Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 April 15

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--

Stephan Faris

Stephan Faris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non notable journalist. DimaG (talk) 23:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There appears to be enough to establish notability. I have added some sources. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 02:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Gnews search indicates enough coverage of the subject (interviews, reports etc) to warrant an article of his own.--Sodabottle (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per User:GB fan and User:Sodabottle. Sources are not blogs. Subject is contributor of a Time mag lead article, and is author of printed books.--Kudpung (talk) 00:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article is a hoax, created by a set of sockpuppets who want a wikipedia article on themselves. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 13:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Avalon

Grant Avalon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

No evidence that this purported inventor is notable, or that he is even the only inventor, of a novelty toy for

Editor here! Grant Avalon is the brain behind the product, sold on websites as legitimate and popular as amazon. This should not have been considered for deletion because the grounds were off base. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Welshdave86 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The brief mention of the "thumb wrestling ring" (basically, a little model of a boxing ring, with two thumb sized holes) doesn't include any information about Mr. Avalon, and there's no source to indicate that he's notable. I'm sure that he's made enough money off of this novelty item to offset the trauma of not having his own Wikipedia article. If I had a choice between the fame of Wikipedia, or quietly becoming wealthy, I'd go for the latter. Here, there's no choice. Mandsford (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no coverage 'bout him. And the stated claim is not verified by the source provided, so more significant than notability, the article fails
  verifiability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep While the source does not mention the inventor himself, it is still true. I am Grant Avalon, and while I have made a fair amount of money off of this and other original creations, this does not satisfy the fact that I do not have an article. They are not mutually exclusive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 3625Grant (talk • contribs) 22:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC) — 3625Grant (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

*Keep I have one of these wrestling rings and they were distributed initially by Grant Avalon - i think he made his prototypes for a college project - and then other companies like 'Think Wow' got on the bandwagon - which make OK versions but 'Hog Wild' use his original design now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafathegaffer (talk • contribs) 23:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC) — Rafathegaffer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete, fails
  WP:BIO. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC) And I don't appreciate having my !votes removed by IPs, as happened here. NawlinWiki (talk) 05:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment In looking over the edit histories on this article and on Longview, Washington, it's pretty clear to me who 71.59.184.91 is. I haven't seen this many puppets in one place in a long time. Call it "thumb-puppetry". Mandsford (talk) 14:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Their is a SSP case related to this article. Please review before finalizing. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 14:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Interstingly, the thumb war article idnetifies thumb wrestling tings as available, and references this article which contains a malformed reference to a patent. Once the URL is fixed up, you can see the patent storm listing which identifies the inventor as "Hartman, Richard B.". I've n idea of the validity of the patent, but this is information is contrary to the claims made in this article, and at least is one reference which is one more reference than we currently have supporting Grant Avalon as the inventor. -- Whpq (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update - I found this Tacoma New Tribune article which positively identifies Rick Hartman, nicknamed "Mr. Toymaker" as the inventor. As such, this article very much fails the core wikipedia policy of
    verifiability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Comment - Another item that editors reviewing this AFD may wish to look at is this request at articles for creation: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Grant Avalon. It seems rather suspiciously like somebody is determined to stick the name "GRant Avalon" into wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 16:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment - Many people have created their own versions of the ring, and Mr. Hartman is just one of many. However, Grant Avalon is the official inventor, not Mr. Hartman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Welshdave86 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

• • Reply - Yet there has yet to be a shred of evidence to support the assertion. -- Whpq (talk) 00:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment - I know the people with the other accounts. They weren't me though. Clearly not sockpuppetry, just people dedicated to Grant Avalon. 22:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC) Welshdave86 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Welshdave86 (talk • contribs)

*Comment - According to those who I spoke to in the help chat, for a source to be considered reliable, it should mention the purpose of the citation more than just briefly. This is not the case in the article where Mr. Hartman is briefly mentioned as a creator of a thumb wrestling ring. Even so, he is mentioned as a creator of the ring, not the creator. This is not admissible evidence to be used in the deletion of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Welshdave86 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

