Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 December 11

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 10 December 12 December >

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. With no prejudice against later recreation. Tone 23:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kristijan Mesaroš

Kristijan Mesaroš (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

a player on the rise but not (yet) WP notable according to our criteria: not a top three ranking junior or with any junior grand slam titles; no ATP Tour main draw match wins or any ATP Challenger titles Mayumashu (talk) 23:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - even if he didn't won any Challengers he won many Futures and he is amongst top ten singles players from Croatia. The 8th ranked player of the country. That is notable as far as I am concerned. (Gabinho>:) 23:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Delete - Other than the listings at the ITF and ATP websites this article is without sources. The article does not seem to meet
talk to me 11:05, 13 December 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 keep, sources were added, and nominator withdrew. (

non-admin closure) Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 00:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Barret Oliver

Barret Oliver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced BLP, extant since 2007, with major neutrality issues. This article either needs sourcing by interested parties, or deleting. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw based on sourcing. Could someone wrap this up if they see it as closeable? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but clean it up. It's not so hard to make this a simple sourced stub instead of putting it up for deletion. Garion96 (talk) 23:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you're saying, but it seems no-one is willing to put in the time. The burden of evidence lies with the editors who add material, and those editors don't seem to be interested. No-one is willing or able to put in the work, and unless this AfD spurs people into sourcing the article, deletion is the only sensible option. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also understand what you're saying. Unsourced blp should go and I agree. But it only took me 2 minutes to get rid of the unsourced crap, find 1 source and have leave a decent (although definitely can be improved and expanded) stub behind. Garion96 (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a sad reason with most things, but if there's a BLP involved, it's a sensible reason. I don't have the time or the interest to reference the article, and I have no interest in answering an angry OTRS ticket from the subject. Many thanks to those who have referenced it. To quote the verifiability policy, unsourced information "should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information [particularly] about living persons."". You may not agree with my methods for getting it sourced, but you can't argue that it is now sourced :-) 21:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
It is and it is not. You could have reverted the article to a much earlier version. That way all the unsourced stuff would have been gone faster then it takes to put the article up for AFD. Garion96 (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And too, a point worth considering, is that the individual's
Saturn Award win and multiple Young Artist Award nominations were not difficult to find and source. I know it's sometimes easier for some editors to bring something to AFD and then have somebody else do the work, but it was possible that this AFD need not have even happened in the first place. However, the deed sir, she is done. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:06, 12 December 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. Keep (withdrawn nomination, no opposition.) Several pertinent issues of the article title and article content were raised, please take those to discussion on the article talk page. j⚛e deckertalk 17:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Racism in the LGBT community

AfDs for this article:
Racism in the LGBT community (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

1) This article uses very few statistics showing how racism within the LGBT community is any worse than racism within the whole white community. 2) This is offensive towards LGBT people as it targets the LGBT community in a negative way. Whether its true or not it would be offensive to publish an article about how much more crime there is in the communities of people of color for example. I guarantee if I wrote an article on how much more crime there was in the Black community it would be taken down as racist. From a sociological perspective this article actually creates more racism and homophobia by pitting the minorities againist each other and creating inter-minority prejudice. 3) This does not reflect a global perspective on the issue. 4) This article does not have a counterpart article about Heterosexism within communities of color because it would be taken down for being racist. But this homophobic and transphobic article can still exist.I think thats a double standard.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 23:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're are basically telling me that wikipedia supports hate speech. If this was so wikipedia would have been taken down long ago.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 00:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm saying that
should not be censored because they 'offend' one, or any, groups. Or should the woman who thought Fuck was an objectionable page be able to have it deleted? (Yes, this really was mentioned on the AN/I page, a woman objecting to an article about a phrase used against Poles (I think) said that she would be trying to get that deleted later. Thankfully sanity prevailed.) - The Bushranger One ping only 00:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm willing to admit it did address Asian Americans as I just looked it up. Thanks for catching me. However this part was removed due to lack of sources and the fact still remains that Native Americans, Arabs and Jews are still not addressed.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 00:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Race and ethnicity in the LGBT community. The title, as is, is obviously incendiary and limits the subject matter to something repugnant, which would make it a
    talk) 00:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
LGBT communities and People of Color are seperate entities that can't be disputed. I think what you are trying to say is that they often overlap and therein you would be right. However, both are minority entities which have faced years of persecution. Why should people expect that LGBT people are free of discrimination. They are only human. By your logic however, every minority group must be accepting of other minority groups and therefore have a higher expectation of tolerance. So why should there not be an artical on heterosexism and transphobia within the communities of color. I would personally fight to take this down as well. Racism and homophobia are both equally damaging therefore both issues Racism in the LGBT community and Heterosexism and Transphobia in Communities of Color should be discussed in an equal and non-biased (racist, sexualist (or in the case of transgender people) sexist fashion). -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 00:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination but I think that the tile Race, Ethnicity, and the LGBT community sounds more like a term paper than an encyclopedia article. I changed it to Relations between the LGBT Community and People of Color because it sounded more encyclopedic. I also think this article's talk page needs to be archived but I don't know how. I would really appreciate it if someone could do that. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 21:18, 13 December 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. LFaraone 19:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Krislund

