaiable worldwide through the internet, so we might look for such internet reviews. And while "nationally known" is very subjective inre critics, all it means is that if a critic reviewed it, we should be prudent in looking for sources where they might be expected to be found: New Zealand. And awards are again a criteria that simply encourages prudence in seeking sources where they might best be expected. Further, I do not know of any 2-year-old film preserved in an archive, nor any 2-year old film taught as part of a notable film program. But again, these are simply listed as "attributes to consider" that are intened to encourage our searches, not limit them. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy to well-intended newcomer author as the article is not yet ready for mainspace. One of the authors has contacted me on my talk page and has shown a willingness to continue work to bring it into line. If not in mailspace, userfying will allow him to work and to learn the processes here... processes that can be quite confusing to a newb. So I ask the nominator to let them at least try, off mainspacem as userfication is less bitey to a newcomer and will serve just as well to remove it from mainspace until such time (if ever) that it might be ready for return.. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with userfying the article. Singularity42 (talk) 03:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete - Doesn't appear to meet requirements - SimonLyall (talk) 07:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFILM. Not every film made or even reviewed is notable. Only local coverage, so not very independent of project. No problem with userfying, but I'm not seeing where sources will arise in future. BusterD (talk) 13:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 04:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

W.I.N. Records

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

Not notable. Huh direction (talk) 01:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mostly just because no references are provided to establish notability. Several Times (talk) 03:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:RS. Monterey Bay (talk) 05:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert William Taylor (baseball)

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

Subject does not meet the notability guidelines for baseball players Hirolovesswords (talk) 00:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. —Hirolovesswords (talk) 00:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 17:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Several secondary sources cited. Player was named to the Florida League's All Star Team in 1964 and had a notable if short career in MiLB as a pitcher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoriste2 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Theoriste2 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. —Bagumba (talk) 17:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor league baseball player fails WP:BASEBALL/N by never having played at the highest level. Coverage is WP:ROUTINE with passing references in game summaries. This fails WP:GNG which requires significant coverage that "is more than a trivial mention." The subject is WP:Run-of-the-mill and does not warrant an article. This article is indiscriminate promotion as stated in WP:SPIP, there need to be independent sources that "have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own" —Bagumba (talk) 08:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Player was in the AAA-rated Vancouver Mounties, which is the highest level class team in minor league baseball. Player was awarded to the Florida League's All-Star team. Much of the cited coverage is referencing player location and not meant to establish merit. Scanned newspaper articles will be added with biographies and interviews as soon as I can get scans.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoriste2 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 14 July 2011

Comment Playing at the highest level of minor league baseball is not the same as playing in Major League Baseball. Per WP:BASEBALL/N, "Minor league players ... are not assumed to be inherently notable." —Bagumba (talk) 17:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a memorial WP:NOTMEMORIAL states "Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements." The article's creator and primary contributor, User: Theoriste2, used to use the account User:Theoriste, who's user page says is Deanne Taylor. According to an obituary for Robert Taylor, Deanne Taylor is his daughter. While Theoriste2 may have a close relationship with the article's subject, Theoriste2's editing of the article itself has been unbiased to date. However, Theoriste2 may have a conflict of interest in participating in this AfD. —Bagumba (talk) 17:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article isn't meant to be a memorial, but rather an informative link to a sports record that was, at the time, very good. For example, Taylor out-pitched eventual MLB Rollie Fingers in 1967 (but Rollie had a bad injury that year -- so that's not fair to use as a notable achievement per se). Beyond that, though, he's notable for his standing and innings pitched that year at least. If it's decided Wikipedia isn't the place for this record, then I have no particular problem with it. Given that there seem to be some very fuzzy distinctions on what is 'notable' in terms of MiLB players, I can only present the facts as they stand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoriste2 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- While I personally think his accomplishments are cool, I don't see how he could be considered notable under our current guidelines and I've spent a considerable amount of time searching. As for the distinction being fuzzy, I don't really see how that is. The guideline is very clear at Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Baseball and as he never played a MLB game, none of his merits qualify him for an article. He may satisfy WP:GNG or WP:BIO but I can't find any articles that show significant coverage of the subject. OlYeller^Talktome 20:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Outpitching" Rollie Fingers in Double-A, while subjective, doesn't confer notability even if established by verifiable sources. He pitched a grand total of nine games in Triple-A. I see no other evidence of BASE/N or GNG being met. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - -has not played MLB and doesn't separately meet WP:GNG. Bridgeplayer (talk) 12:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO, WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:BASEBALL/N. User:Bagumba above makes every assertion I would have made. BusterD (talk) 13:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I don't see how we can judge on the reality of the dialect from the information here, but seems possible to be improved sufficiently by editing. DGG ( talk ) 03:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kesen dialect