• Users blocked I took it upon myself to block the users, even though i was the reporting admin in this case - see the SSP Case for details. Because of this i striped the users comments in this discussion. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 11:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 09:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Beth Palo

Mary Beth Palo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Palo's main claims to

1. WP:CORP - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
   .
2. WP:N
   (disclosure: I nominated that article last year under my old username).
3. Not only are the listed conferences minor, but so her role (if any) appears to have been. She does not appear on the following websites: Autism Speaks, Autism One, National Autism Association. GASAK appears to be a purely local organization. Ditto Maine Autism Education Project. Stony Brook University Medical Center (ref. 11) is good, but does not list her. Likewise National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. She is listed as a not-keynote speaker for the 2005 National Autism Conference run by NAA.
4. I did not check for references for the license plates, but this would not seem to matter to
   WP:N
   either way.
5. Being recognized by the Assembly probably is also irrelevant to
   WP:N, but anyway nobody seems to know what it means: [1], [2]

- 2/0 (cont.) 23:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete members or speakers at non-notable conferences or non-notable associations cannot possibly be notable. I am autistic myself, but I'm afraid that I agree with the nominator.
  csdnew 23:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per 2over0's pursuasive and well laid out argument.--
  talk) 04:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sports calendar February 2007

Sports calendar February 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Redundant to February 2007 in sports. WOSlinker (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree --Nitsansh (talk) 21:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no reason to have multiple articles on the same topic. Nyttend (talk) 03:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both although, for some reason, this one is nominated and the other isn't, so I don't suppose that's going to happen. Maybe this piece of crap is redundant to that piece of crap, and vice versa, but they're both a prime example of
  WP:NOT#NEWS. Mandsford (talk) 12:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sports calendar January 2007

Sports calendar January 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Redundant to January 2007 in sports. WOSlinker (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no reason to have multiple articles on the same topic. Nyttend (talk) 03:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both No reason to have either article on the topic. Do we need an 82KB article or a 102KB article on the sports news events of January 2007? Part of participating in "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is that you have to make an effort to "edit". Yeah, I know, the 102KB article isn't nominated. I guess if this one is considered inferior to that one, however, this one must be pretty bad. Mandsford (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 11:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sports calendar December 2006

Sports calendar December 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Redundant to December 2006 in sports WOSlinker (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no reason to have multiple articles on the same topic. Nyttend (talk) 03:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this one, delete the other one No reason to have either, but if we're going to have multiple articles about the same topic, we should have the one that doesn't take up so much space. I'm still not sure why all the "sports calendar for (the month I spent every day reading the sports section)" articles are nominated and all the "(the month someone else did) in sports" articles aren't". Both are products from Wikipedia's days of taking anything. Mandsford (talk) 13:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The other one is better. And I'm pretty sure wikipedia has plenty of space, so there's no reason to favor a page because it's smaller. Cathardic (talk) 19:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

Sports calendar October 2006

Sports calendar October 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Redundant to October 2006 in sports WOSlinker (talk) 21:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no reason to have multiple articles on the same topic. Nyttend (talk) 03:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If we must have articles about the sports news of a particular month, I'd much prefer the 8KB article to the "you-gotta-be-kidding" sized (118 KB) article that it's redundant to. "October 2006 in sports" is longer than articles like
  WP:NOT#NEWS. Mandsford (talk) 13:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, redundant. Stifle (talk) 11:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge This article is not as thorough and can easily be merged and redirected. Mr. C.C.
  Hey yo!_{I didn't do it!} 15:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as the editor withdrew the nomination yesterday.

