Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 July 6

< 5 July	7 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 delete. v/r - T P 22:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K-1 Fighting Network Rumble on the Rock 2004

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

fails WP:GNG. 2 passing mentions in Japanese media in gnews. [1]]. all google reveals is fighting sources or event listings, nothing in depth or third party. having notable participants does not guarantee notability, indepth third party coverage does. LibStar (talk) 23:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 04:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; notability isn't inherited from some connection to other notable events or people.. To establish notability you really need susbstantial discussion, not a passing mention in a list &c (otherwise we'd have an article for every person in the phone book). bobrayner (talk) 21:25, 12 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. Neutrality^talk 16:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Offspring (series 3)

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

Too early. An article about a film or TV series shouldn't exist until it has entered production, per WP:NFF. Just because it has been announced that the third season will be created doesn't mean that it actually will be created. —SW— ^gab 23:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Offspring (TV series). When some actual information becomes available, the article can be recreated with episode lists, etc. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to Offspring (TV series). Doctorhawkes (talk) 10:28, 10 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. v/r - T P 22:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Astrid Chevallier

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

No true indication of notability (links to external sources, etc). Little more than a vanity page. Bueller 007 (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notable third-party coverage. Just because there's a Yahoo! Upcoming, IMDb page, etc. for her doesn't mean it meets Wikipedia guidelines. I didn't see any good mentions on Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails notability per WP:CREATIVE. It would help if the 'references' listed could be re-formatted per WP:CITE.--Michaela den (talk) 08:45, 13 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. Protonk (talk) 20:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Morelli

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

Puff piece with no secondary sources. Google News is not providing anything either. Drmies (talk) 20:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 22:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 22:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A part owner of two minor-league ice hockey teams. If this was baseball, the hockey teams would be a Single-A teams. There is minor news coverage of small quotes of Morelli's. More news coverage of when he sold the Adirondack Frostbite because two ESPN anchors bought the team. (Good timing, the following season the head coach died in a motel room and the team folded). The article's source says he is President, but not CEO of Red Rocket Merchandising. A few sources say Red Rocket has 20ish employees. Old Glory is a subsidiary of Red Rocket. Web site says they have only three stores in Connecticut. They are the retail outlet for Red Rocket. Saybrook Capital Group appears to be a "shell" company. Press releases stopped in 2004 and only deal with buying/selling hockey teams and Old Glory. In the "our team" section, Saybrook's people all worked in Morelli's other companies. All information/references about Morelli in the article comes from one of his companies. Bgwhite (talk) 06:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, I can't find anything on him in even the New Haven Register, much less any other suitable sources. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 20:10, 7 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cedar Hills Caledonian Pipe Band

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

The group fails the notability of WP:ORG and WP:BAND, and most of the sources are self-published, or just note how the group performed in a competition. The only newspaper article that the article cites just mentions the band in one sentence. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, community band, no evidence or indication of notability. PK T(alk) 15:43, 11 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. v/r - T P 20:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Curtis (footballer)

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

Contested PROD. Footballer fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he has not played at a fully-professional level of football. Also fails WP:GNG due to no significant media coverage, all references are routine match reports and name-checks that fail WP:NTEMP and WP:NOTNEWS. --Jimbo^[online] 20:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason;[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --Jimbo^[online] 20:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom, failure of WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Coverage is WP:ROUTINE. Argyle 4 Life^talk 21:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - none of them have played in a fully pro league, and all of them fail WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - no professional appearances, do not meet WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTY. Deserter1 10:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 7 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 pointed out, this road has no real notability over any other. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Birchmount Road

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

Delete - I'll let others decide if they want to redirect it, but I want this salted so that Simon P doesn't "restore and cleanup" it again after several months. Non notable suburban road. Three of the sources are images from the Toronto archives and/or summaries of categorized subject matter (images of roads in the archives are categorized by the road's name, but this imparts zero notability upon the subject). One of the remaining sources is self-published, while the lone straggler is a reliable newspaper article discussing the decline of a neighbourhood which Birchmount serves as the eastern edge to, making passing mention of the subject. Delete, as it does not meet WP:GNG ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added some stuff on the recent bike lane controversy, which includes several more good refs. The article could still use some improvements, but most of the content is good. Also, I'm not sure how Transit Toronto is a self-published site. It's a volunteer effort, but well respected. And it certainly involves more than one person. - SimonP (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The bike lane controversy is not regarding Birchmount, but the bike lane network and the removal of any lane from anywhere in the city. The current wording is already the maximum extent of what could be said on that subject: They were installed by councillor A, councillor B was elected at next election and removed them, as was the wish of her constituents. Every road with a bike lane has controversy surrounding the bike lane, but that doesn't make every insignificant road through suburban Toronto with a bike lane notable (Brimorton, anyone?). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as an admin you should certainly know that a self-published source doesn't mean that one person makes it. It means there is no editorial oversight. This is a transit enthusiast website, not oversighted by the city of Toronto. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I just added a new sourced section regarding Parliament legislation due to issues regarding this road. There seems to be enough coverage to pass our notability guidelines. Regarding the claim that Toronto Transport is a "self-published" source, while not the New York Times, it's not published by a "self" and in fact has many writers and it does have editorial control over its content and is considered a reliable source per WP:RS. --Oakshade (talk) 22:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That section had nothing to do with the road, and so I've removed it. Lets not puff it up with a bunch of irrelevant and trivial information in hopes that this somehow makes the road notable. Your interpretation of the term "self-published" is appreciated, but is your own opinion and has no connection with the actual policy we follow, WP:SPS. Point me to the page that says they have editors, unless you are just making that up? There is no about us page. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about their masthead where James Bow is listed as the chief editor. - SimonP (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Transit Toronto is an information site written and designed by transit enthusiasts for transit enthuasiasts." says enough. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After doubting the existence of an about page listing an editor, and denigrating Oakshade's honesty, you're shown an about page listing an editor and this is your response? Don't you think some sort of apology might be in order? - SimonP (talk) 23:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, and I very much doubt Oakshade's "honesty". My assuming good faith has long long long expired on this user. My response is pointing you to the statement on the website that indicates its an enthusiast website, which means its self published. No more reliable than SABRE. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RELIABLESOURCES has no "banning" of sources that are "enthusiast" organizations. As long as the source is independent of the subject and there is editorial oversight (of which your admitted bad faith refused to admit) as this source does, it is considered a reliable source per WP:RS. --Oakshade (talk) 03:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing administrator and all participants - The nom has removed an entire sourced section about this road and its impact of events on the road on national legislation. This is a textbook case of removing content and sources establishing notability and then claiming the topic is non-notable. --Oakshade (talk) 22:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...right, except I stated directly below your !vote that I was doing just that, as the content has nothing to do with the road. It has to do with residents whose nearest arterial road is Birchmount. The tracks cross Birchmount and travel north of subdivisions, they do not travel along Birchmount; if that were the case the content would be relevant. Making a bold announcement in an attempt to sabotage my trustworthiness just looks silly, especially when I've made no attempt to hide what I did. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is nothing special about Birchmount Road. The references noted above do not denote notability for this road. -- Whpq (talk) 12:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Every road does not warrant a wikipedia page. Seems like a way to fluff up edit numbers for some people, but this road is simply not important. 76.10.182.33 (talk) 22:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC) — 76.10.182.33 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Hey, when you have newspapers coming to you to write stories on you based on your prolific edit count... I've also had this intuition. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are being quite nasty and personal about this. What is you problem? Secondarywaltz (talk) 03:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poor editors with poor editing habits that can't properly source the content they add most of the time. Who insist on keeping every quasi-notable topic in a separate article without actually putting effort in to improve those articles (unless there is threat of them going away). Who insist on adding irrelevant or inaccurate information based on Google Maps, and arguing against a person who lives around the corner from these places saying that its misleading to direct people to a place that can't be reached, just because they're next to each other. When you've dealt with it for 6 months, it becomes tiring. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes! But you cannot impose your perfection on others. There should probably be a page listing all the concession roads in the Geographic Township of Scarborough, where similar minor roads could be merged. Nobody seems to be aware that the grid pattern in Scarborough does not match the original Township of York (most recently Toronto, North York, East York and Borough of York), which does not match the Township of Etobicoke either. That blatant ignorance has annoyed me for years. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had created one for all of Toronto, and wasn't opposed to splitting it by some fashion to achieve the final structure... Unfortunately all the road articles, such as this one, were puffed up with a table of pictures and not deleted, making for redundancy. As an off-topic, Scarborough Township was laid out in the same chainage as Pickering, whereas the portion of Toronto between the Humber and Vic Park were laid out in the same grid as York. Etobicoke was surveyed seperately. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This road has no significance.--v/r - T P 20:41, 13 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. v/r - T P 18:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JF1

(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}}.

Promotional article for a musician of dubious notability. Several of the "interviews" posted as references are identical, suggesting press release copies. Google search on JF1 "El Tigre" shows little coverage outside of social media and user-submitted sites. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:BAND—has this artist released more than two songs yet? P.Oxy.2354 (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Artist has released more than 2 records and has credible media sources who have covered his career. Multiple Media outlets will not write articles about an artist who has not done so. If a Wikipedia article is started by someone who is not familiar with wikipedia, that does not mean the subject they are writing about is not credible. I believe many times that mistake is made here on Wikipedia and editors are quick to nominate in "Bad faith" with out proper research. Unfortunately new editors are not familiar with Wikipedia to help build consensus and most articles get deleted by editors who make a sport out of nominating articles even if they are credible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.172.26 (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC) — 74.108.172.26 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hasn't hit any chart-hitting records yet. Minima © (talk) 18:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hello everyone, I do agree the person who originally wrote it did not do a very good job. But I was able to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic and researching the topic in multiple search engines including Google.com, Bing.com, and Yahoo.com. I also researched the sites that mention this topic and established they are reliable secondary sources. I helped the topic improve by verifying claims made and I verified all references. I added additional citations for verification and helped improve the topic by adding reliable secondary sources. He is also registered with ASCAP and has several Published works. The topic does meet WP:BAND standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amandamelissa (talk • contribs) 19:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC) — Amandamelissa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. Non-notable, unreliable references. Drmies (talk) 19:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep JF1 has 500,000 views on Myspace 10,000 Twitter followers and 1000 Facebook LIKES and counting, he probably has not even seen this page yet. If he really wanted to, he could post this page on Twitter, Myspace, and Facebook and there would be a flood of keeps..even worse he could contact the Latin press that has covered him and tell them wiki editors don't think their news sites are credible. I have seen one line stubs on wikipedia yet his page is up for deletion. In good faith I say keep. He is notable in the Latin community and if JF1 is trademarked which it is there will be no other JF1, he will be the only one on this site. Is he dubious for being Hispanic? I don't' get it. Some of the sites he has been interviewed by are top Latin music sites and press. Hispanics make up South America, Central America, parts of North America and Europe. If some one like JF1 and the Latin sites listed are discriminated against, everyone who is Latino or Hispanic will hear about it. You will probably make him more notable than you think. In order for you to Delete his page under the reasons stated by editors who voted delete you would have to delete every other page who the same can be said about but is still on Wikipedia. In good faith I say keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.121.70 (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC) — 207.237.121.70 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 06:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of significant coverage means this fails the WP:GNG, the obvious socking above is not helping the processes. Mtking (talk) 03:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment love the hypocrisy in on all of this, how you guys abuse block policies, try to intimidate new users with blocking them, disrupt valid topics and edits if you don't like someone. You don't even know who JF1 is. Its obvious he is not responsible for any socking or even creating this page. You think he can't pay someone to create a wiki page. He does not care about this page because he prob has not even seen it yet. Sooner or later the people at his label will and this will become WikiArizona. He can afford a publicist as stated by Mike Wizowski, but every artist can. I should change my vote...Delete the page I have already taken screen shots of the entire deletion sorting page just in case. And who ever that 207 IP address is thanks for that comment and standing up for what's right!!! I keep taking screen shots of how this comment keeps getting altered. I said Delete because I disagree with everyone who said Delete. The page has been locked for days when everyone who said Delete could have just help fix it. I do not trust Wikipedia consensus and the good faith that was asked for has not been giving in return. Some one will revert this comment again and I will have the screen shots to prove it. The only person who can change a comment is the person who wrote it. If this page is deleted that will not end the argument. I will make sure others know what happened to JF1's Wikipedia page and it will be out of Wikipedia's jurisdiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.84.172 (talk) 05:46, 12 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. v/r - T P 18:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Derek McDaid