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

This Kesen dialect seems to be a conceit made by a docotr named Harutsugu Yamaura. He apparently has no linguistic background, and his "self-declared language" has not been recognized or commented on by others. Every single citation is of one of the doctor's books and the external links seem to lead to commercial websites. The dubious nature of this article was noted back in 2008, but the Wikipedians around then simply moved it from "Kesen language" or something like that to its current location, and the article is still written as if it were an independent language. This goes against WP:NOTE and the "reactions" section might violate WP:OR. While it is certainly possible that a dialect of Japanese known as Kesen exists, this article has nothing to do with it, and it should be scrubbed. Hermione is a dude (talk) 13:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Angr (talk) 11:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless information on the actual dialect of Kesen replaces the current article before this AFD is over. —Angr (talk) 11:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. This appears to be just one of the hundreds of regional dialects of Japanese, and all of the descriptive work done on it appears to stem from one person. That doesn't rise to the necessary level of notability, as far as I can tell. Cnilep (talk) 00:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I don't understand the arguments for deletion. While there are many regional Japanese dialects, most have not been described, unlike the Kesen dialect. The work of the good doctor has attracted at least some attention from linguists, who appear to consider it a serious contribution. I agree that the notability is marginal, although I also see references in Japanese news sources, like Asahi Shimbun. The current text of our Wikipedia article makes a curious distinction between a language supposed to have been "invented" by Yamaura and the disappearing regional vernacular in Kesen; however, as reported by reliable sources, Yamaura just provided a description of the existing vernacular as he found it, his only "invention" being the development of an orthography. --Lambiam 13:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Many dialects have been described by dedicated amateur linguists with an interest in the dialect of their own region. Carroll actually alludes to this ("One example of the movements springing up all over rural Japan is in the Kesen area of Iwate Prefecture in the Tohoku Region" (p. 14)), and I can attest to two other such locally published descriptions in rural areas where I have lived. That said, the two sources added by Lambiam do seem to go some way toward establishing wider notability. I am concerned, though, that the current article seems to be as much about Yamaura sensei as it is about the Kesen language variety. That's not a reason for deletion, but it may suggest changing the Infobox and re-editing the lead, for example. Cnilep (talk) 00:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: It's not just the lead that needs re-editing; this article is more about Dr. Yamaura than it is about any dialect of Japanese. If the Kesen dialect is real then it deserves an article, and if the doctor's writings are notable then it should be included in that article. However, the article that currently exists is extremely misleading and should be scrubbed. Hermione is a dude (talk) 17:29, 11 July 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) 00:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Lambian. My response is based only on reading the above AfD comments, so discount accordingly. Dialects are encyclopedic. The connection between the Dr. and the dialect, and the WP:DUE thereof, is an editorial decision, and is not a reason to delete. Since there is a strong connection between the two, it is reasonable to have them together, with a redirect from one to the other. Unscintillating (talk) 20:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After 15 days with reasonable but not overwhelming arguments in both directions, it seems appropriate to close this AfD as no consensus. Lambian has made some useful changes to the page. If this discussion closes, I (and I hope others) will be encouraged to make further improvements. Cnilep (talk) 01:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 04:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Day

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

Convicted of four counts of fraud, concerning goods totalling less than £200 (a substantial sum at the time, but not a fortune). A relatively minor crime then as now; this fellow only got two years in prison, in an age when you could be hanged for stealing a loaf of bread. The subject of the article clearly fails to meet WP:CRIMINAL. The Newgate Calendar is not a reliable source; the proceedings of the Old Bailey is a primary court source. That leaves the fact that a radio station discussed Alexander Day as part of a program where they read from old court proceedings to provide interesting tales of how life was lived in the 18th century; and a newspaper mentioned said program in its weekly radio and TV listings. This is not significant coverage. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 07:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This guy doesn't seem very significant as thieves go. Google leads to Wikipedia itself and some other people named Alexander Day. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this page is deleted, Alexander Day (artist) should be moved to Alexander Day D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the goal of Wikipedia is to produce an encyclopedia of information relevant in 100 years, then here is someone who is known 300 years later. He may not seem notable now, but he was apparently notable at the time.--v/r - T P 19:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with TParis (talk · contribs) above. I see no evidence that he was well-known or notable 300 years ago. The Newgate Calendar was a journal type of publication, listing multiple different crimes in each issue, essentially the day's Nancy Grace. Most topics covered on Nancy Grace that aren't covered elsewhere aren't considered notable, and when you make it 300 years old, it's even less notable. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The very fact that we're talking about someone who lived 300 years ago shows significance. Will anyone be talking about you or I in 300 years?--v/r - T P 12:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is clearly notable, being documented in detail in reliable sources such as The Criminal Recorder: or, Biographical sketches of notorious public characters]. Notability does not expire and, in any case, the subject is still being noticed in mainstream media. Warden (talk) 12:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Criminal Recorder is most certainly not a reliable source. From its title page it claims to include "a variety of curious and singular cases, anecdotes, &c". Anecdotes? Clearly very much the Judge Judy of its day. What do we know about its editorial control, and its reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Well, we know that it claimed to be written by "a student of the inner temple", but I doubt we know if that's true, or indeed which particular student it was. Not a reliable source. As for "still being noticed in mainstream media" - well, which mainstream media, other than the one single radio program that happened to be doing readings from old court records to provide an entertaining dramatisation of 18th century life? The guy wasn't notable in the 18th century, and notability is not temporary - if he wasn't receiving significant coverage in reliable sources then, or now, or any time in between, then he's not notable. Happening to be a thief born a long time ago, doesn't change what WP:CRIMINAL says - the bar for inclusion is that "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event." --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable. also per colonel wardens reasonings. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 04:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Super Junior's Untitled fifth studio album