Boston Housing Court (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics

)

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

An editor removed the prod without reason. Only information is the address and hours, material not appropriate for Wikipedia. The main courthouse does not even have an article. External links are mainly about how to defend oneself if they were evicted. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC) I redact my nomination for deletion because of sources, most importantly DreamFocus's. Admin, please close. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 14:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Courts and courthouses are maintained by
  WP:LAW. Can we try to rescue it? Bearian (talk) 22:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Being a stub is not a reason to delete and so there is no case to answer. I have added a citation to a 140 page study of this court to demonstrate the potential for improvement. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Now that the
  Rankiri (talk) 13:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Google news and Google books have plenty of hits. The most notable one that stands out is a book called A study of the Boston Housing Court By National Center for State Courts. The National Center for State Courts is quite notable, and they published a study on what is clearly a notable thing. Dream Focus 05:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zymosis (Film)

Zymosis (Film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Let's see what I can do in the next hour or so. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I give. Took 30 minutes. Good exercize... made it much prettier, but only found one review that even touches on the film... and dozens of sites that only prove it exists. It may have won a directorial award... but not at a notable festival. If the writer/director ever merits an article, this film can be mentioned there... but it certainly has no independent notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 13 minutes and no stars, delete this. -
  talk) 13:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--

Travis Senik

Travis Senik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Article fails

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Senik started every game for Wheaton at the point guard spot last season, leading the team with an average of four assists per game. Senik also added 9.4 points and 4.1 rebounds per game. Harris says of Senik, "Travis Senik is a winner, it is that simple. He does everything that helps us win Championships. He handles the ball effectively, regardless of pressure. He knows who to get the ball to and when. He is also without a doubt our best and most versatile defender." http://www.d3hoops.com/previews/00/mwestmen.htm

Senik was Athlete of the Week according to a little read paper called the LA Times. http://articles.latimes.com/1996-04-16/news/ss-59267_1_county-athlete

Bhtower (talk) 20:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)bhtower — Bhtower (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete, being a star high school or Division III college player doesn't meet
  WP:ATHLETE. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Never played professional sports on any level... has local notability only. Spanneraol (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails
  WP:ATHLETE. Not only did the subject not play professionally, but Div III is the lowest-level of NCAA college athletics in the US. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 06:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Per above. Alex (talk) 18:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer Porter

Spencer Porter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics

)

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

fails

• Delete - As per prod (which was removed by an IP), not even close to
  WP:Creative Cathardic (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While the article implies that he is perhaps a major writer for Family Guy, his IMDB credits indicate that he has actually written only one episode... with the rest of his career consisting of being either a "production assistant" or an "assisitant to Seth MacFarlane". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 11:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now restored this article as Mr. Martin has made his first start for Southampton F.C., a League One team. Stifle (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Martin (Football)

Aaron Martin (Football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Subject fails both

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - although Martin may be in
  Football League, the article can be re-created then. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: Saying that he will pass ATHLETE is a violation of
  WP:CRYSTAL. Delete for now with no prejudice against recreation should he make his first-team debut in the future. BigDom 19:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silverseren^C 19:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have tagged this article for
  rescue. Silverseren^C 19:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep I have added some sources to the article, enough to qualify him for
  WP:ATHLETE. So, all in all, he meets both notability standards handily. Silverseren^C 19:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment - he may be on the books of a

WP:ATHLETE. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - Despite all of those sources that the guy above me added, he has yet to pass
  Wp:ATHLETE - you need to play for them, rather than merely being a member of their team.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 19:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Can someone please update me what
  Wp:GNG is? I gather that they have to have apps for a professional club but doesn't Salisbury count with 13 apps and a goal for Aaron? thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monts 94sfc (talk • contribs) 19:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Please just click on those links and read. Thanks. — Satori Son 19:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've clicked on the links
      Wp:GNG says i have to log in and something about an email when i am logged in. I am new member thus the confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monts 94sfc (talk • contribs) 19:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Sorry, I don't know why it's not properly directing you to
        WP:GNG. Try this full URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GNG#General_notability_guideline — Satori Son 20:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
        ]
      • Comment to Monts 94sfc - We have a list of
        fully-professional leagues, and the appearance of a player in one of them grants them notability. Due to the presence of teams like Histon and Hayes & Yeading (both of whom are amatuer teams), the Conference National isn't considered fully-professional. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 23:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
        ]
• Strong Delete Clearly does not meet the standards
  Wp:ATHLETE. Perhaps with more references, or claims other actions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freakee73 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep I have added a total of 9 references to cover all of Aaron's career, although it doesn't meet
  WP:GNG as they are significant coverage about him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monts 94sfc (talk • contribs) 00:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I would like to point out that GNG requires significan coverage, not just sources. What you've added is fairly routine journalism. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Our other option would be to
  incubate the article for a little while until his Saints debut, which, looking at various sources, seems like it should be in a month or so. Silverseren^C 00:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Most of the coverage seems on news sites that require you to pay to read their archives, but there is clearly plenty of the football player. [4] Dream Focus 00:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Most of these G-hits predate this Martin's career and relate to various American Football players. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This search is a bit more precise. I think I see five hits in there about this guy, mainly local press covering his signing for a pro club in a "local boy made good" sort of way....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete footballer fails
  WP:NTEMP. --Jimbo^[online] 13:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - if the article is kept, it should be moved to the correct title Aaron Martin (footballer)........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails
  WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 21:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Unfortunately this article and book does not meet