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

Non-notable former minor league baseball player. His references seem to fall under WP:ROUTINE and I do not believe he passes WP:GNG. Alex (talk) 19:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Alex (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Career minor league player fails WP:BASEBALL/N by never playing at the highest level. Fails WP:GNG, unless someone can identify significant, non-WP:ROUTINE coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. The player is WP:Run-of-the-mill and the article should be deleted. —Bagumba (talk) 08:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same reasoning as Bagumba.--Yankees10 23:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; seems to fall short of the GNG. bobrayner (talk) 21:31, 12 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. Another administrator disagreed that G11 did not apply and deleted it, so this AfD is moot. -- Atama頭 20:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario Business Program Guide

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

This article for the most part is just a guide to the Guide, and is a violation of WP:NOTGUIDE. I looked for coverage of this guide independent of the Government of Ontario, and only found notices that it exists, basically. It doesn't seem to be notable. I was tempted to delete per G11 but while the article was probably created to promote the guide, the article itself has no promotional language in it so I didn't feel that it applies. Atama頭 19:27, 6 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. v/r - T P 18:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Businessperson

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Theoldsparkle (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on my own rationale: as far as I can tell, "businessperson" doesn't mean anything except "a person involved in business," and I don't know what encyclopedic content can be written about that topic (although I'm sure we could put together one heck of a "Businesspeople in popular culture" section!). Even the exceedingly vague description here doesn't seem to encompass the entire potential meaning of the term, and of course there are no references to support this description. I don't know what would be worth merging to any other article. Theoldsparkle (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--could this be merged and redirected into senior management? Meelar (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reason why I'm in favour of keeping this article is that businessman and businesswoman redirect to here; both these words are very commonly used and linked, and it's likely that any person would search these terms. It'd be a shame for Wikipedia if businessman and businesswoman become "red links." Mar4d (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The social self-identification of being a "businessperson" surely could support an article. The reception of Sloan Wilson's novel The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit, which was widely referenced in sociological and anthropological literature for a while, is one starting point; another entry would be to distinguisn the difference between businesspeople and entrepreneurs. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tons of available sources and a possibility for expansion. We could add a lot more international and historical perspective, as well. [2][3] Qrsdogg (talk) 17:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Smerdis of Tlon The Steve 01:28, 8 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 ~~nominator~~ only editor arguing for deletion has withdrawn but this nomination has been open long enough and has enough participation for a keep close. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

High Plains Invaders

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

I declined this speedy as it did not fit CSD criteria. No !vote from me. causa sui (talk) 19:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it meets the notability guidelines. Through a search engine test, I found the following. Reviews from Dread Central, DVD Talk, and FEARnet (The Good Article Grizzly Rage uses these references). There's also coverage from SCI FI Wire (reprint) and SCI FI Wire again. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete or Merge to Maneater (series) The film does not appear to be notable on its own. The article lacks information. If it is rewritten to show that it is notable and includes more information, than I'll close this discussion (being that I was the one who originally tagged the page for CSD, I can just withdraw the nomination as the actual nominator only nominated as a favor for me). JDDJS (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination Withdrawn It's clear that I lost, so there's no point in continuing this. JDDJS (talk) 15:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the references I mentioned above, do you consider the topic (not the Wikipedia article) notable? Erik (talk | contribs) 19:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what you said, I think the topic might be notable. I don't think there's anything wrong with redirecting to Maneater (series) until it is rewritten to prove that it is notable. JDDJS (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added a few reviews to the article. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good job Erik.

And to JDDJS: Notable topics that can be improved through regular editing, are not suitable deletion targets simply because the work is pending. I wish to politely remind of WP:Deletion policy and its stating "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." Merging is for short pages that are unlikely to be expanded, and not for those improvable pages that have potential and simply await "regular editing". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--you'd lose some of the material by merging to Maneater (series). Could be expanded, but what's there now clearly satisfies notability. Meelar (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Erik's provided sources, critical commentary and review in sources independent of the subject, show the film as meeting WP:Notability (film) and meriting an independent article. We do not merge notable topics elsewhere simply because we can, else all the later Star Wars films would be merged into the article about the first. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:11, 7 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. v/r - T P 18:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okan Derici

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:Footy. He never made his professional debut despite he may in the near future (but wikipedia is not a WP:Crystal ball) He had a contract but every youth player also had a contract. Matthew_hk t c 18:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He only played in U-19-Bundesliga (A-Jugend-Bundesliga) and wage is not a professional criteria as Italian also paid 7,560 annually. Matthew_hk t c 18:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He is yet to make his senior debut, meaning he fails WP:NSPORT, and there is insufficient coverage for him to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - having not yet made a first team or senior international appearance, does not yet meet WP:NFOOTY or WP:GNG criteria. Deserter1 10:18, 7 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Register

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

This article is about a North American football player that does not meet notability. In terms of general notability, there is no significant coverage about him in independent reliable sources to meet notability; there are brief announcements about signings or transactions but these are short mentions. In terms of the sport specific guidelines, he does not appear to meet those for a North American football player. The article asserts he "spent time" with the NFL Washington Redskins but doesn't make it clear what that really means. This report identifies that he was signed as an undrafted free agent,and this item indicates that he was released from training camp before the start of the season. The article also indicates he signed with the Georgia Force of the Arena Football League, however, he ended up playing for the Louisville of the AF2. I can find no evidence he played any regular season games for the Georgia Force, and this article is a little unclear on when he was cut. He then went to the Canadian Football League where he was signed by Saskatchewan, but released before regular season play. If it can be established he played a regular season game in the AFL, then he would meet the inclusion criteria, but I was unable to find any evidence of playing in the AFL. Whpq (talk) 17:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not appear to have achieved notability yet.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:59, 8 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty Games

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

Non-notable company, fails WP:CORP, does not have the required "significant coverage in reliable sources". ukexpat (talk) 14:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added information relating to recent inclusion in The Guardian a major English publication --- stukerr (talk) 14:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)— stukerr (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. — ukexpat (talk) 14:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article seems to barely squeak by WP:N. Two reviews from major UK publications (Daily Mail and Guardian) that were more than passing mentions is enough for me. -- Atama頭 19:12, 27 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) 00:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Guardian and Daily Mail articles don't do it for me. The DM article is borderline at best. It's not a trivial mention but it reads like they merely reprinted whatever promo materials (including that photo) Liberty Games supplied. There's not even a byline. The publication is certainly reliable, but I don't think this article is. It's impossible to tell if anyone associated with the DM even saw one in person. The Guardian mention is even less useful; it's only a mention on a top 10 list in a blog. Finally, neither of these articles is about Liberty Games; they're both about individual, different products made by Liberty Games, which is just not the same thing. (It's possible for a company to be notable but not its products and vice versa.) I don't think these sources meet WP:GNG, much less the slightly more stringent guidelines at WP:CORPDEPTH that kick in when a commercial interest is involved. Msnicki (talk) 00:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just a reminder that blogs attached to news outlets are often considered reliable sources per WP:USERG as long as they are written by journalists and given editorial review (which is the case with the Guardian's blog). -- Atama頭 16:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it's not just a blog entry, it's a blog entry that's not even about Liberty Games, nor even about the particular product from Liberty Games mentioned. I read it as more of a joke entry in a list, something the author put in there just to be colorful and clever and even a little outrageous, not to be taken seriously. It certainly wasn't an actual review and there was no indication he even saw or played with the thing himself. A serious blog entry actually about Liberty Games would be different; that's not what this was. Msnicki (talk) 16:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. The citations aren't great, and when I suggested this barely squeaks by with notability, I mean that it barely squeaks by. I had the same thoughts as you when judging the sources. Your reason for deletion is valid, I think I just have the bar a bit lower than you. :) -- Atama頭 23:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm delighted to see we're on exactly the same page on that point. I had even been thinking about adding a clarifying remark that I totally get why your !vote is that it squeaks by. That's a totally reasonable position. This is a case where a good argument can be made either way. Cheers! Msnicki (talk) 23:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Guardian and the Daily Mail are both big UK newspapers, and T3 is a notable magazine for the industry this company claims to be in. That together with many other articles showing up from independent sources such as [4] are enough to do it for me. -- Interstellarsheep (talk) 13:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)— Interstellarsheep (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Added information relating to Liberty Games's sponsorship of the British Foosball Association (BFA) --- stukerr (talk) 14:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)— stukerr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. The listing is of no value. It has been created by the companies Director and it just a list of things they do. The links are just poor quality press releases and not newsworthy. There is a commercial interest involved therefore this should be deleted. A list of links to press releases does not make this listing seem worthwhile. Sponsorship is paid for therefore this link has no value. Itsmee (talk) 17:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)— Kookieshell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please note user Kookieshell is a competitor of Liberty Games and so has a vested interest in having this article removed, and is not part of the neutral discussion of this topic. --- stukerr (talk) 12:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)— stukerr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep per Atama. It's borderline, but I think acceptable, and given the apparent existence of an SPA devoted to its destruction I'd hate to see the SPA get what it wants. —chaos5023 (talk) 05:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's a close call under the guidelines. But I think that's how we should decide it, not based on what the SPAs say about each other. Msnicki (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The user who created the article is the owner of the business for publicity/commercial gain and who only has a wikipedia account in order to do this, also interstellarsheep is a sockpuppet. Not a competitor FYI. Article is pointless and has no value. 88.210.167.73 (talk) 12:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)— 88.210.167.73 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Again the above comment is from the same competitor, please ignore as part of this process (as they seem to be the only people fundamentally disagreeing with keeping this article in place due to their lack of neutrality). --- stukerr (talk) 15:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)— stukerr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
~~Delete.~~ stukerr has only created a wiki editor account to promote his company. I think you'll find that is not neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.210.167.73 (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC) — 88.210.167.73 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Striking the duplicate WP:!VOTE. Msnicki (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having not read the article or sources myself, I am going to AGF on User:Msnicki's research. Coverage in reliable sources criterion is met, significant coverage does not appear to be met.--v/r - T P 21:40, 5 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, insufficient in-depth coverage to establish notability. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fundamentally promotional in intent. Carrite (talk) 14:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete, significant enough as a large-scale company that does a great deal of business particularly in the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbpat21 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 13 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. v/r - T P 18:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weishan Wu

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

Most of the "base pages" (e.g. China Academy of Sculpture, Steering Art Committee, Steering Art Committee) haven't been created, and don't look notable. Therefore, this page is likely to be non-notable too, and therefore I am nominating pages for deletion. Hurricanefan25 ^{tropical cyclone} 17:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ - This article really tries hard to establish notability, in fact it reads like a promotional brochure instead of an encyclopedia article, focusing on long-winded generalities instead of actual concrete accomplishments, thought it certainly lists those too. There aren't alot of english language sources on this subject, that I could find, but the article does list a few. I want to say it barely passes WP:ARTIST with the awards, solo exhibits in several countries, and his giant sculpture of Laozi, but then almost none of these things that would establish his notability by association are even mentioned on wikipedia elsewhere, and his name is mentioned nowhere else on wikipedia. I'd say this one fits into WP:Semi-notability. If he's had some impact on the world then an article about one of those things he's impacted should mention him. Just not notable enough to merit his own article, or at least the article doesn't establish that he is. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 23:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - When I was searching Yahoo, I found one article mentioning him here, but that's it. I found a book written by him on Google Books. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I do not have time for a more careful look at the moment, but it appears that he is usually referred to as "Wu Weishan" (rather than as Weishan Wu"). There are quite a few sources when searching for the "Weishan Wu", e.g. [5] [6],[7],[8][9][10][11][12][13] (although many of these appear to come from Chinese government websites/sources). Nsk92 (talk) 13:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there seem to be quite a lot of sources indicating he is a notable (eg famed sculptor[14]) sculptor that easily pass our notability requirement. [15]. This source Wu Wei-shan at the Fitzwilliam Museum Cambridge would seem alone enough. (Msrasnw (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]