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

WP:CRYSTAL/WP:HAMMER —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HAMMER. If you're citing Twitter, you know it's not gonna fly. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above and a convenient guideline I wasn't aware of before. Several Times (talk) 03:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements" per WP:FUTURE. The article is a collection of claims by various individuals that they are working on the album, with no official details eg name of album, lead tracks, release date, track listing etc. So "it's not going to hurt you to wait", as WP:HAMMER so neatly summarized, then at least the article can be named properly rather than the generic "fifth studio album".--Michaela den (talk) 11:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was REDIRECTED per WP:BLP1E. Errant ^(chat!) 18:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Levi Aron

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

The sources are from today. There hasn't even been a trial. PTJoshua (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added that he admitted to police and they found the remains in his his freezer. This should clearly establish that he is worthy of an article.00:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ortho (talk • contribs)

Redirect to Murder of Leiby Kletzky per WP:BLP1E. This does not need a one-week discussion, so I have redirected the article. Would an admin or uninvolved user review the redirect and close the debate? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. He doesn't pass WP:CRIMINAL Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - per above. Monterey Bay (talk) 05:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. the person requesting deletion has apparently withdrawn the request DGG ( talk ) 03:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conemaugh Health System

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

Per OTRS, ticket = VRTS ticket # 2011070610013325. Organization contacted OTRS and requests deletion of the page. Procedural nom, no opinion expressed by nominator. — Cirt (talk) 02:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Can I ask why they want the article deleted? Also, what is the policy regarding these types of requests, are we obligated in any way to delete the article? —SW— ^chatter 17:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I see nothing meriting deleting, and no possible concerns that the company could or should have with the article. Subject seems noteworthy and article seems factual. Prodego ^talk 00:26, 14 July 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) 00:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Are we actually sure the OTRS requester is actually a CHS representative? There is evidence in the article history of Johnstownpausa (talk · contribs) trying to blank out the entire article a day before the OTRS ticket was filed. There's nothing actionable here that I see, it's a 'they exist and here are their hospitals' article where there are no outrageous claims that should be addressed by an OTRS ticket. Nate • (chatter) 02:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in the absence of any additional info from OTRS. —SW— ^confabulate 18:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another email received, same sender as before; ticket 2011071510012014. Written from the conemaugh.org domain so an employee at least. Nothing to act upon with regards to ticket content. – Adrignola talk 15:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I am the Marketing & Social Media Coordinator / Writer at Conemaugh Memorial Medical Center (MMC), Conemaugh Health System in Johnstown, PA. Our intern, Jim, has been in contact with you regarding removal of the Conemaugh Health System wikipedia page. Upon his arrival at MMC, our new Vice President of HR created the page in order to provide general information about our organization to Internet users. However, no content was added. Our intern was then given the task of creating a simple, yet informational, page on the links that had been created. For weeks, we have had difficulty adding and editing content to a public domain -- receiving notifications that we were violating copyright laws and could not post our content even though it was 100% original, factual and contained no marketing terminology or tone in its content. I also attempted to post information, and after completing all but 2 pages, was informed that the pages were all deleted -- and was blocked from the username I had created.

Due to the extensive time we have spent on this with no success, we ask that you please remove the Conemaugh Health System page and all its links from Wikipedia. While this is a public domain open for all to post, we cannot allow (potentially) false information to be posted about our organization by outside users. As we do not have access to appropriately change the information if necessary -- and keep running into obstacles trying to post information -- we would be unable to maintain accurate content about our organization.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me directly at [email protected].