Weekend Special

Weekend Special (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Critical review of a book by an author with no Wikipedia article. This is either original research or a violation of copyright. Either way, it doesn't merit inclusion in Wikipedia. B.Wind (talk) 18:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I removed prod because User:Gharr the original author added hangon tag, obviously contesting it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

____________________________________________________________________________________________

I very much doubt I have breached “copyright” by producing this article, I think that is an over the top statement.

Since the article on the “Weekend Special” has got references or block quotes on every line, I would be safe to say this is not original research.

However one can debate that the reporting of the author’s words or lecture is an original report since sound seems to have a habit of not hanging around for very long and a person who reports on a subject has not got a photographic memory.

I don’t think reporting something is “original research,” but it may be claimed that it is difficult to “verify.”

Most of the references provided are cited in an accurate way and are “verifiable.”

If I have managed to correctly assert that this is not original research, then I would assume you will put forward more reasonable arguments for deletion of the “Weekend Special.”

• I (the main author so far) added the hangon tag because a “discussion” was going on about the reason why the Weekend Special should not be scheduled for “speedy deletion” or deletion for that matter.

• The "B.Wind (talk) 18:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)" seems to no longer exist, so this reference is nonsense. It may refer to the speedy deletion tag removed by the hangon tag I added—but I’m only guessing there, and that is original research. (edit to make sure statement is considered incorrect Gharr (talk) 02:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC) )[reply]

Gharr (talk) 04:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • I most assuredly assure that I do exist. I had to repost the original as it had the wrong title, but a simple check of my contributions and a check of the contribution history of this discussion shows that I posted it at the indicated time. My position is quite simple: either this was original research or a violation of copyright - neither belong in Wikipedia. B.Wind (talk) 18:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In addition, book reviews are not encyclopedic and not permitted under
      WP:NB. Promotional blurbs on book covers don't even come close. B.Wind (talk) 18:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • I concur that the article, as currently written is a book review, and not an encyclopedia article. As for copyright violation, attributed quoted text isn't an outright copyright violation. But in any case, the quoations used not meet Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria in my opinion. The two large quotes consist of quoting the plot, and quoting the author profile from the dust jacket. As per point 1 of the policy, these large tracts of text can easily be replaced by a plot summary, and an author bio summary written from scratch. -- Whpq (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There is no coverage about this book in reliable sources. In particular, I can find no evidence of significant critical coverage such as book reviews. Aside from that, the article is in part
  original research as part of the referencing identifies the source as a direct interview with the author. -- Whpq (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Sorry for any misunderstandings I had here. I think I have covered most of your comments in the points below. Thank you for taking the time to consider this article. I suggest some of the points you cover are "discussed" already and give support to some of your views while suggestions and reasons why Wikipedia may need to reconsider it's stance on new books and authors that do not have large sums of money to launch their books. Wikipedia and making a book are signs of a new era in publishing and you may risk loosing classic literature and rare author comments because of the current rules--and this encouraging reference: "Wikipedia remains flexible because new people may bring fresh ideas, growing may evolve new needs, people may change their minds over time when new things come up, and we may find a better way to do things."

• Sorry about previously removing the "{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|B}}", I obviously misunderstood that tag's meaning--I did mention my uncertainty in the edit summary.