To be more precise - seems to meet Creative Professionals No. 4 b, c and d The person's work has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition won significant critical attention and is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. (Msrasnw (talk) 00:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Weak Keep - I'll agree that he seems to meet the above mentioned criteria. Article needs work, but subject seems to pass notability. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 03:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; seems to be notable, per Msrasnw, although the content needs some cleanup. Having redlinks in an article doesn't mean the subject is non-notable - it's more likely to mean that the article is in an area where wikipedia needs more content. bobrayner (talk) 21:35, 12 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. Neutrality^talk 16:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Kneulman

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

A long time unreferenced BLP that was heavily vandalism over the years. Unable to verify any of the results given, but school performances aren't notable and I don't think the sailing performances are in a high enough division to be notable - as shown by the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The-Pope (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the nominator, this is a former high school athlete. None of his acheivements are sufficiently notable for inclusion. J04n(talk page) 01:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whether the events he won are notable or not, I can't find any sources (thus failing WP:V). Qrsdogg (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 13:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails notability per WP:N, also since he is retired from sailing, doubt there'll be more forthcoming to verify his notability as a sportman.--Michaela den (talk) 09:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Quick search didn't find any substantial sources; this person appears to fail the GNG. bobrayner (talk) 15:41, 13 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

M. A. Rahat

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

This article is a biography of a living writer which has no sourcing. The writer is an Udru writer so sources may be in non-English sources which I was unable to find. What I was able to find in English are lots of web forums with download links. I can find no coverage about him. 800 books over 30 to 40 years is rather prolific output, but I can find no indication of critical reviews of his works. Whpq (talk) 15:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per lack of notable mentions aside from forums. When I searched both Google and Yahoo, I saw the same results to forums. If the article wants to meet notability, we have to see something else that mentions this writer. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails notability per WP:AUTHOR. The one external link that is suppose to list his books didn't show any hits.--Michaela den (talk) 09:33, 13 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. v/r - T P 18:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

College EP

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

Does not appear to be notable. Lachlanusername (talk) 09:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Dan arndt (talk) 03:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Dan arndt (talk) 03:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - EPs are not considered automatically notable, and I see no evidence this one rises above the run-of-the-mill promo EP. The name is so common as to make an online search too difficult for me. Bearian (talk) 23:42, 11 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. v/r - T P 18:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daughter (The Smashing Pumpkins song)

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

Does not appear to be notable. Lachlanusername (talk) 23:53, 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]

Delete Song was released only as a flexidisc insert in a music magazine in 1992 and has never been released in any other format. I was unable to find any coverage of the song in reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Really obscure non-notable song. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability isn't inherited from famous musicians. bobrayner (talk) 21:38, 12 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. v/r - T P 18:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Israel FC: Genesis

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

fails WP:GNG. no evidence of significant third party coverage, gnews reveals a mere 3 hits [16]. this article is purely a results listing of a event that fails to get indepth significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 08:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 06:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The promotion is just starting out, and therefore isn't notable yet by itself, but this first event included numerous notable fighters. Secondary sources are needed, but I am inclined to retain the article. This event seems similar to the Australian events Impact FC 1 and Impact FC 2, which were similarly held by a fledgling promotion, but featured numerous notable fighters right out of the gate. The lack of other promotions in the region makes this one potentially more encyclopedic. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 06:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

notable fighters doesn't make it notable, indepth third party coverage does. "The lack of other promotions in the region makes this one potentially more encyclopedic. " does not add to notability at all. LibStar (talk) 13:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that secondary sources are necessary for establishing notability, but substantive coverage is only likely to exist if (a) the promotion is notable or (b) the fighters are notable. By pointing out that the fighters are notable, I was making a case for why people shouldn't assume that no such coverage exists. Notable fighters are a necessary, but not sufficient condition. A quick search turned up the following secondary sources. See also Israel Fight Championship: Genesis Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 17:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no independent sourcing of this event. I believe the person who voted "keep' said it all "the promotion ... isn't notable yet". Astudent0 (talk) 14:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of sources added by Osubuckeyeguy after my original post. Astudent0 (talk) 16:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply not true. There is original independent sourcing by mainstream MMA journalists Jonathan Snowden, Ben Fowlkes, and staff at MMAjunkie.com. See above. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 17:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The unknown user who voted Keep is correct when he says this event is as notable as the two Australian events he mentions--they should all be deleted as routine sports coverage. As for "potentially more encyclopedic" I refer you to WP:CRYSTAL. 131.118.229.18 (talk) 15:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* There are also numerous sources available for the two Australian events. Reading those sources was how I knew that these events even took place. MMA events have not been traditionally labeled "routine sports coverage" if the organization or fighters are notable and the articles could be sourced. See Category:Mixed martial arts events for a complete listing of events that have satisfied these criteria. I have used that label in numerous other AfD debates, so I am not opposed to applying it when necessary.

* I think you misunderstood my "potentially more encyclopedic" comment. I was not saying "let's see if this organization becomes notable down the road." I feel that if we ignore what country this event was held in to avoid WP:Bias, then the event is notable based on its notable fighters and independent sourcing. If we take into account what country this event was held in, then it is particularly notable in that very few other events with this level of international interest have been held in the region. The relative infrequency of these sorts of events in a country such as Israel makes reporting on them more than just routine sports coverage. We should consider that international events may receive significant press coverage at home in something other than a debater's native language (which would be unlikely to return gnews hits). We also should be careful not to assume that a fledgling promotion is not notable if it is not in the USA or Japan. Solid cards with notable fighters have been held in places like Israel, Brazil, Abu Dhabi, and Australia. These promotions will likely never have the same reach as the UFC, and will probably only hold a few cards each years, but not being the UFC isn't a criteria supporting deletion. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 18:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a very good article as well as a notable event. WölffReik 19:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 08:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seem to be enough sources out there to justify keeping this article. Normally, I'd vote to delete an article like this because it's just routine sports coverage, but there appear to be enough other sources and storylines that the article could be improved and AfD is not the right tool for articles that are salvageable. Papaursa (talk) 03:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's important that mma from across the world is represented within wikipedia not just from the USA and Japan. Strong main card involving fighters with UFC experience and ex champions such as Ricco Rodriguez and other well known fighters such Jeff Monson, Frank Trigg and Hermes Franca. At worst I would suggest maybe a couple more sources if possible and if there are additional Israel FC events I would like to see them too. jsmith006 (talk) 17:02, 2 July 2011

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

Delete Although there may be some notable fighters in this event, I say delete because the promotion is little known. Maybe as Israel FC grows and becomes sort of a European version of Bellator, then it can warrant an article. If kept, then it sets a precedent that there should be an article for every event that a "notable" fighter fought in. For example, just because notables Antonio Rogerio Nogueira and Vladimir Matyushenko fought at UFO: Legend in Tokyo in 2002, doesn't mean it deserves an article. Jahahn (gab) 23:15, 10 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. Poorly sourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kieran Suckling

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

notability (one of several founders of one organization), sources (none cited, two mentioned, one not verifiable), merge with Center for Biological Diversity Avocats (talk) 04:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC) Avocats (talk) 04:25, 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]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No need for a merge. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:44, 8 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 G6 by Fastily (talk · contribs). I probably shouldn't be doing a non-admin closure here since I'm technically involved, but I don't think anyone would object. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 05:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Azzopardi (disambiguation)

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

Disambiguation page with primary topic and a link to a Maltese-languahe article, which is not a valid entry. Even if there was an English languahe article for the Maltese poet, per WP:TWODABS, it would be better to disambiguate using a hatnote than to have a disambiguation page. Was PRODded by someone else, but removed by page's creator with no reason given. Boleyn (talk) 07:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I was the editor who prodded it, rather than redirecting it, in order to give the editor a chance to add more entries Mario Azzopardi of whom I hadn't yet heard. I can find none online, and even if an English version of mt:Mario Azzopardi is created, a dab hatnote is still the right way to disambiguate two articles. Gurt Posh (talk) 08:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G6, as an article that "disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in '(disambiguation)'". Tagged with {{db-disambig}}. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article has already been deleted. What do we do now? And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:18, 7 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Nieto

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

Topic of article has not attained notability standards of WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. Membership in U-18 team does not suffice for notability of itself, as it is not the highest level (e.g. world junior or world men's). ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 18:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 18:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per available sources to meet WP:GNG, e.g., [17], [18], [19], [20]. Rlendog (talk) 20:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This player passes GNG as demonstrated by the significant coverage he has received in reliable sources, including USA Today, as found by Rlendog. Dolovis (talk) 01:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant coverage, meets GNG, which is not superceded by NHOCKEY. Canada Hky (talk) 22:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The sources provided above show enough significant coverage in reliable sources for Nieto to meet WP:GNG. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes GNG. By the way, WP:NHOCKEY says "Ice hockey players are presumed notable if..."; it does not mean that somebody who fails those criteria but passes the GNG is somehow disqualified even though they meet wikipedia's core notability standard. Has anybody ever tried to AfD Richard Feynman because his bongo-playing falls short of WP:NMUSIC? bobrayner (talk) 21:44, 12 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) 14:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neorutter

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

PROD contested by IP with deceptive edit summary. Unreferenced neologism. Google brings up no results for "Neorutter" as a musical term. XXX antiuser ^eh? 16:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 28 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)2011 July 6[reply]

Delete. I can find no coverage for this term. Per WP:NEO: "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept." No such sources found. Gongshow ^Talk 16:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. Guess it was a Twinkle hiccup. XXX antiuser ^eh? 19:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly fails WP:NEO, looks like WP:OR. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:51, 7 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nwogu Geeman Emeka Reginald

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

The article appears not to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for biographical articles. The only claims to possible notability are thinly sourced. The subject does not have significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources Chinwaggy (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blatant promotion, probably self-promotion. Way below any sort of notability. Very single-purpose editor too. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Smacks of self-promotion indeed. Ankimai (talk) 17:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails notability per WP:BIO. No claim of notability in an article that reads like a prose version of a CV.--Michaela den (talk) 11:34, 13 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 List of Presidents of the United States by age. v/r - T P 18:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest living United States president

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

I was left speechless when I saw the Oldest living president succession box in the article about George Washington and an unsourced article about that 'honor'. As has already been said on the talk page, why not "tallest/heaviest living president" or "most promiscuous living president" or perhaps "most recent world leader born on the third Tuesday in May of a year divisible by 17"? If we have this trivia, why not create Oldest living British queen consort or, for that matter, Oldest living Zulu queen? Surtsicna (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#STATS Sottolacqua (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a complete overlap of List of United States Presidents by age.Curb Chain (talk) 09:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In facts it is redundant to List of United States Presidents by age, in its subject it is a content fork for which I don't see a use. Hekerui (talk) 22:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see this as a fork of List of United States Presidents by age, it deals with something entirely different. Nor is it random trivia like List of United States Presidents by biggest shoe size would be — the honor of "oldest living President" is something frequently mentioned in the media and apt to be of interest and use to Wikipedia visitors. A well-done page and there is something to be said for that, too, believe it or not. Carrite (talk) 14:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not the same as List of Presidents of the United States by age, and it is an interesting point (well illustrated by the photo of all the presidents). I think "tallest/heaviest living president" or "most promiscuous living president" would both be quite interesting, and would encourage readers who are not necessarily interested in history to probe the topic. On the other hand, "most recent world leader born on the third Tuesday in May of a year divisible by 17" is stupid, as there is nothing inherently interesting to a wide public about that criteria. Wxidea (talk) 04:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Offers encyclopedic, sourced, notable information with a different focus than List of Presidents of the United States by age . I see no reason to delete this. PapaDocFerrum (talk)
- Comment—This article has not one single source. Sottolacqua (talk) 12:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Surely it would be the same as for the noted list-by-age page, plus some math that needs no citation? -- stillnotelf is invisible 19:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Keep I think a merge with List of United States Presidents by age would be appropriate. I came upon the page by searching for "living presidents" (my curiosity spurred by Betty Ford's death). The nominator mentions that this is listed as a "title" on each President's page (and that this is silly). With this point, I agree, but that is an edit to make to George Washington, etc. -- stillnotelf is invisible 19:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to List of Presidents of the United States by age. Trivia. Neutrality^talk 16:24, 13 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) Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ângelo Correia

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

Unsourced biography of a living person — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnihilatorHeli (talk • contribs) 28 June 2011

Keep. Do not delete this article. It would be a mistake.
1- Angelo Correia has been on the Portuguese language Wikipedia for years.
2- He was a Minister of the Portuguese Government under the leadership of Prime Minister Cavaco Silva.
3- He is a noted opinion maker and appears regularly in the Portuguese media (television and press).