Thank you. --StacyVatConemaugh (talk) 14:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stacy, you clearly have a fundamental misunderstanding regarding what Wikipedia is about and how it works. Wikipedia does not exist to promote your company. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a place to store knowledge about encyclopedic topics. Take a look at this edit for instance (presumably by you or your intern), which contains such statements as: "The Conemaugh Health System maintains a steadfast commitment to quality that motivates every member of our team to strive for our vision of Excellence. Every Patient. Every Time." among many others. These are extremely promotional, non-encyclopedic statements that read as if they were copied and pasted from marketing material from the hospital (and they probably were). Writing a neutral, non-promotional article about your own company is difficult (and discouraged) because of the obvious conflict of interest which arises. The article will likely not be deleted, only because there isn't a valid reason to delete it. If you notice any false information being added to the article, feel free to let me or anyone else know, and we can take care of it. If you have any other questions, you can post them here, or feel free to post a question on my talk page. —SW— ^babble 16:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Thank you for responding. The creation of the Wikipedia page was not done through the Marketing Department at Conemaugh as I mentioned in my original message. As the new Social Media Coordinator / Writer, I hesitantly agreed when given the task of adding information to the site. As a recent undergraduate and graduate student, I have always been informed and taught by professors – and business professionals in the community – that Wikipedia should never be cited or used in any type of research paper or publication as the information cannot be guaranteed to be 100% accurate or factual due to the open public access for editing. I do not know anyone who uses the source or uploads to it so I was not aware of content that can and cannot be uploaded. I apologize for the confusion; I simply did not give investigation of this information time nor priority. Therefore, while I assisted in guiding our intern to add content to present factual information, it was not my or our company’s intent to make this an ongoing project. The goal was to simply add a few factual statements as the page was already in place. I apologize that the edit you made a citation of slipped through my radar. Our intern was given the task to write a few simple factual statements to upload – I had not realized that he was using promotional phrases. Thank you for your time. No further action needs to take place regarding the deletion of this page. --StacyVatConemaugh (talk) 17:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 16:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Hoffman

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

Non-notable. Mesoderm (talk) 10:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.

Comment. This article is about a stuntwoman. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 7 July 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) 00:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - being female in a traditionally male field isn't notable by itself and there's clearly a lot of non-notable and poorly referenced material here. I don't know if her level of SAG involvement establishes any notability. Several Times (talk) 03:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Esssentially a promotion article, almost G11; minor importance only. The arguments for keeping is that support for veterans is important, which, however true, is irrelevant DGG ( talk ) 03:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gary R. Englert

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

Non-Notable Person. Its nice that he's an advocate for veterans and that he had a distinguished career in the military and was a New Jersey State employee and worked for the Township of West Orange but that does not make him notable enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia and honestly he is not really known outside certain realms of New Jersey. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 02:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - subject appears to lack "significant coverage" in WP:RS and therefore is likely non-notable under WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 01:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. —RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment per WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification, I am notifying other editors that I have linked this AfD at the WP:NJ talk page. I have not opinion whether the subject of the article is notable or not per WP:LOCAL, but perhaps individuals from that WikiProject might. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Mr. Englert is a noteworthy person and this wikipedia page does provide insight and information to those wishing to honor veterans in their communities, while furthering veteran issues and awareness. If it so chooses, Wikipedia can simply remain a repository for biographies of personages such as Madonna and Lady Gaga but, I think it is better served by providing awareness and accessibility to activists serving noble purpose and the public good.

In addition to his documentable success in various and sundry initiatives to serve and honor veterans, Mr. Englert has appeared in news reports and programs on every major (and lesser) television network in the New York metropolitan area, he has been quoted extensively in The Star Ledger (Newark, NJ), as can be confirmed in its archives:

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_widesearch=yes&p_multi=BYJ2%7CBNB7%7CCSNS%7CCCNJ%7CDVNF%7CHUDB%7CETEB%7CGCTW%7CHNN9%7CHCDB%7CHOFB%7CIPNB%7CNJJ2%7CKRJ2%7CNSPR%7CSTL2%7CTTTB%7CTSSB%7CWRHB%7CWFJ2%7CWRPW%7C&p_product=STLNP&p_theme=stlnp&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&s_dispstring="Gary%20Englert"%20AND%20date(all)&p_field_advanced-0=&p_text_advanced-0=("Gary%20Englert")&xcal_numdocs=20&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no

<Mooney1084v (talk) 17:13, 13 July 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, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - subject lacks significant notariety to .warrant/qualify for an article in wikipedia.wowikiprince (talk) 04:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to have enough material on him to make him notable. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 04:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Turner

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

Unreferenced claims of winning national or world championships are made, but no reliable references are able to be found, let alone significant coverage in independent sources, so fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. The-Pope (talk) 13:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 13:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unreferenceable BLP. —SW— ^verbalize 17:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - winning a world championship confers notability. Sources added. Bridgeplayer (talk)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Can understand why the article was taken to AfD, but the claims of winning world and national championships have now been verified, which I agree does confer notability (nice save Bridgeplayer!). Jenks24 (talk) 15:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus was that being on televison was insufficient proof of notabilty absent coverage from reliable sources. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Schlanger