• Thank you Gene93k (talk) for including this article in the "list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions"

• the point made that "the article, as currently written is a book review:" has some merit I might suppose, but I would have thought the article was more a report or informational style. I have never written book reviews--so I'm not familiar with that style of writing.

• Ahhh, I get that one now, "B.Wind (talk) 18:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)" is your signature and time stamp to validate who wrote the comment. I thought it was a supporting link for why you thought the article was "original research or a violation of copyright".

• the point of "original research ...[being a] direct interview with the author" possibly has a point. The interview could belong to me as it might be original research in that I did formulate the questions that led to the report on what was said. If this is the case, then I will delete the offending material and reference.

• The discussion of "Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria" and "notability of books" has been covered in the "discussion" that resulted from me putting in a {{hangon}} tag. While "Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria" was not a topic directly covered, I think it flows in the "discussion" as a result of the points made on new books and notablitity.

Gharr (talk) 02:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As I had written on your talk page, there are several things that need to be considered here, including the application of the notability guideline
  reliable sources (click this link to see Wikipedia's definition of the term) - without this, your article is in severe trouble. B.Wind (talk) 03:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I’m sorry, but since other people contributed to the talk page, I feel restricted and can not reproduce their work here—a public space (rather then my talk personal space). I appreciate your rules, but I am tied down on this matter for the moment. If you follow this rule then you would also follow the rule that I had no right to place a {{hangon}}.

However I believe I did the right thing by following Wikipedias own instructions: "Place {{hangon}} on the page that is tagged for speedy deletion, and immediately give a reason on the associated talk page." Thus the talk page is relevant in my opinion and you can not say “The closing admin will not be checking the talk pages of the participants in this discussion.” I assume here of course that talk page is the associated talk page—but what if I’m wrong???

Alternatively, I can assume that you consider the talk that followed the placement of the {{hangon}} tag as finished and this argument is new and different—ignoring all past discussion. I would disagree with this type of assumption, but you seem to have the ability to tell others what the situation is here. The power structure (if there is one) in Wikipedia is still unfamiliar to me.

Gharr (talk) 01:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the views proposed here as to why this book does not belong in Wikipedia may have many merits.

However, I would also note that while I may be the one who has to do additional work to defend the argument of why this book should be included, Wikipedia does have something to say on this matter and this is why I get the feeling Wikipedia is open to being flexible from the following quote:

"Wikipedia remains flexible because new people may bring fresh ideas, growing may evolve new needs, people may change their minds over time when new things come up, and we may find a better way to do things."

This is also another reason why the talk page that follows on from the placement of the {{hangon}} tag should be taken included in this current argument.

Gharr (talk) 01:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It should be pointed out that the link on the talk page to which Gharr refers consists of a posting by the author of the book in question (which doesn't help in
  reliable sources independent of the book and its author. Until there is, this article will be deleted within the next four days. The only saving grace for this article is that as of this post, only three editors have participated in the discussion. This can change drastically by the end of the weekend. Don't go by "feelings": go by policy and guidelines that well help save your article. B.Wind (talk) 02:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I would consider the talk page to be more of a mission statement or a strategic plan that Wikipedia could take on board. Sometimes we have to look outside the rules, even challenge them. This is an unusual time and a lot of material is being published out there. Why waste the energy of authors and yourself when there could be another solution? Why risk loosing articles that may be irreplaceable in the future? You may call it a essay, you may work by the rules but I like to think in business terms. This talk page is not a school essay attempting to get a grade, it goes far beyond that!