Best regards.Mouramoor (talk) 12:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of reliable sources. If he's been in telvision and press, then can't I find any written articles online. I feel that one source may not be enough to sustain the article. Keep since notable sources have been added to the article. SwisterTwister talk 22:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is not only a former member of a national parliament, but also a former Minister of the Interior (a cabinet position) in Portugal. See list of ministers under 1981-1983. As such, he easily qualifies as notable under WP:POLITICIAN. A Google News Archive search turns up numerous references to him, mostly in Portuguese but some in English as well, which makes it relatively easy to verify his credentials. This article needs improvement, not deletion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Easily meets WP:POLITICIAN as a former member of a national legislature and holder of national office, as verified by reliable sources (Google translation). I will ask the nom and the one person who recommended deletion to reconsider their !votes but absent that I recommend WP:SNOW closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, speedy close. An object demonstration of the disruptiveness of initiating deletion processes while editors are trying to write new articles, as well as the importance of complying with WP:BEFORE. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball speedy keep and close - easily verifiable former MP and Minister. Article needs work, but deletion suggestion is ludicrous --Saalstin (talk) 20:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep Fist: Former minister. Second: a nomination after only 7 minutes is ridiculous, at least wait an hour to give the author a chance to finish the article. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 00:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. I don't wish to assume bad faith about the nominator, but this was clearly a mistaken nomination: a quick search for sources would have demonstrated that he obviously meets our inclusion guidelines. Robofish (talk) 14:25, 8 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. v/r - T P 18:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ding-A-Ling Wolf

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

A search for reliable secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for fictional characters. Neelix (talk) 14:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence that the fictional character meets the general notability guideline as there are not reliable secondary sources that address the character in detail providing reception and significance. A search engine test does not show anything different. Jfgslo (talk) 15:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable and independent evidence that can WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:39, 13 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. Deletion arguments are persuasive; however, sources have been added since the discussion has begun and enough good faith concerns have been raised on either side to make judging consensus difficult. If in a few months after release the game does not garner any press attention it may be worthwhile to revisit the debate. Protonk (talk) 20:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the Labyrinth

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

Contested prod, fails general notability requirements and also as it is a future release with no release date also fails WP:CRYSTAL Mo ainm~Talk 14:40, 6 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) • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think there's more info out there that could be added to the article. It's just hasn't been added yet. (The article is mere hours old.) I'll try to work on it some... Sergecross73 msg me 19:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I've added some more information to the article. The game is receiving significant coverage from many third party references (5+), and has notable game developers from other notable games. I'm sticking with my "keep" comment. Sergecross73 msg me 21:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is hardly significant coverage the 5 sources provided have in total 787 words, the sources all basically same the same thing that the game is being produced and that the authors know nothing about the game except that it is a dungeon role playing game. One source gives a wish list of what it hopes the characters can do, two of the sources claim that the game is only 60% complete, and they confirm that there is no release date yet for the game. So how does that meet WP:GNG or WP:CRYSTAL. Mo ainm~Talk 22:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit, not a whole lot is known, but still, reliable, third party sources are verifying what is known, there are articles dedicated to it, (not just passing mentions) and it has been officially announced. You're "crystal" issues would be more relevent if we were talking about a game that didn't have a name, or hadn't officially been announced. Neither of those are true here. Sergecross73 msg me 00:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For games recently announced, having coverage from different 3rd party sources will be slim. If it was just announced within this week or so, then this is expected. A month or so, there should be a bit more. Not exactly in need of deletion but definitely in need of work. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 23:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that "it exists", and that this fact has been commented on by multiple secondary/tertiary sources, does not make it notable. There should be sources which have significant coverage of the game, which is impossible given how new the game is. The fact that it is also "to be released" without even an estimate of "when" also leans me toward citing WP:Crystal, as the OP has. As such, I think it should be deleted, with no prejudice toward recreation, or to moving it into userspace for now. I think the latter of the two would be best. --Izno (talk) 00:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not citing "exists" i'm citing notability, there is no Wikipedia placed cap for what is significant coverage, i'm using common sense in that it is a newly announced title, nevertheless a new IP. A quick google search shows a few sources [21] [22] actually do cover the game more thoroughly than the article does and have commentary about the game. But if the closing admin doesn't take that into consideration, userspacing is a fine alternative to deleting. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 03:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But all the sources are saying is that this game exists, this in no way is significant coverage that "address the subject directly in detail". Mo ainm~Talk 08:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to what Subzerosmokerain evidently thinks, saying "For games recently announced, having coverage from different 3rd party sources will be slim" is not a reason for keeping. If there is no substantial coverage in independent sources then it does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria, whatever the reason for the lack of such sources. If and when there is substantial coverage in third party reliable sources then it will be suitable for an article. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at his second post, I think what he was trying to say is that "significant" and "in-detail" are both subjective terms. I look at the five independent sources and say "that's significant". You look at the same thing and say it's not. It depends on interpretation... Sergecross73 msg me 12:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is nothing to do with what I was saying. I was not saying anything at all about whether or not the coverage was significant. I was simply explaining that if there is no substantial coverage there is no notability by Wikipedia's standards, whether or not the lack of such coverage is due to the game being "recently announced". JamesBWatson (talk) 11:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It just seemed like you were trying to discount him altogether, when he made two points, one invalid (the one you're talking about) and one valid point (the one I'm arguing in this debate.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, the only thing in contest in the WP:GNG criteria is coverage, in which WP:N states as, ...sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Each source falls under more than a trivial mention for Beyond the Labyrinth as well as enough detail for a newly announced title; it's only a matter of deciding on whether or not five is enough for this article and since WP:N hasn't set a precedent, it's up to us to decide. Five is enough to me, but the article would benefit greatly from more research. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sources, notability aside, say the game is in production and none of them know anything about the game itself or when it will be released, in future this game will more than likely be notable but at present it is far from it. Mo ainm~Talk 14:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have looked at all of the sources, and none of them gives substantial coverage. The reliability of the sources is also doubtful (one of them is a blog, for example). JamesBWatson (talk) 11:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - when is the distribution method cause to immediately dismiss something? None of these are first-party blogs, each is considered either reliable or situational per Wikiproject Video games. I'm not saying a particular blog post is reliable as it must be established by author, but it seems you're dismissing them (there are multiple sites that use blogs here) as unreliable due to the way the site is laid out. --Teancum (talk) 12:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to tri-Ace. Not really that notable. Not much is known about it, and a real article can not be written at this time. Until then, maybe merge the information to the developer's article. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge to tri-Ace. I see several independent, reliable VG sources, with non-trivial coverage. That satisfies WP:GNG as far as notability goes, even if the article is a stub. However, as there is little content available, I believe the material is best presented in the developer's article until game's preview/release. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Have you seen the tri-Ace page? It's pretty rough. Mostly a short description and a list of all the games they've done by video game system platform. Seems like the content of this article would be kind of...awkward there. Sergecross73 msg me 18:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - My "keep" rationale still stands. I'm pretty sure the game is already notable for a stand-alone article. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 18:52, 11 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) Mo ainm~Talk 20:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A pre-release reception section has now been added by a user, with sourced reception. Sergecross73 msg me 01:46, 10 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan J Bruce

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

I cannot find any independent, reliable sources on this person. It also appears that he has never been certified gold+, won major awards or competitions, or any of the other requirements of WP:MUSICBIO. Thus he appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: notability not asserted, fails WP:Music. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 05:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:TOOSOON. Key claim of notability (internationally renowned program) not supported, and normal standards for media personalities not satisfied (per nom, and also per assertion of no major-label releases and lack of other major assertions, etc.) DMacks (talk) 13:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article has the wrong title. It should be Ryan Jermaine Bruce not Ryan J Bruce. That's why it's being considered for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monicajohnson (talk • contribs) 13:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC) this comment transferred from the AFD's talk-page, as it appears to be part of the AFD discussion[reply]
- I searched both with "J" and with "Jermaine", and still cannot find independent sources with in-depth reporting to support notability. DMacks (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At this point it looks like he fails WP:MUSICBIO, we can always recreate in the future if his career really takes off. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, promo piece. Drmies (talk) 21:19, 9 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. v/r - T P 18:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Luscombe Suzuki Leeds

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

Business franchise = WP:NOTE. Delete and merge into 'list of European locations' or similar in Suzuki article. Who.was.phone (talk) 11:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: looks like db-a7 to me. 12:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gurt Posh (talk • contribs)
Delete - Pretty close to A7. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Unbaised article and has adequate references to back up statements. 100% factual and is no different to other motor retailers articles on wikipedia! Additional information to be added to article. 14:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lusky64 (talk • contribs)
Delete. It doesn't matter if the article is 100% factual when it doesn't meet the standards of notability as defined by WP:NOTE. If there are other motor retail articles which haven't received significant coverage in third-party sources, feel free to highlight them, and they may well get deleted too. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:45, 6 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. v/r - T P 18:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Government of National Salvation (Serbia)