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

Doesn't even attempt to demonstrate any notability beyond the fact that he has a job that puts him on TV sometimes. Every GNews return I looked at just mentioned his name as a reporter. I didn't see anything that was significant coverage of him as a person. Would have to say he fails WP:CREATIVE. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Schlanger has been a play-by-play announcer for a Major League Baseball and National Football League team. I would say those qualifications are notable. Fbdave (talk) 22:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why? That is having a job. Where is the significant coverage by reliable third party sources? I'm sure he is a great guy, but just having a job that requires you to appear on TV or radio once doesn't make you notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Major League Baseball announcers and Category:National Football League announcers have their own categories. They are not *just* jobs. Fbdave (talk) 13:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a category for people born in February. Does that mean everyone born in February is notable? Is everyone who was ever a soldier notable because there is a category for soldiers? It IS just a job until he becomes notable in his own right. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not seeing any significant coverage of this individual in reliable, independent sources. I find a bunch of brief mentions in stories about other topics, but nothing that is primarily about him. —SW— ^talk 17:31, 11 July 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, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BIO. What is needed is some in-depth coverage of the subject and his work. Simply reporting what he does is well below the notability bar. Bridgeplayer (talk) 11:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG, WP:RECENTISM and WP:CREATIVE. No assertion of notability. Having a high-profile job doesn't impress as a keep assertion. Common practice is that each of those other subject announcers in the categories described met the notability standard on their own, so WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS continues to be a poor argument. BusterD (talk) 13:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carry Me Ohio

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

Independent band of dubious notability. Some coverage from local blogs, but the "good reviews from national music magazines" is just one online blurb. Little coverage of this band found in independent reliable sources - most search results are about the Sun Kil Moon song they took their name from. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree most search results are for the Sun Kil Moon song and not this band. However, this is because the song has been in existence for much longer than the band has. This only means the Sun Kil Moon song is more notable, not that the band is not notable. In addition to the Sun Kil Moon song, searching for "carry me ohio" on google returns multiple links to lyric sites with the band Carry Me Ohio's lyrics on it.

I agree the only online citation from national music magazines is an online blurb, but it was also in the paper copy of the magazine. Reviews have also been included in paper-only magazines and are not linkable online. Rparkbco87 (talk) 21:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A google search of "carry me ohio" returns in the top results the band website, facebook page, and links to lyrics sites (songmeanings.com/songlyrics.com/lyricsfreak.com/mp3lyrics.com/etc) which have the band's lyrics on them. Regards, Rparkbco87 (talk) 21:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. In order for a band to be notable (per [[WP:N|Wikipedia's definition), it needs to have been covered in a significant way by reliable sources. The google page rank of a particular search term is irrelevant. There are various sources in this article, but none of them are reliable sources. Here's a description of the 9 sources that are currently in the article:

A 3-sentence album review.
A blog article.
Not even sure what this is. Looks like a radio station playlist or something.
Same as #1.
A blog article.
A google map of a location the band once played.
A promotion for a music festival with a 2-sentence mention of the band at the end.
A news article about a quirky race, with a 1-sentence mention that the band played there.
The Carry Me Ohio website forum.

Doesn't cut it for me. —SW— ^speak 17:27, 11 July 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, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I like to favor obscure music, but I must admit this one probably falls below the line of what I see deleted at AfD.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 01:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sorry; fails to meet WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. Simply not enough in the way of achievements to claim notability. Bridgeplayer (talk) 11:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BAND and WP:GNG. User:Snottywong correctly analyzes the sources. Like the nominator, most sources I found seem to be about the Sun Kil Moon song "Carry Me Ohio", and not about this band. BusterD (talk) 13:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Reed