--Gharr (talk) 03:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - It appears that B.Wind's advice on what you need to do to prevent this article from deletion has not registered. The arguments you put forth are essentially challenging the guidelines that have been arrived at by consensus. Wikipedia:Notability (books) is the result of community discussion on what the inclusion criteria for books should be. If you believe that the guidelines are antiquated and need to be changed, you can raise this at the guideline's talk page, Wikipedia talk:Notability (books). Railing against the guidelines is very unlikely to result in this article being kept as the closing administrator will be weighing the arguments put forth by the various editors based on the current Wikipedia policies and guidelines. -- Whpq (talk) 12:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not even close to meeting
  Wikipedia's talk page guidelines of behavior. If the author wishes to fight for the sake of fighting without addressing the issues put above in the nomination and putting the article itself in compliance with inclusion guidelines, Wikipedians don't usually have the time to humour him/her; most of us don't even have the patience to play such games in the first place. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete not notable, and very confusing to follow what the author or article creator really wanted to achieve. I think it's more advert than whatever "it goes beyond that". Another example why they should have a minimum of 20 mainspace edits and two weeks before you can create new articles. Tinker before you build.The-Pope (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable book. Google finds only sales sites, no independent commentary about the book. It is listed with Amazon but at first I thought it wasn't; for some reason it does not turn up in a book search there. This may even be self-published; the publisher's website offers "partnership" arrangements with authors as well as straightforward publishing arrangements. In any case the lack of independent sources disqualifies the book from a Wikipedia listing - quite aside from the very real problems with the style of the article. That would be a matter for rewriting, not deleting, if the book were notable. --MelanieN (talk) 14:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Gillespie

Richard Gillespie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Subject fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - has not played higher than

WP:ATHLETE. If he makes it as a pro, the article can be re-created. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - Has never played in a fully-pro league, so thus fails
  Wp:GNG. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 23:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: Fails
  WP:ATH. BigDom 16:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - fails
  WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 21:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No arguments to delete besides nominator. I encourage editors to keep in mind our guidelines about

Ozy and Millie

Ozy and Millie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Okay, let's look at the sources. About 95% of them are primary, and the other 5% are interviews with the cartoonist, coverage from the unreliable Comixtalk, or primary sources to show that it won a questionable award. Is a Web Cartoonist's Choice award really enough to save it from the fire if there are absolutely no secondary sources anywhere to so much as verify one iota of info in this article? I highly, highly doubt it. And I don't wanna hear "but but but it won a Web Cartoonists Choice Award and/or is on Keenspot; IT HAS TO BE NOTABLE BY THAT ALONE!" Not without good sources, it ain't. Notability isn't inherited. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Won an Ursa Major Award in 2002, and then again twice running in 2006 and 2007. Notable by that alone. GreenReaper (talk) 05:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per as above. Also, as it is a GA, I think it is example of good Wikipedia work. ISD (talk) 12:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep won one WCCA, three UMAs, was on Keenspot when this still meant something, was written by an (apparently) notable artist, ran for the long time period of ten years and had up to 50,000 visitors a day, has been named as a major influence by several other webcartoonists, various articles on other (maybe not notable, but adequately reliable) websites about it exist, books were published by a real publisher. When all of this is considered this webcomic is notable. --84.57.185.23 (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Adequate reasons given above. Also, this is the primary work of David/Dana Simpson, who also has a wikipedia page. Wmspringer (talk) 23:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this and

I Drew This into Dana Simpson. Each of these articles lacks significant coverage by reliable sources, but there may be enough in the three articles to make one OK article. None of the ideas expressed above (such as Keenspot, Web Cartoonists Choice Awards, or Ursa Major Awards) are of any great notability themselves, let alone indicators of any sort of notability for this topic. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 07:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep. Ridiculous. Among the most notable of webcomics. If Ozy and Millie isn't notable enough for an article, no webcomic except for
  PvP would be notable enough for an article. Powers ^T 13:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Ridiculous argument. You forgot

Eric Monster Millikin, Axe Cop, xkcd, Megatokyo, The Perry Bible Fellowship and many, many other webcomics that are far more notable than this one. Our coverage of webcomics is in no danger of being reduced to anything close to only three articles if we were to delete this. This isn't even close to "among the most notable of webcomics." Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 05:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Please tone down the rhetoric. Calling others' arguments "ridiculous" is not conducive to a