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

The article is a texbook WP:POVFORK from the Nedić's Serbia article. It was created at this time, without consensus, to prejudice this ongoing discussion on Talk:Nedić's Serbia regarding the subject and title of that article by creating a POVFORK that separates those aspects the user wishes to exclude from the it. It should be noted that the user's disruptive behavior effectively bypasses and disregards all participants and their points of view (essentially derailing the discussion). The user is openly threatening to create more POVFORKS [23]. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not WP:POVFORK. Nedić's Serbia article speaks about county while Government of National Salvation (Serbia) speaks about one of its governments, in the same way as we have articles Serbia and Government of Serbia. Besides that, content of Government of National Salvation (Serbia) article is completely new and it is not copy of anything that could be found in Nedić's Serbia article. Also, my behavior is not disruptive. It is User:DIREKTOR who was blocked as many as 8 times because of revert warring: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3ADIREKTOR (I do not think that user who was blocked so many times have right to accuse me for disruptive behavior). I really do not understand why he trying to annihilate this new article that I created. And how exactly I "threatening to create more POVFORKS"??? I simply informed other users that I will create another article, so that empty link that I included into article is not deleted by somebody before I create appropriate article. There is no evidence that second article that I created is POVFORK or that I "threatened" to somebody. This is clear example of personal insult towards me that came from 8 times blocked user:DIREKTOR. PANONIAN 10:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the "country" PANONIAN is talking about existed or not, i.e. whether it was synonymous with the government itself, is exactly the subject being discussed. The user simply created a non-consensus WP:POVFORK, separating them and effectively "creating" a country from a civil government with in a German WWII Military Administration. At a stroke the user "solved" the issue for us all - knowing full well his position is opposed and disputed. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Country" or "occupied territory", whatever. You may use definition that you like, but it is not disputed that Nedić's Serbia article speaks about "country/territory" and not about government of that "country/territory". Here is evidence that Nedić's Serbia article was created by user:FrontLine in 2 May 2006 as an article about "nazi puppet state", not about "its government": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nedi%C4%87%27s_Serbia&oldid=51137486 There is no single evidence that name of this country/territory is "synonymous with the government itself" - this claim is personal POV introduced solely by user:DIREKTOR and I challenge DIREKTOR to provide one single source that would confirm that "name of this country/territory is synonymous with the government itself". So far, we did not a saw a single evidence or source that would support his claims and only "evidence" that we have is his rhetorical repetition of same unsourced statements over and over on various talk pages. Also, I created an new article, so what kind of consensus I would need for creation of new articles? Creation on new articles is completely free for all users and consensus was never needed for that (How to reach consensus about something that does not exist yet?). PANONIAN 10:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to continue the discussion from Talk:Nedić's Serbia. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You opened this discussion here, did you? And what about my challenge? Where is a source that would confirm your claims? PANONIAN 10:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nominator. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per my explanation above. PANONIAN 10:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As a content fork. (Redirection is also possible if that is a plausible name.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quotation from content fork: "A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject". Now, would you be so kind to explain how one state and its government are same subjects? Should we then delete all other articles about country governments, such as Government of Germany, Government of China, Government of Zambia, etc? Also, here are sources that mentioned WW2 Serbia as puppet state: Source 1: "satellite state of Serbia", Source 2: "The other puppet state, Serbia", Source 3: "German rump state of Serbia", Source 4: "puppet state of serbia". Clearly, it was a state, not "only government". States and governments are two different subjects and Wikipedia have numerous separate articles about state governments, so I do not see why this case should be different. Also, WW2 Serbia had two governments (here is article about first one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commissary_Government ) and, although, term "Nedić's Serbia" derived from the name of president of second government, this term in fact covers periods of administration of both governments in literature. Problem with this is that name of parent article about puppet state might not be best solution, but anyway, that article speak about state itself, while article "Government of National Salvation (Serbia)" speaks about government only and it is made in accordance with other government articles, focusing only on list of ministers from the government. This subject is not covered at all in "Nedić's Serbia" article because I translated this list of ministers by myself from source that is provided in the "References" section of the article. PANONIAN 12:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. — Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Panonian's motives can be questioned all you want, but I don't see how this article is a POV fork. Of what POV? It just lists the member of a series of cabinets. It's fine as is until the general dispute over WWII Serbia is solved. Srnec (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, this FORK was created to prejudice an ongoing discussion. Those who support PANONIAN's position - support the it as well. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - You do not know my motives, so please do not make your assumptions about them. I explained myself and I have no reason to repeat that. However, this is important question: do you want to delete this article because of its content or because of its title? If only title is problem then article could be easily renamed to List of ministers in the Government of National Salvation (Serbia). I will repeat that content of this article is something that I translated by myself from published source and it does not exist anywhere else in Wikipedia. Therefore, there is no single evidence that article content represents any kind of "CONTENTFORK". As I see, accusations for contentfork raised by DIREKTOR are related to article title due to weird idea of this user that WW2 puppet state and its government are one same thing. But, article about WW2 puppet state of Serbia clearly does not contain a list of ministers in the government. So, if only title is problem to DIREKTOR then I do not understand why he opened an deletion proposal instead renaming proposal. I really would like to know what DIREKTOR would like to do with this list of ministers? Just to delete it all? PANONIAN 15:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is under construction, as part of agreement on Talk:Nedić's Serbia. Lets keep this until all of us find some solution. It will be easily deleted, but i also dont find it as POV fork. Nedić's Serbia article should be fixed also. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 11:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Srnec. PANNONIAN's motives are irrelevant here. This is just a list of cabinets. If this is directly related to the ongoing discussion at Talk:Nedić's Serbia then we should wait for the discussion to end there before doing anything with this article. Timbouctou (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This is just a list-class article that doesn't violate any policy/guideline of Wikipedia, just to add it is under construction, and I'm not going to comment on other users. — Bill william compton^Talk 14:31, 12 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. v/r - T P 19:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Curovic

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

Article makes a large amount of grand claims but no verifiable evidence to support it. fails WP:BIO. nothing in gnews, nothing in a major Australian news website [24]. nothing in Australian search engine trove [25] LibStar (talk) 08:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 17:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete My search found no independent sources to support any claims of notability. Papaursa (talk) 03:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have found independent reliable sources relatively easily and have included them in the article. They include International Kickboxer, which is an independent publication produced by a reputable publishing company, Blitz Publications. Similarly The West Australian and the Community Newspaper Group are also reputable sources. Dan arndt (talk) 06:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Article has been sourced and rewritten. Subject appears to meet notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 01:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. The lede sentence and para should make a direct claim to notability that is supported by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. What is the claim to notability here? That he is a fight promoter and or a rep for some fight promo group? The sources supporting this uninteresting claim then can't be from that same fight promo group. Nor can it be from a blog-site (fightmag.net) that appears to closely affiliated with the same group but it is hard to tell as there is no publication information such as the publisher or an address or a phone number. Hardly a WP:RS. One site is a major sponsor of the other; it's hard to tell which way, though. Another point; some of the recent "references" added to the article are deceptive. They claim to be from a reliable source in the citation, yet the URL points back to fightmag.net which is not reliable. The West Australian and the second Community Newspaper ref are deceptively crafted in this manner. The first International Kickboxer reference is also similarly deceptively crafted.

There might be a real story about this gent worthy of an article; but this self-promoting puffery is not it. Bleakcomb (talk) 01:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean about the articles really being at fightmag.net, which is a partner of the WKN and hence can't be considered an independent source. I do feel the sourcing was deceptively stated. My keep vote was based on his 2 bronze medals at the IFMA world championships. Even though those are amateur competitions I still think they're grounds for notability. My concern now is verifying those achievements--his name doesn't appear at the IFMA web site and their link to those older championships doesn't work. All of the sources claiming those awards link back to WKN press releases. Papaursa (talk) 03:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's a promotor and owns a gym, but I don't see anything that makes him notable. The article lacks good sources to support any notability claims. They're either not independent or appear to be local coverage. The claims of fighting success are not supported. Astudent0 (talk) 12:39, 13 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. v/r - T P 19:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Current Status of European Pharmaceutical Regulation

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

Not really an encyclopedia article, appears to be based on a wordpress.com essay. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 07:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The regulation of medicines in the European Union is covered in European Medicines Agency and there is a general survey, though unsatisfactory, at Regulation of therapeutic goods. So WP:FORK. --AJHingston (talk) 08:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Perhaps something from this could be integrated into European Medicines Agency but I have not considered that carefully. I tagged a predecessor to this page for speedy deletion on the basis that it duplicated an existing article.FrankFlanagan (talk) 16:13, 8 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. v/r - T P 19:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allegra "Happy" Haynes

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

Article does not give evidence of notability Night of the Big Wind (talk) 03:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Article did not explain her notability, but (after doing some research and editing the article) I think she meets the criteria, albeit marginally. Local politicians aren't generally notable under WP:BIO, but Haynes has gotten a lot of ink in her many years in a big city's government, and she was the first African American woman on Denver's City Council. The article as I found it needed a lot of work, and I didn't do nearly all that was needed. --Orlady (talk) 19:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "an aide to two mayors" does not suffice for notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. At the time of the AfD nomination, the lead described her as "chief community engagement officer for Denver Public Schools," which is definitely not a notable status (even if you consider that her first boss there is now a U.S. Senator -- notability is not inherited). When I first saw the article (before I did some searching), I thought it was an obvious "delete." I edited the lead, and I agree that "aide to two mayors" also is not a stand-alone indication of notability. I was thinking more in terms of "first African American woman on Denver's City Council" (not currently in the lead) being the strongest indicator of notability, in combination with being "aide to two mayors" (one of whom became a Cabinet Secretary and the other of whom became governor -- notability is not inherited, but connections to powerful people do make a person influential), 12 years (I think) on Denver City Council including two years as its president, and other public roles. There is a lot of reliable-source material out there identifying Haynes as an important mover in Denver and Colorado public affairs, although no single attribute is an indicator of notability. --Orlady (talk) 13:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being a first African American woman on a local council may have sufficed long ago, but it is no longer notable in and of itself. African Americans and women have already "broken the barriers" for the highest local political offices long ago. Being an aide doesn't count either. Agricola44 (talk) 15:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. As just described. SPA-created, this is probably just a vanity or fan page. Agricola44 (talk) 15:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep--per WP:POLITICIAN, "members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city" are notable by definition, and she served three terms on the Denver City Council (including one as president of the Council). Meelar (talk) 18:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment--or, to clarify, they are if they get decently sourced coverage, but citations from the Rocky Mountain News and Denver Post definitely qualify. Meelar (talk) 22:02, 29 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, J04n(talk page) 05:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Meelar pointed out, she meets WP:POLITICIAN #2. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:07, 7 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 Chuggington. v/r - T P 19:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chuggington characters

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

Keep. This page was prodded at 04:47, 6 July 2011 by User:207.255.69.226 as "Nonnotable. What little information may be considered notable is also found at Chuggington.", but there is much info in this article which is not in article Chuggington; I changed the prodding to an AfD to get it properly discussed. As regards whether or not this info is noteworthy :: often one man's cruft or trivia is another man's important relevant matter: e.g. I have no interest in football, but I do not go around deleting football articles. Some people want this information; Star Trek and Star Wars and Pokemon and Harry Potter etc each has its own wiki for neutral non-advertisory third-party information about its scenario and characters, but the Chuggington series does not. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As regards references, surely the Chuggington series is the reference? It is plentifully available for watching in television channels. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 07:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is really necessary to do this just because an IP prodded the page. I suggest a Speedy Keep per Wikipedia:Speedy keep criterion #1. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep The Chuggington article only covers the three main characters. Better to have a list of recurring characters than an individual article for each one as would be found on a fan wiki. --Canley (talk) 01:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The list is an unnecessary split of Chuggington, which has an article size of 11 KB, below the recommended article size to justify the split of plot-only content. The list, as a stand-alone list topic, does not meet the criteria of notability for stand-alone lists as the list topic has not been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources and all that is provided in the article are primary sources. Without providing real-world context reception or significance, the list of characters is a plot-only description of a fictional work, so the list falls into what Wikipedia is not, not suitable for the criteria of appropriate topics for lists. As the fictional characters do not have relevance beyond the TV series, the article should be deleted. Jfgslo (talk) 15:36, 11 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. — Cirt (talk) 05:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Colonial Colleges

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

Non-notable topic: does not satisfy WP:N. There's only 1 document referring to colleges founded during the American Colonial Period as "Colonial Colleges," an encyclopedia entry from the 1920s. Since then, there hasn't been any discussion about these schools as a group. Note that "Colonial Colleges" are not in any way affiliated with each other. There's no unifying tradition among them. It's just a list without any real meaning. GrapedApe (talk) 04:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a highly significant and worthwhile list, extremely useful for the history of higher education in the United States, and the intellectual, academic, social and political history of the United States generally. I am not sure what you mean by "1 document". I have a book in my hand with that title, and several more on my shelves discussing "colonial colleges" as a group. Do not delete. This is a rather important list. Walrasiad (talk) 14:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is already referenced and the topic has already been covered in an encyclopedia as the nominator admits. I encourage Walrasiad to add the books mentioned as references. Cullen328 (talk) 15:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG. Useful and sourced. TerriersFan (talk) 18:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The name can be tweaked if it's an area of contention, but the collection of colleges is notable, per WP:N. Them From Space 19:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Don't really know why this was nominated. A quick review of Google books yields several books with extensive discussion of the American Colonial Colleges and this topic is otherwise widely-referenced, which is more that sufficient to satisfy WP:NRVE. Just because an article may need some TLC does not mean it should be nominated for deletion. aNubiSIII ^{(T / C)} 07:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable, referenced and actually more learned than published material I've seen. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:31, 10 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 - no claim of notability. Minor online meme (or attempt to create one). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 07:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duct Tape Annie