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

Reed doesn't meet notability guidelines for college athletes as he's never won any national college football awards or set any NCAA Division I records but has set records at San Jose State, according to his official biography. Furthermore, Reed lacks national media coverage for his athletic career but has had local media coverage [22] [23] [24] [25] Andrewlp1991 (talk) 19:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep college players certainly can be notable, but this one does not appear to have the coverage that we normally look for to establish such notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I stand corrected!--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks like plenty of coverage in mainstream media, and not just passing references in game coverage. He was a starting QB at a Division I FBS program. Holds the San Jose State single-game record for completion percent in a game (88.5%) at Stanford (9/20/08). There are a large number of articles with Reed as the subject. Examples include: (1) San Jose State Spartans quarterback Kyle Reed finally gets chance to play, Las Cruces Sun-News, October 18, 2008; (2) , After transfer, injury and playing on third team, Reed gave Spartans a spark, Lincoln Journal Star (Nebraska), September 5, 2008; (3)' QB Reed 'just got his bell rung' Tomey says, Oakland Tribune, September 8, 2008 ; (4) Cal reserve QB Reed transfers to San Jose State, San Francisco Chronicle, August 30, 2007; (5) Reed worth the wait, San Francisco Chronicle, August 31, 2008; (6) SPARTANS' REED HAS A TALL ORDER, San Jose Mercury News, September 6, 2008; (7) REED BACK AT QB AFTER EDEN STRUGGLES, San Jose Mercury News, November 9, 2008; (8) Former Cal quarterback Reed lands on his feet at San Jose State, Oakland Tribune, Sep 4, 2008; (9) Future seems forever in the future for Reed, San Francisco Chronicle, Aug 19, 2007; (10) REED MAY GIVE SPARTANS BEST SHOT AT QB, San Jose Mercury News, November 24, 2009; (11) SJSU's Reed injured, says he'll be ready for Fresno State game, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News, November 15, 2008; (12) Reed is back at quarterback for SJSU, San Jose Mercury News, November 10, 2008; (13) SJSU coach expresses confidence in QB Reed, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News, October 20, 2008; (14) San Jose State quarterback Reed stays on target with his passing, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News, September 21, 2008; (15) REED RETURNS IN A BIG WAY, LEADS SJSU TO EASY VICTORY, San Jose Mercury News, September 14, 2008; (16) San Jose State quarterback Reed has a tall order, San Jose Mercury News, September 6, 2008; (16) Spartans take Reed option, Nebraska City News-Press (NE), September 4, 2008; (17) In sequel, QB to start Junior Kyle Reed starred in the Spartans' come-from-behind win last week, Omaha World-Herald, September 4, 2008; (18) Quarterback Reed opts to leave Cal, Former McClymonds High star will transfer to San Jose State after losing out on the top backup job, Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News, August 30, 2007; (19) Cal football QB Reed's injury motivates him to get back on the field, Daily Californian, April 11, 2007. Cbl62 (talk) 06:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This probably applies to a larger group of articles as well: If a subject does not meet any of the notability guidelines, but appears to pass WP:GNG, are they still notable? As a starting quarterback for a Division I FBS program, it is extremely rare if that player does not meet GNG. However, being a starting quarterback is not an automatic inclusion criteria. To put it simply, if a subject is truly notable, they will meet GNG and at least one other notability guideline. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. This has been discussed extensively elsewhere, and the consensus has been that if a person passes "GNG," that's good enough. For this reason, a college player who never plays pro ball can still be the subject of an article. And you are correct, a starting QB at a Division I FBS program will most likely pass GNG. Whether rightly or wrongly, starting QBs get far more press coverage than any other position player. Cbl62 (talk) 16:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take your word that there is a consensus for this. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is no consensus. It is split about 50/50. Cbl62 argues in favor and I have been on the other side. A story today in my local paper talked about a junior high school QB and his experience at some camp. The player has verbally committed to a local University. Another article last week talked about a freshman wide receiver that red shirted last year. So, using CB162 criteria, every starter for the University I'm a fan of is notable and even the major recruits are too. But, as there is no consensus, tie goes to the runner. Bgwhite (talk) 04:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with that. Only a small percentage of college football players get enough non-trivial coverage in mainstream media outlets to pass GNG. For example, 99% of college linemen don't get the type of coverage to satisfy GNG. Starting QBs on Division I FBS teams do generally get a lot of media coverage, and this is the case with Reed. But even starting QBs sometimes don't garner enough non-trivial coverage. For an example of a college QB who does not satisfy WP:GNG, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allan Holland. Cbl62 (talk) 06:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where have these discussions taken place? Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous AfDs on sports people. Usually college football and basketball players.Bgwhite (talk) 06:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Aponavicius, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Cox (American football), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jemalle Cornelius, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scooter Berry (3rd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obi Egekeze. Also, the sports guideline begins with the following statement: "Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (e.g. the general notability guideline, or other, topic-specific, notability guidelines)." Thus, the policy itself makes clear that passing GNG is enough even if the sports standard is not met. Cbl62 (talk) 06:37, 13 July 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, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources that Cbl62 has presented above which clearly demonstrate that Reed passes the general notability guideline. The SNGs, of which WP:NSPORTS is one, are supplementary guidelines and should generally be used as indicators for whether the subject will meet the GNG. While it is fine to disagree about whether the subject meets GNG, it is ridiculous to argue that someone meets GNG but fails NSPORTS and should therefore be deleted when the lead of NSPORTS contains "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sportsperson ... will meet the general notability guideline" and "Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (e.g. the general notability guideline, or other, topic-specific, notability guidelines)." Jenks24 (talk) 14:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:NSPORT for college athletes, and never played at highest level professionally. Source from The Daily Californian is a school newspaper and not an independent source as required by WP:GNG. WP:GNG says "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability", but the sources are from MediaNews Group which syndicate each others articles (San Jose Mercury News, Oakland Tribune, Las Cruces Sun-News). A lot of the sources listed were available subscription only, so cited results from WP:GOOGLEHITS does not weed out articles that might be WP:ROUTINE coverage even though the limited headline and excerpt seems promising. I personally can't verify it. This player generated some news because he decided to transfer schools within the Bay Area and happens to be a quarterback who played against Nebraska, so "keep" proponents can have a field day citing sources from the state of Nebraska. But WP is WP:NOTNEWS. I'm at a loss as to what would ever be "interesting or notable" in even the most polished lead section for this article. Perhaps someone can provide some talking points to change my mind on why this person should not be considered WP:Run-of-the-mill and is deserving of an article. —Bagumba (talk) 09:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few points in response:

(1) Common ownership of media outlets does not make them the same source. The Media News Group owns dozens of newspapers across the country, but that doesn't make all of those newspapers one source. Likewise, the New Mexico newspaper appears to be owned by Gannett, which also owns dozens of media outlets. They are still separate sources under WP:GNG. If your position were accepted, coverage in The Wall Street Journal, The Times (London), The New York Post, Sky TV, and Fox News Channel would not satisfy GNG because these outlets are all owned by News Corporation. That's never been the interpretation.

(2) You acknowledge that much of the coverage "seems promising" based on the headlines, but note that you can't weed out coverage that "might be" WP:ROUTINE because they are subscription sources. That's not a valid basis for concluding that the sources are routine. Indeed, you acknowledge that you don't know. In cases of uncertainty, the default should be to "Keep" not "Delete."

(3) Your reliance on WP:NOTNEWS is not well taken. This applies to whether or not a one-time news story should have a Wikipedia article. In this case, we have an athlete who has received non-trivial coverage in reliable sources for an extended time. Newspaper stories are an established and valid way of establishing a person's notability.

(4) You say that you can't image what would be "interesting or notable" about this person. That's applying a subjective standard. What's interesting to me might not be interesting to you and vice versa. But that's not the test. We have an objective way of measuring notability from non-trivial coverage in mainstream media outlets, and Reed passes that test. Cbl62 (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

re {1)Common ownership: Your personal interpretation aside, this is taken verbatim from GNG: "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." The sharing of content is clearly evident in reading their newspapers and seeing the same writes, and is clearly articulated in their mission statement of "integrating our content for dissemination across all available distribution platforms in our markets, beginning with the local newspaper".

re: (2) Availability of sources: While articles can be developed in user page to avoid scrutiny of notability while sources are still being found, the article incubator is the other option when "the material did not meet our inclusion criteria, there was justifiable reason to believe the material/article could be made to meet the inclusion criteria given enough time." These articles should not be in the mainspace.

re: (3) Not news: WP:NRVE says "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest". "short-term interest" was liked to WP:NOTNEWS. Reed's main coverage is for two isolated events of short-term interest: transferring schools and famous in Nebraska for being a quarterback on an opponents teams.

re: (4) Subjective: WP:GNG clearly allows this: "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article." There are also those who advocate WP:COMMONSENSE which is of source subject to consensus and can only reached by discussing what each of us individually subjectively consider notable. —Bagumba (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - certainly doesn't meet WP:NSPORT. The news coverage is of the routine nature that college footballers pick up and doesn't serve to meet WP:GNG. Bridgeplayer (talk) 11:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSPORT. Sources listed are WP:ROUTINE coverage. Article seems to be created to fill a redlink on this template. A low bar for inclusion indeed. Of that list, only Deberg and Garcia meet the WP:NSPORT criteria, IMHO, though others might differ. Several of those pages are BLP offenders and should face deletion. BusterD (talk) 13:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: After closing there was an inquiry on my talk page, and I took the close to Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_July_25#Kyle_Reed. I'm satisfied that there is clear consensus there, so I'm re-opening and re-listing. Gusto!

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aaron Brenneman (talk) 12:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks for relisting. In my opinion, the article is not well-written currently, and I'll do some work on improving it over the next couple days, but I think article should be kept for at least three reasons:

(1) Reed has been the subject of dozens of articles written about him (i.e., he was the subject of the coverage rather than it being passing references in game coverage) in multiple major newspapers like the San Jose Mercury News (the 5th largest U.S. newspaper), San Francisco Chronicle (23rd largest U.S. newspaper), Oakland Tribune, as well as newspapers in New Mexico and Nebraska. This seems like more than plenty to meet WP:GNG. Passing reference in game coverage is routine, but this guy has multiple stories in newspapers across the country written about him in particular. That's not routine. I edit regularly on college football, and the percentage of college football players who receive this depth and breadth of coverage is extremely small -- less than 1%.

(2) Although passing WP:GNG suffices, he likely passes WP:NSPORTS as well. WP:NSPORTS says: "College athletes ... are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage. Examples would include ... players who ... Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team." Here, Reed has been the subject of such non-trivial media coverage, including coverage on a national basis. It's anything but routine for an athlete from San Jose to receive feature coverage in newspapers as far away as New Mexico and Nebraska.