civil discussion. You've done this twice here, now. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Please don't modify my comments, either. Thank you. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you'd appreciate some help in your quest to protect sensitive people from being exposed to the word "ridiculous." Starblueheather (talk) 13:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A webcomic doesn't have to be "close to among the most notable of webcomics" in order to be here; rather, it needs to at least barely qualify under the appropriate notability guidelines, meaning it has to be covered in at least two independent reliable sources, or have won at least one well-known and independent award, or be distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators. As long as it meets any one of those criteria, it meets the notability requirements. The Ursa Major Awards are considered a major award in their area, and have been awarded for nearly ten years. The award is independent of the creators of this webcomic, and it is well known within that genre, so this webcomic meets the minimun requirements for notability. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous argument. This award doesn't even indicate notability in the furry community, let alone to a general audience. By your reasoning, the Ursa Major Award-winning "Front cover of Fur Visions, Issue 20" would be notable. Which it's not. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 13:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no, because covers of magazines by themselves are very rarely, if ever, independently notable. That argument is fallacious at its core. The magazine, however, would gain notability for having an award-winning cover, and would therefore qualify for inclusion in the encyclopedia. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that a single illustration is not generally notable (although winning the award might still be considered a notable achievement for the artist). However, "Best Comic Strip" is hotly-contested. The comic was also the first to be selected as WikiFur's featured comic. Fred Patten called Ozy and Millie "one of the top anthropomorphic cartoon strips on the Internet." Its retirement was the subject of a secondary news article.

O&M is not the world's most important comic. However, it's been notable within furry fandom for the past decade. GreenReaper (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no, what, are you trying to convince me to change my "merge" comment to "delete"? These sources are horrible. You are arguing that this is "notable within furry fandom" and these "Awards are considered a major award in their area [and] well known within that genre". That argument is fallacious at its core. As much as I wish we were, we're not making a furry fandom encyclopedia here. And GreenReaper is seriously suggesting we keep this based on an article Green Reaper wrote for WikiFur News? That is beyond ridiculous. Starblueheather (talk) 00:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You said the Ursa Major award for Best Comic failed to indicate notability within furry fandom, and argued that - by extension - it could not indicate general notability. I provided evidence that its decision was in line with other indications of notability within furry fandom. As part of that, I felt a previously-written news article about the comic's retirement that mentioned the Ursa Majors might both confirm the Awards' decision about its notability and indicate that the Award itself had weight within furry fandom.

Part of the job of experts is to provide perspective on what may indicate notability within a topic area. I think you are wrong to discard the Awards. They have their flaws, and their critics (myself included), but they generally do their job. If nothing else, as a popular award, if they had made a bad decision in 2006, the public outcry would have precluded Ozy and Millie's return in 2007. GreenReaper (talk) 04:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no, if these awards conferred notability, then winning one would result in coverage by reputable sources. Your pointing out that the best sources for this "award-winner" is trivial stuff like a brief article you wrote yourself on another wiki, then you are really weakening your case and making me consider changing my comment to "delete." Starblueheather (talk) 13:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Incubate.

Albi Sulo

Albi Sulo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non notable junior tennis player. Unsourced claim to playing Dsvis cup tennis but nothing to confirm this. The article is littered with peacock terms. Article has been created and deleted before. Google shows very few hits. The sources added to this version do not establish notability. The first is really an wikilink, the second shows he is an unranked junior tennis player, the third appears to be the results of a junior tournament noq (talk) 18:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Albania there is no a tennis federation add so it can't find a real source . With these sources you can see one part of that. The second and the third explain that Albi is an international tennis player. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scientificcc (talk • contribs) 18:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, for now. Per
  notable. Lacking sources, though, we must delete. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delelete per UltraExactZZ and noq. It says he won several cups, but none of the sources support that.
  books} 19:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. The Davis Cup will be held for Albania in 10-15 May 2010 in Greece. There are no news to confirm team names, but under
  wp:athlete
  the guy can stay in wikipedia. He is a participant in the National team.

Because there is no Albanian tennis federation site , for the information that is given there are enought sources except one source of Albanian tennis federation because that federation doesn't have a site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scientificcc (talk • contribs) 19:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep.The article must not be removed because finally now i found a source in a newspaper who demonstrat that i am one of the fourth best tennis player in Albania for adults , and i have participate in these tournaments. there is no reason now to delete this because everything is wrote is now proved. [5]

next time you better find someone to translate sources because this is a source that proves everything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scientificcc (talk • contribs) 12:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Phil Bridger (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]