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

Non-notable thing made out of duct tape. Google search results in nothing relevant. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 04:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete as obviously not notable.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable nonsense (picture's kinda funny) --GroovySandwich 04:56, 6 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) 05:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Dahlen

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

This is an article with no significant independent reliable sources about an apparently retired (no fights in 2 years) MMA fighter who had no bouts for even a second tier MMA promotion.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 03:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:ATHLETE and WP:MMANOT. Sherdog has his professional record as 0-0. MixedMartialArts.com has his professional record as 2-0 (amateur record there is 6-1). MMAWiz.com has his record as 4-0. No fights in a notable promotion. No fights against a notable opponent. --TreyGeek (talk) 04:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete following the comments above. Janggeom (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:MMANOT. Astudent0 (talk) 16:26, 11 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. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Collins

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

Unable to find any coverage in reliable sources to verify the contents of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 02:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete as unverifiable. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:32, 7 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. While decisions to redirect mostly duplicative content may be handled at AfD there does not appear to be consensus to redirect the article at the moment. There is also not consensus for deletion. Discussions regarding merging or cleanup are best left to the article talk page or a project talk page. Protonk (talk) 20:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Office v. X

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

The information contained in the Microsoft Office v. X page is currently redundant to the Microsoft Office#Macintosh_versions and History of Microsoft Office#Mac versions pages. Article is a stub. I of course welcome more content to save the page, however, in its current condition, I suggest it be deleted and redirected to the appropriate Office pages Kiranerys-talk 04:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page as per above:

Comment. WP:UGLY is not a reason for deletion. I have expanded 2001, will work on X tomorrow. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 00:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't twist my words around, I never referenced or used 'appearance' in my reasoning for deletion, my reason is that when I set up the Afd, there was not one single piece of information in the actual vX and 2001 pages that was not already in the Microsoft Office or History of MS Office page, so at the time, having the separate articles was redundant. Kiranerys-talk 04:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then what is your reason for deletion? If you just want the page redirected, you can just set it up yourself, there is no reason for an AFD. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 15:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The information contained in the Microsoft Office v. X page is currently redundant to the Microsoft Office#Macintosh_versions and History of Microsoft Office#Mac versions pages. ", "there was not one single piece of information in the actual vX and 2001 pages that was not already in the Microsoft Office or History of MS Office page, so at the time, having the separate articles was redundant. " As for redirect, I was not aware of that at the timeKiranerys-talk 17:48, 22 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) 00:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main article, as a viable search term, with a section link. Someone can rebuild it later if they want to, with a much more substantial article than this. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 04:58, 28 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, Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 02:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of deleting it? This package was popular, and there are many stubs that have not been deleted, like this one Android x86. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Moyse (talk • contribs) 14:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, the article you linked to is around 4 days old, I think referencing it as one of the many stubs that has not been deleted is irrelevant to this discussion. kiranerys(u,c) 17:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I suggest you add a cleanup tag and add more research in order for it to be kept. Goldblooded (talk) 09:21, 13 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network

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

This article contains a lot of listcruft and OR. Wikipedia is not TV Guide. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 02:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yet another inexplicable nomination from this editor regarding Cartoon Network topics. Nothing wrong that I see with this article, it does have sources and "listcruft" is not a proper deletion rationale, and is more comprehensive than most "List of network shows" articles. JJ98, I again ask what are your exact reasonings for culling down so many CN and Hanna Barbera-related pages? Nate • (chatter) 05:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's nothing wrong with this list... we have it for several other networks, like ABC, CTV, and so on... RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 23:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 07:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why should you delete it? If you delete it, then you should delete other List of Programs for other channels, such as Nickelodeon, Disney Channel, and The Hub. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgnkid (talk • contribs) 02:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list has Unpleasant accumulation. Like you said this Wikipedia is not TV Guide at all. This has Unpleasant Accumulation, I agree. ElizabethRopeman (talk) 00:50, 13 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) 05:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Texture Packs

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

A necessary article but is written as an advertisement, howto, and lacks any refs to anything but Minecraft Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:15, 6 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) • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing but a how-to which contains zero encyclopedic content. –MuZemike 21:06, 10 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) 05:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ademilson Braga Bispo Junior

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing any reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NFOOTY. ukexpat (talk) 01:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable youth player. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no first team appearances, does not pass WP:NFOOTY. Deserter1 13:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 19:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily passes WP:GNG. sexyeamo 17:54, 11 July 2011 (AEST).

Errm what? The only "references" are to two listing pages which give bare details such as name, date of birth etc, and nothing else. Have you actually read WP:GNG?

Speedy delete – Clearly fails notability guidelines of WP:NSOCCER. — Bill william compton^Talk 14:20, 12 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) 05:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finish Ticket

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

I've undeleted this article per a request at WP:REFUND because the deleting admin didn't make it clear as to whether or not he was deleting as an A7 or as an uncontested PROD. The article has 2 sources that may or may not be reliable and I think that needs to be decided here. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am the article's creator and would like to keep the page. According to WP:BAND, a band is notable if it meets at least one of twelve criteria. When Finish Ticket won the local band contest to open the Not So Silent Night concert in San Francisco in 2010, they established themselves as the most prominent "bay area" band. This is more than enough to establish them as the most prominent band in the local scene of Alameda, California. Thus they meet the criteria: "7. Has won or placed in a major music competition." and "8. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city." As for verification, the band's notability was covered by East Bay Express, an established newspaper, and in an article on the website of KITS, an established radio network. Both articles are cited on the Finish Ticket page. Bwallace722 (talk) 01:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC) — Bwallace722 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - local interest only. Rklawton (talk) 02:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Rklawton, I apologize for persisting, but criterion 8 of WP:BAND says that a band must be the "most prominent of the LOCAL scene of a city" to be notable enough to justify a page, and Finish Ticket is demonstrably the most prominent band of the local San Francisco scene. Why is that not sufficient? Bwallace722 (talk) 06:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC) — Bwallace722 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete A local talent contest does not equate to a major music competition, and opening a concert run by a local radio station does not make them the most prominent representative of the Almeda music scene. The East Bay Express is a local tabloid with a circulation of less than 100,000, and Live 105 (KITS) radio is, again, local interest only; neither makes for a good RS. Yunshui (talk) 07:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 07:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "won a Battle of the Bands sponsored by a local paper" is not the same as, or even particularly similar to, "most prominent member of a local music scene"! See WP:NOCAREBAND. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the one who originally PRODded this (I personally feel it meets A7, but my interpretation of it seems a bit broader than many others); the citations given show this band is off to a good start, but isn't there yet. If they do make it, we can certainly make an article on them, but we can wait until then. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of significant coverage in independent WP:RS so fails WP:GNG. Mtking (talk) 02:31, 7 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) 05:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Anthony Brooks

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league.' PROD was contested on the grounds that he has played in the Regionalliga, and that he is part of Hertha's Bundesliga squad. As the Regionalliga is not fully pro, playing in it is insufficient to grant notability, and as he has not actually played for Hertha, his being part of the squad is not relevant. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 19:53, 6 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) 05:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Diaz-Mitoma

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

A co-founder and current marketing director for Titan Gaming. Titan Gaming is "notable" for purchasing gaming company Xfire from Viacom. Viacom paid $102 million for Xfire in 2006 and Titan has only raised $1 million. Has started a company called Virurl in 2010 that is waiting for investors to start operations. Bgwhite (talk) 04:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 04:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 04:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 04:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 07:26, 22 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) 00:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - none of the references cover Diaz-Mitoma in any detail, so I am investigating the Ohtli award. This may potentially satisfy WP:BIO, but I want a good solid reference for it - the current one is a bit Primary. Marasmusine (talk) 11:17, 5 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) 00:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I noted in the PROD, the sources do not cover the founder of the company; they cover the company.--v/r - T P 19:20, 12 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) 14:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Railway Electrification, New Jalpaiguri

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

Despite looking for reliable independent sources, I couldn't find any (under either Rail electrification New Jalpaigure or RE/NPJ). There is no evidence that this project meets the general notability guidelines PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional independent sources

Kindly see Sl No. 4 (6) of this link http://mdoner.gov.in/index3.asp?ssid=223 taken from public domain website pf ministry of development of north eastern region of Government of India

Praveen Poddar

223.176.180.167 (talk) 10:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further sources

Kindly also see para 48 of page no. 15 of the link http://www.adb.org/Documents/Environment/IND/41614/41614-IND-SIEE.pdf

223.176.180.167 (talk) 10:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source 3

Kindly see this link http://www.kerala.com/news/newsDetails.php?ndId=1805

223.176.180.167 (talk) 10:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first of those is a mere list of projects, produced by the relevant government department. It is neither substantial coverage nor an independent source. The second is an environmental assessment report for the project, commissioned by the government. It is certainly not an independent source. The full and complete text of the paragraph cited is "Positive effects will result from improvements in power system efficiency: the transmission system efficiency improvements will result in energy savings of at least 171,000 MWh per year, with corresponding GHG emissions reduction estimated to be 68,400 tons CO2-equivalent per year. The Project will reduce reliance on captive diesel-fired power generation units used by industrial and commercial facilities. Railway electrification will be expanded from the western Assam border at Srirampur to Guwahati, further reducing diesel fuel consumption." Scarcely substantial coverage. The third is an announcement of the plan in what looks like a press release, and in any case is not substantial coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources 4

Kindly see these links (i) http://www.topnews.in/electrification-barauni-katihar-guwahati-railway-section-rs-506-crore-219338

(ii) http://www.sarkaritel.com/news_and_features/august2010/27electrification_of_railway_ne_region.htm

(iii) http://www.indianexpress.com/news/barauniguwahati-electrification-of-rail-rou/270446/

(iv) http://www.sentinelassam.com/ghy_city/story.php?sec=1&subsec=0&id=68803&dtP=2011-04-19&ppr=1

117.201.115.186 (talk) 15:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but incorporate relevant information other articles The lack of links makes this article a bit difficult to follow, but as far as I can tell from online maps, this is an about 600 km long section of railway which is being electrified. In general, electrification projects such as this are not notable for an article. However, mention, even with some detail, is absolutely encouraged in the article about the affected lines. If this is part of a country-wide program to electrify railways, such a program might also be worth of an article (but such a program would have to cover many lines). Another alternative is to create an article something like the featured timeline of railway electrification in Norway for India. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:36, 2 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) 00:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not worthy of an article. I agree with Arsenikk that there is a case for mentioning it in some other article, but I see nothing in the present article worth merging, so anyone who wishes to do that can just as well do it from scratch. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:46, 6 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Piazón

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

Non-notable footballer who fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 11:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Life^talk 11:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? None-notable? He was in the news quite a lot recently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShadowTerror10 (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.78.226.138 (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Notable Been often linked to many of the best teams, playing for the Brazil youth teams. He will obviously be a star so why delete the article and have to re-do it in the future, pointless.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamietullett (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 10:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