(3) Starting quarterbacks for Division I FBS (the highest level of college football) almost always pass WP:GNG. QBs are team leaders, and QBs on FBS teams receive a lot of media attention. It's for that reason that the College Football Project allows templates for FBS team QBs. Such templates are not permitted for any other position in college football. This is because a consensus has developed at the College Football Project that starting QBs on FBS teams are almost always notable. That's no reason to panic and think there's a move to saying every college football player is notable. Far from it. There are 25 positions on a college football team and 3 players at each position, meaning 1 starting quarterback on a team of about 75 players. Further, only a small percentage of college teams compete in the highest FBS level. So we're talking about a tiny percentage (actually a fraction of 1% of college football players) who are starting QBs for FBS teams. Cbl62 (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

re (1): Newspapers under MediaNews umbrella are considered one source per GNG (per discussion above)

re (2): New Mexico and Nebraska coverage is routine when you consider it's only pregame coverage about opposing team's run-of-the-mill quarterback before 2008 games against opponents Nebraska (Spetember 6) and New Mexico (October 18). These dates coincide with the "national" coverage alluded to.

re (3): Agree with Cbl62 that Div I quarterback "almost always" pass WP:GNG, but that is a red herring. This cannot sway discussion on Reed, who must be discussed and qualify on his own merits. There is no previous consensus in WP:NSPORTS to automatically presume notability for all Div I quarterbacks. —Bagumba (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cbl62. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSPORT and sources listed are WP:ROUTINE coverage about him transferring from Cal and routine game articles. Bgwhite (talk) 00:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete for meeting neither WP:NSPORT nor WP:GNG. I agree with others that the coverage is routine. Even if consensus were to be undecided if the coverage is significant, common sense needs to prevail and guidelines should not be merely followed if it does not improve Wikipedia. Instead of blindly counting the number of significant sources, look at what the sources say. They say he is only famous for transferring schools and little else, which is not notable. Norespectasip (talk) 18:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted (twice). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Akshata Sen

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

No notability. Nothing on Google search either. Most of the text and references seem to be copied from other articles such as Model (person) and Koena Mitra. -Managerarc™^talk 21:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, borderline hoax. Randomly checking some of the "references" I have found misrepresentation, such as this which has Ashkata Sen in the URL but Koena Mitra in the title. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete seems to be a hoax. [26] is used as a ref with the "And now Ashkata creates a Sen-asation" --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above, and the fact that this is a largely unsourced BLP with a number of contentious claims. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of guitars manufactured by ESP. Courcelles 04:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ESP Edwards E-AL-120 Scythe

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

reliable sources lacking Tommyboy1215 (talk) 23:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of guitars manufactured by ESP. -- Whpq (talk) 15:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, per Whpq Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. Nominator withdrew their nomination after independent, reliable sources were found, and existing votes support keeping the article. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 16:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Veet

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

This article is written like an advertisement and there is nothing to suggest any relevance of the subject. Therefore I think it should be deleted :) 11coolguy12 (talk) 13:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep This is an extremely notable hair removal product, apparently in more than one country. This product/brnad has been around for a century. I've seen TV commercials. This article isn't written like an advertisement; it's a stub. I see no rationale to delete, based on the nom's argument. I have to assume good faith for this AfD nomination, but this almost seems like a hoax. Roodog2k (talk) 15:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there is no shortage of third party sources for this well known product and plenty of scope for article expansion. The article clearly needs work however. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - the product is notable - but its just a product - how far down the food chain does this encyclopedia go? Mark^Dask 17:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The current form of the article is unacceptable, but that has pretty much no bearing on the current discussion. Veet is a product that has received significant coverage in independent sources. I think the concern here is that the product may not be sufficiently covered indpendently from its company, Reckitt Benckiser. But, with a careful search, it definitely is. How are you covered, Veet? Let me count the ways:

Multiple reviews of the product.
This article from The Sunday Times which calls Veet a "power brand" and that it is the best known of 18 similar products in Britain.
Independent coverage of a Veet campaign following students in Malaysia.

So, all that said, I think this is a definite keep as it meet WP:GNG for coverage. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 19:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Certainly notable. The article just needs some time to grow out a bit. Several Times (talk) 21:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for nominating it then :( but it should really be cleaned up 11coolguy12 (talk) 11:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this is something that should be said in many AfD discussions, but don't ask other people to work on articles that you take the time to nominate for deletion. There were several good sources found here, and your response is "someone should do something." Why not take the time to help find more sources, or actually edit the article? If you are willing to take the time to nominate an article for deletion, you should be just as willing to help clean it up when good sources are found. That said, I will clean up the article today. Also, I'm going to speedily close this AfD as the nominator has basically withdrawn their nomination and all discussion points have supported keeping the article. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 15:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/small-business/start/location/the-end-of-the-office/article1607287/page6/

[2] ttp://www.techvibes.com/blog/mercury-grove-unleashes-a-network-hippo-on-crm-solutions

[3] ttp://www.techvibes.com/blog/mercury-grove-launches-webcollaborationcom-for-web-collaboration

[1]

[2]

[3]