"He will obviously be a star" is WP:CRYSTAL. A few years ago a guy called Jamie Richards was linked to a whole host of top clubs, including Manchester United and Tottenham Hotspur, and he received the same sort of tabloid coverage. Should he get an article based on that? Of course not. Argyle 4 Life^talk 14:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notable I would argue that he passes WP:GNG due to extent of coverage in mainstream press in UK, Brazil and elsewhere. WP:Footy expressly allows youth players that meet wider WP:GNG criteria. Deserter1 (talk) 13:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ROUTINE coverage like this doesn't make someone notable. What is achieved in their youth doesn't make them notable and neither does being compared to someone else by journalists who has actually played at a fully professional level. Argyle 4 Life^talk 14:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are non-routine examples too:[26],[27],[28]. Being called "one of Brazil's best young footballers" in a national broadsheet is surely notable? Deserter1 (talk) 15:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree that the sources used in the article are ROUTINE, but the sources shown by Deserter1 are significant and reliable which allows this article to pass GNG. Oonissie (talk) 17:44, 2 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) 00:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article definitely needs improving, but the player does pass WP:GNG per Deserter's sources. J Mo 101 (talk) 22:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources raised by Deserter1, player passes WP:GNG. doomgaze (talk) 12:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On the basis of GNG, multiple reliable sources say he's one of the best prospects in Brazil. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - to everybody saying the article meets GNG - there are only two references in the article, both of which are routine sports coverage, about his transfer to Chelsea. How on earth does that merit the article meeting GNG?! Giant Snowman 11:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those comments related to the three references I suggested above, rather than those in the article. I have now incorporated these references in the article. The reason I didn't do this earlier was that the consensus at that stage appeared to be in favour of deletion. Deserter1 12:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for improving the article, but it still doesn't meet GNG in my opinion - where is the "significant coverage"? Giant Snowman 22:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG says that: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". A number of independent, reliable sources like BBC Sport, The Guardian, The Telegraph and others have written features article specifically on the player, with his name in the headline, not just noting a multi-million pound international transfer move and his awards at youth international level, but also discussing in some depth the motivations behind the purchase and the player's potential to become the first Brazilian striker to excel in one of the world's best leagues. I interpret this as significant rather than trivial or routine coverage. Deserter1 23:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of the five references currently in the article, four of them are routine transfer news and/or profiles about young Brazilians as a whole. Only one (the BBC piece) counts as "signigicant coverage." Giant Snowman 12:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It might be helpful to clarify that despite the headline, The Telegraph article [29] is not actually about young Brazilian players in general; 90% of the 1000 word plus article focuses on Piazon. Deserter1 13:24, 11 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

M13 motorway

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

As well as lacking inline citations, the evidence provided in the linked articles is completely speculative. There is no actual evidence that a motorway number was even considered (the linked documentation gives the legend "A13 / M13") and no documentation to how the motorway would have bypassed Southend has been found. I would possibly suggest that any source for the proposed barrage around Southend can be added to Southend on Sea if and when it arises. Ritchie333 (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Pathetic Motorways and CBRD are both good third-party sources of information. They base their research on actual official documentation released at the time and it is far from speculative. Yes, there's a question mark over whether they were planning to call it the A13 or M13, but lack of certainty over an article title is not in itself ground for deletion. There might be a case for merging all the London Ringway articles together, but certainly not deletion. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your support for CBRD / PM. For what it's worth, I have seen some of the documentation used in their research and can absolutely vouch for its authenticity. However, in this case, I also know that the mention of the M13 and its proposed route comes from a single drawing showing only part of a route, marked up as part of a general set of ideas for proposed routes to the airport at Maplin Sands. By contrast, look at something like the northern (unbuilt) section of the M23, which as well as appearing in official documentation over numerous years, also appears as "projected" on commercial road atlases and its route can be inferred by looking at the age of buildings along it (which were only constructed after the DfT finally sold the land c. 1995). I guess the question would be - does one off-hand comment in a file make it notable enough to appear as an article in its own right? --Ritchie333 (talk) 11:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm unsure whether this is notable enough to sustain an article or not. Anyone with access to The Times digital archives (most UK library cards give this) will find info there on the proposals. Would suggest Hansard may also prove a fruitful place to search. The White Paper was published on 23 July 1973, so we've got a base point to look from. The "Say no to Maplin" campaign mentioned in one of the two "sources" (they really should be inline citations) was going by December 1973.

Hansard was a good bet in one sense - this gives some good information on the Ringway proposal as a whole, but there doesn't seem to be anything on the individual components, either M13 or M12. Maybe a grouped article would be more benficial? Alzarian16 (talk) 18:05, 23 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) 00:12, 29 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, Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - sources are verifiable and reliable. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 22:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - A single source from TNA by the MOT is reliable in terms of it existing, but is that enough to warrant an article on what somebody vaguely speculated in a draft in the 1960s? --Ritchie333 (talk) 14:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Doesn't matter. The claim to notability rests on the secondary sources (CBRD & Pathetic motorways) rather than the primary sources. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - So why have people in the past had a pop at CBRD / PM for failing WP:SPS and tagging them as unreliable sources (as discussed here)? Either they're unreliable or they're not. --Ritchie333 (talk) 23:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - That link requires registration to view it. I'm prepared to listen to arguments for and against using websites as reliable sources, but using a forum post as evidence is even less reliable. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh yes, it does require registration :-/ .... it's actually a straight transcription of WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive178#Just_in_passing... with a response to it. --Ritchie333 (talk) 10:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        That's an opinion that was raised on an unrelated noticeboard over two years ago, and never followed up. For what it's worth, Pathetic Motorways does contain a mixture of fact and opinion/pedantry, but it is quite clear which is which. The only argument I saw against PM's reliability was about opinions on what constitutes a "pathetic" motorway and whether a slip road off the M65 counts as the "Walton Summit Motorway", but provided you do the job correctly and separate fact from opinion in secondary sources (same as you do for mainstream newspapers), that's not an issue. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 14:28, 12 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Powiat bielski

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

(a)DAB page with only 2 entries, (b)Existing DAB links at the top of each listed page, (c)Bielski DAB page already has the entries for both pages, and (d) per established WPP nomenclature, County is used instead of Powiat in article names. Ajh1492 (talk) 15:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —Ajh1492 (talk) 15:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, but the Polish names with "powiat" redirect to the corresponding "county" articles, and in this case it happens that one "powiat" title can correspond to either of two "county" titles; neither of them seems especially primary over the other, so the two-entry dab page seems the most convenient solution. It could be redirected to Bielski, but that would just make a bit of extra trouble for anyone entering "powiat bielski" into the search box, and I don't see the benefit.--Kotniski (talk) 16:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just wonder what the chances are that someone would search on powiat bielsk on EN:WP... Just saying that if we're using county instead of powiat (which I don't disagree with), then we need to consistently use it across EN:WP. I thought two-entry dab pages were frowned upon and instead to use dab headers on the pages. Ajh1492 (talk) 18:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They're frowned upon only if one of the two items can reasonably be considered a primary topic. In this case I think it would be misleading to suggest that powiat bielski refers primarily to one of these counties rather than the other. If there's no primary topic, then two-entry dab pages are quite OK.--Kotniski (talk) 09:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Bielski County, keep as redirect. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The current article names are Bielsko County and Bielsk County, so I don't see what the benefit is in adding a nonexistent Bielski County to the mix. Ajh1492 (talk) 18:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Kotniski, this is a valid disambiguation of two entities that happen to have different names in English, but the same name in Polish. There's no reason to assume no one will ever search by the Polish name. — Kpalion^(talk) 16:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see the need for the page especially since (1) the Counties have distinct names in English, (2) Each page does have DAB links at the top already, (3) there's a DBA page for Bielski which includes the two counties and (4) the fact that we're using County instead of Powiat as an article naming convention. I just don't see the need for the article name in Polish on English WP. Ajh1492 (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also think PL:WP itself is wrong because if you go to the official websites of the two powiats, one refers to itself as [30] the other as [[31]] - so the confusion seems to be coming from PL:WP. I really think we out to reduce the confusing situation by following the lead of the powiats themselves and delete this DAB page - or create a 'Powiat bielsko redirect page to Bielsko County and turn this one into a redirect to Bielsk County and keep the DAB links at the top of the two articles. Ajh1492 (talk) 17:00, 23 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) 00:12, 29 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, Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:14, 6 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) 14:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Open Design Community

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

Would not meet notability guidelines in accordance with precedent regarding online communities, and does not indicate why subject should otherwise be regarded as notable. Has no citations, yet contains detailed information on organization, indicating that the article is likely to have been written by a member, and thus self-promotional, not NPOV, and containing de facto original research. Additionally, the article includes anachronisms, including some which refer to planned (then) future events, and an examination of the organization's website did not turn up any clear signs of vitality or notability; message boards showed typical last-post times of 1 month. 0x69494411 12:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 29 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) 00:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can only find trivial mentions in 3rd party reliable sources. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:54, 7 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GKART

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

No evidence of notability. No independent sources at all. Also the article is somewhat promotional, though perhaps not enough so for speedy deletion as spam. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 13:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article does not seem to be highly promotional, It is just like any other video game page on Wikipedia. As for the sources I do agree that as of right now there is not a sufficient amount of reliable sources, but this page can be salvaged because there are sources that provide the information necessary.--Ahenry32 (talk) 03:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you say that there are not enough sources provided, but that we should keep on the basis of hypothetical sources which are not cited in the article, and which you don't provide? Unfortunately, that is not good enough. In order to justify keeping an article it is necessary to show that there are sources, not just to suggest that there are some, but not say what or where they are. As for "it is just like any other video game page on Wikipedia", you may like to read WP:OTHERSTUFF. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:22, 5 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) 00:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the developer or publisher article per WP:PRODUCT. The sources present don't show sufficient justification for a separate article. If I'm looking at this right, games.qq are owned by the game's publisher. Marasmusine (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The English name of the game does indeed have little coverage. But if you search for QQ飞车 (QQ Speed), there is plenty of independent coverage [32], for example review in Sina.com [33] (links at the bottom of the article have additional coverage), etc. Another Chinese company even made plastic toys from the car models to cash in on their popularity, it seems [34]. FuFoFuEd (talk) 21:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discopharma (maxisingle)

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

Disputed PROD. Single has not charted nor has it been reviewed by a third-party source as the only reference is the label of the album. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 16:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 20:13, 29 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) 00:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails notability per WP:NALBUMS or WP:NSONGS. The reference listed only provides a passing mention of the album version of the title track and nothing of the maxi single versions. A search turned up lyrics and other sites that only attest that it exists and nothing of notability.--Michaela den (talk) 10:12, 13 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) 14:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No Promise Films

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

Film is not notable. It is not covered in third-party reliable sources and contributors appear to have a COI. WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 16:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 29 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) 00:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, plus the wording is difficult to understand in places. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:49, 8 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) 14:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Work (book)

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

Not clear how this might meet Wikipedia:Notability (books). Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Difficult to determine notability since creators are anonymous. RadioFan (talk) 18:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 29 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) 00:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Theoldsparkle (talk) 19:51, 6 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. — Cirt (talk) 14:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Clendening

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

Subject of article has not attained notability standards of WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 18:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Adequate sourcing to demonstrate WP:GNG. Also was an all-star at the IIHF U18, which may itself be interpreted as meeting WP:NHOCKEY criterion 4. Rlendog (talk) 19:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes GNG, and also meets criteria #4 of WP:NHOCKEY by being selected as a First Team All-Star at the 2010 IIHF World U18 Championships. Dolovis (talk) 01:07, 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) 00:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As has been noted above, there's a good case here that he does meet NHOCKEY. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:04, 7 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. — Cirt (talk) 14:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Musil

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

Subject of article has not attained notability standards of WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. Drafted by KHL in 1st round does not qualify. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 18:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has adequate coverage to meet WP:GNG, e.g., [35], [36]. Even if he does not, his father's article has sourced information related to him, and so this should be redirected there. Rlendog (talk) 19:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. --Ozgod (talk) 19:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He passes WP:GNG as demonstrated by the significant coverage he has received in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, including:
The Hockey News feature article
Dan Swallow's feature profile
The Edmonton Journal feature article
Globe and Mail feature article
The Province feature article

The published feature stories (non-routine coverage) about this player pushes this article over the GNG threshold required for a stand-alone article. Dolovis (talk) 01:29, 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) 00:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks like there is enough coverage to indicate that he meets the GNG. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:19, 7 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) 14:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Too Many

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

Non-notable band; locally notable at best, two self-released albums, no third party sources. (the CBC Radio 3 page is user-submitted content, not a third party source; notice that the same text appears on the last.fm page.) Hairhorn (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 29 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) 00:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:12, 7 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. Sourcing appears to exist. I also want to remind participants that the connotation of the word notable is not identical to the term of art "notability" on wikipedia. A subject may meet the WP:GNG without being as famous as Mel Blanc. Protonk (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Arens

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

Article has continued for several years with only the anyone-can-edit IMDB as sole reference. A reader would not really know whether this person actually existed or not. And even with that, whether these appearances, if true, are truly "notable." They don't seem to be recorded anywhere else but in the self-edited IMDB. Student7 (talk) 13:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There does appear to be an actor with this name. There's a review for the movie Riding with Boys in Cars in the New York Times that mentions him. An actor of that name also appears in the review for TV movie Plainsong. Looks like he's also mentioned in the Variety review of Dragon Wars. A reference for the Young Artist Award is here. Not too sure about notability but he does look to be real. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick Google Archive search turns up that he is obviously a real person and working actor.. I personally don't have the time or inclination to rewrite his page right now, but from what I see, between mentions of his roles in The New York Times, appearing on The Late Show with David Letterman, and winning a Young Artist Award, I'd say there's enough evidence that he's real and notable enough to have a page here. It looks like the page just needs a rewrite and some sourcing.Crakkerjakk (talk) 09:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 22 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) 00:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Granted he is real. Can we talk notability? He is a voice in a cartoon. The only voice I can remember (from the old days) was Mel Blanc. Nowdays they often use the voices of people who are already notable/famous. Cody is not Mel Blanc, a man of many voices and cartoons. And he does not appear to be yet famous from appearing in other films. He is just one of many unknown people that supply "voices" to cartoon characters. Pick the last cartoon you watched. How many "voices" can you remember by name (that weren't already notable actors or actresses?)? There are no voice "specialists" that are known to the general public anymore. And there were only one or two, even in the old days. Student7 (talk) 12:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of his recent roles have been "voice" roles, but he's clearly also been an actor in films and television. If notability was only measured by an actor's most recent role then we would also delete any actor who has left show business, died, etc. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 01:06, 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:06, 6 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 with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raman Bhardwaj

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

fails WP:CREATIVE as a TV presenter/reporter and WP:BIO. besides the source in the article, the rest of the coverage merely confirms he's a reporter. note he has a namesake who is a hair stylist. LibStar (talk) 05:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There may be something behind this paywall, but that would only be one source. Apparently he also plays cricket so there are some sundry mentions in the local newspapers about his team beating the local side, see [37], [38]. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 22 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) 00:04, 28 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:05, 6 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elinor McKenzie Shield

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

fails WP:GNG. much of the article is about Elinor McKenzie and not the competition. for a national level competions all it gets is 3 gnews hits in a regional newspaper [39]. no coverage in major press. as a national competition you would expect at least a passing mention in national press but no results. trove reveals primary sources. like all AfDs comments are welcome especially from 3 people I've had recent interaction from. LibStar (talk) 02:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion / question. LibStar, the conventional distinctions between upper- and lowercase within English are of course no more than conventions; yet the reader of a language is assisted by the adherence of its orthography to conventions, no matter how arbitrary these may be. So when you are writing AfDs (as opposed to, say, avant-garde poetry), do please use a capital to start any sentence. ¶ Now, what is all this stuff about "3 people"? As a participant in AfD/Robert McFarlane (photographer), AfD/Candid Camera (Australian photographic exhibition) and AfD/Katrina Patchett (all started by you), would I be one of these "3 people"? Others too are sure to have similar questions. -- Hoary (talk) 04:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

not referring to you Hoary. you made good constructive contributions and are a good editor. I don't always capitalise sorry just a habit. LibStar (talk) 05:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 13:18, 22 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) 00:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Why just one nomination? There are other similar shields (see ASF National Championships). WWGB (talk) 04:08, 2 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:03, 6 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 Her Interactive. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alibi in Ashes

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

Contested prod. Although this game is part of a notable series, this particular installment is not yet released, and there is no evidence of pre-release independent notability. The only reference is a Youtube video which merely attests to the game's existence as a project. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 23:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, maybe? Pre-release games in a notable series are probably inevitable so I don't see the point in deleting it. If there is a games project with some guidelines, I'd change my mind. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- Even so, you have to wait for this release to be covered by independent sources. Some once-notable game series just fade away, with later instalments going unnoticed. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Her Interactive. i could not locate any secondary sources. may be a valid search term, so we could redirect per WP:PRODUCT. Marasmusine (talk) 13:41, 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) 00:02, 6 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 Raaz – The Mystery Continues#Sequel. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raaz – 3rd Dimension

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable film with a single reference only providing cast and crew info. Does not meet WP:NFILMS I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 21:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Raaz – The Mystery Continues#Sequel per WP:TOOSOON. While the planned film is beginning to get coverage, it does not yet merit a seperate article as an exception to WP:NFF. Parhaps in a few months... but not just yet. Fine if author wishes userfication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelQSchmidt (talk • contribs) 02:15, 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) 00:01, 6 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 pointed out, there is no significant third-party coverage Black Kite (t) (c) 12:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shaking Through Web Series

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

Promotional article for a webseries of suspect notability. References are for the bands who played, not the webseries itself. Little coverage found in independent reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The series is recognized by music writers at Paste Magazine, Gorilla vs. Bear, Stereogum, IFC, and the Philadelphia Inquirer. The "flagged" comment says that few reliable, independent sources exist, but I find that not to be the case. A simple web search will bring such articles to light. Special:Contributions/mkmcglas (talk) 19:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)user:mkmcglas[reply]
~~Keep~~: New citations have been added to give the article some more stability.19:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)user:mkmcglas— mkmcglas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep Shaking Through has almost 70 videos uploaded to Vimeo, some of which have over 15,000 views. As the series is only in its second year of operation, these numbers will surely consider to grow. Allysonwondrlnd (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)allysonwondrlnd— Allysonwondrlnd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
~~Keep~~: The organization has a "stems" project (users can download raw tracks from the recording sessions, mix their own versions, and share them) that has had several hundred participants in 59 countries.^[1]68.82.226.67 (talk)mkmcglas— 68.82.226.67 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only two of the references that are not by the article's subject or its parent company actually mention it. One is the very definition of a trivial mention. The other is an article just about the "Shaking Through" series, but I don't think that one secondary source is enough, and even if it were I'm not sure that the magazine it's in would meet notability guidelines if someone tried to create an article about it. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 02:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Media coverage on this series is substantial. Pitchfork^[2], 2 IFC write-ups^[3], IFC^[4], Paste Magazine^[5]^[6], and the Philadelphia Inquirer^[7] have all covered the series, among other publications. Allysonwondrlnd— Allysonwondrlnd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - T P 19:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tyne O'Connell

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

Fails notability, and WP:AUTHOR, lacks real sources. A long-standing article whose content has been maintained by a series of SPEs, it appears to be a blatant promotion page for a 3rd-tier author. The article provides no biographical reliable sources, merely some weakly referenced pull quotes and links to some non-biographical sources that assert publication in national magazines. As a typical author promotion page, it of course includes the words "best selling", but I find no evidence of her ever having a best seller on any list. Current sales rank on Amazon and BN for random title is abysmal at best (high 6 figures) and the very few reviews are, ummm, "bi-modal", with some scathing reviews and glowing reviews by reviewers who happen to have only reviewed Tyne O'Connell books (single purpose reviewers). I've found a few reviews of her books in the British press, trending towards dismissive and derisive ("a repellent piece of fiction, albeit mildly amusing in parts"). She did get a couple good reviews in School Library Journal, which aggregates non-authoritive reviews, mostly from school libriarians. (She also got ripped in others). In summary, non-notable. Studerby (talk) 22:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 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) 00:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Quality of work is no indicator of notability (she could be the worst author on the planet and still have enough coverage to make her worthy of inclusion), but decent sources do seem to be thin on the ground. The Telegraph meets RS, but four sentences is hardly substantial coverage. Delete as non-notable. Yunshui (talk) 07:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change vote to Keep Having done a bit more reserach and stripped out the unsourced puffery in the article, I think this maybe could be kept. Many of her books have been reviewed by notable sources such as The Telegraph and The Independent, which sort of satisfies requirement 3 of WP:AUTHOR. Keep, with room for improvement. Yunshui (talk) 08:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:AUTHOR --BabbaQ (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, lack of sources. Shameless self-promotion on the author's part. PapaDocFerrum (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:22, 11 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) 14:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More Than Life (band)

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

No evidence that band meets WP:MUSIC, does not appear to be signed to a notable label. I can find no significant coverage in WP:RS, claim of touring with other bands does not appear to grant notability per WP:CONCERT. Kinu ^t/_c 22:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 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) 00:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Maybe at a later date, but one is an interview and the other, no matter how effusive, describes itself as an "introduction" to the band, which I feel undercuts the notability as much as it might support it. Also agree with reasons given in the nomination. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 01:39, 6 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Whitney (financier)

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

Non notable. Vanilla Latte Boy (talk) 19:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Richard Whitney was a major Wall Street figure during the Depression, and his embezzlement conviction was very big news at the time. The article is well-referenced. CNN compared him to Bernie Madoff 70 years earlier. A movie was made about him. Why does the nominator judge him "non notable"? Cullen328 (talk) 04:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This AfD nomination is pretty much the only thing that Vanilla Latte Boy has done on Wikipedia. It seems a bit strange to me. Cullen328 (talk) 04:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Article was already referenced with reliable sources that clearly establishes notability at the time of nomination. -- Whpq (talk) 13:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Obviously notable per the general notability guideline. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep, obviously notable. Even if you were to disregard his historical role in the 1929 crash and the embezzlement conviction, the references available clearly meet WP:GNG - frankie (talk) 14:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - President of the New York Stock Exchange... We're done. Carrite (talk) 14:19, 9 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.

^ "Weathervane Music Featured Projects". Weathervane Music Information Booklet (print). wvmusic. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)
^ Currin, Grayson. "The Playlist: Sharon Van Etten "Love More"". Pitchfork. Retrieved 30 June 2011.
^ Currin, Grayson. "Watch Shaking Through, One of the Very Best Online Music Series". Pitchfork. Retrieved 30 June 2011.
^ Currin, Grayson. "Freddie Gibbs and Statik Selektah Release EP Recorded in 24 on U Stream". Pitchfork. Retrieved 30 June 2011.
^ Grimm, Beca. "Reading Rainbow: Prism Eyes". Paste Magazine. Retrieved 30 June 2011.
^ Prewitt, Catherine. "Weathervane Music Organization Nurtures Philly Sound". Paste Magazine. Retrieved 30 June 2011.
^ Deluca, Dan. "Philly's Weathervane Music Boosts Careers of New Talent". Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved 30 June 2011.

[1] "Weathervane Music Featured Projects". Weathervane Music Information Booklet (print). wvmusic. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)

[2] Currin, Grayson. "The Playlist: Sharon Van Etten "Love More"". Pitchfork. Retrieved 30 June 2011.

[3] Currin, Grayson. "Watch Shaking Through, One of the Very Best Online Music Series". Pitchfork. Retrieved 30 June 2011.

[4] Currin, Grayson. "Freddie Gibbs and Statik Selektah Release EP Recorded in 24 on U Stream". Pitchfork. Retrieved 30 June 2011.

[5] Grimm, Beca. "Reading Rainbow: Prism Eyes". Paste Magazine. Retrieved 30 June 2011.

[6] Prewitt, Catherine. "Weathervane Music Organization Nurtures Philly Sound". Paste Magazine. Retrieved 30 June 2011.

[7] Deluca, Dan. "Philly's Weathervane Music Boosts Careers of New Talent". Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved 30 June 2011.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]