Krislund (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No secondary sources cited and I can find nothing except promotional material and directory-type lists making more than a passing reference to this program. No other articles link here. Much of the article (particularly the "Contact" section) reads like an advertisement. Idhtns (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as irredeemable spam, and also lacks coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - obvious copyvio with cut-and-paste text. It has neither an allegation nor evidence of notability. Bearian (talk) 18:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC) This is not an obvious copyvio, but some is cut from here. Bearian (talk) 18:48, 15 December 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. LFaraone 03:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sakthi T. K. Krishnasamy

Sakthi T. K. Krishnasamy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail

WP:CREATIVE. ttonyb (talk) 22:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment – All articles must meet certain criteria to establish
    WP:RS and the article will survive, if not, it is likely the article will be deleted. ttonyb (talk) 03:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Hey Guys, This section talks about a widely known (yesteryear) Tamil Cinema scriptwriter. Lots of his movies have been telecast in South Indian TV channels, especially the great historical classic of 'Veera Pandiya Kattabomman',which was repeatedly telecast on Indian Independence Day (August 15th) for quite number of years. I think this article is credit worthy and it should not be deleted. Chithra Anand —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.95.176 (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC) — 202.7.95.176 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment – All articles must meet certain criteria to establish
    WP:RS and the article will survive, if not, it is likely the article will be deleted. ttonyb (talk) 03:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep This article talks about a very famous writer of Tamil Film industry (esp. 50(s) and 60(s)). Many of his films were classics. It is sad that quite a few like this great film writer, who needs worldly recoginition, are not yet listed in Wikipedia. I am suprised somebody requests for deletion of this article even without knowing anything about its subject. Well I think we need to add more (film and literature) artciles like this guys. Tamilfilmsbuff (talk) 02:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)Tamilfilmsbuff — Tamilfilmsbuff (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Tamilfilmsbuff (talk) 07:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Tamilfilmsbuff[reply]

  • First of all, if related articles given as links from Wikipedia cannot be trusted as reliable sources for this article, then why in the first place such articles are still kept in Wikipedia. Please search few times on the internet, then you will know that there are not many links or resources available on (South) Indian Cinema of the 50(s) and 60(s) especially. Given that scenario, I genuinely think that enough creditable outside links and references are added to this article to substantiate the subject, let alone the related Wikipedia references and links. I have read so many pages or articles in Wikipedia on Indian Cinema, where I have some good knowledge in particular. Many of these pages have hardly any resources or external links at all to substantiate their contents, let alone to prove their quality. How come they are all there in Wikipedia then? I am not going to argue anything anymore with you on this, as I really don't get any benefit out of adding some contents to this article. I am not going to write anymore and waste my time here. All the best for all your great endeavours like this (taking such abstract decisions). Sudhavijayau (talk) 04:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)SudhaVijayau[reply]
  • Comment – Since there is no mechanism to insure that accuracy of Wikipedia articles they are not considered as valid references for an article. See
    all articles need to stand on their own merits. It is a shame you consider the addition of references to the article a waste of time. My best to you. ttonyb (talk) 04:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    • Even though I started this article and added quite a few references and links to substantiate its subject, the work our user, "Sodabottle" has done here is exemplary and outstanding. Thanks for all your efforts "Sodabottle". You enriched this article with excellent and relevant references, citations and Bibliography. People like you actually encourage people like me to write more for the benefit of our society. I kind of focus on “lost heroes in the modern internet world”. There are many (Indian and other world greats, the people I am well aware of), who became great legends in their own areas of work, by their splendid life time contributions and achievements, are still not available in Wikipedia pages to search and read. Adding pages on them and their work should really benefit our literary world community. Hats off to you again "Sodabottle". Thanks to everybody else who contributed to this article and other useful and resourceful Wikipedia pages. Regards. Sudhavijayau (talk) 00:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC) Sudhavijayau[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. LFaraone 19:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of airports in Aruba

List of airports in Aruba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is non-encyclopedia 3littlemaidsfromschool (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC) — 3littlemaidsfromschool (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Keep - article suitable. Other countries have such lists Maltesedog (talk) 22:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As noted, this is a standard type of article for a country, even if it does need expanding. Also, as a note, the article was prodded by an IP, then expanded by another IP who (rightfully) removed the prod. Then this new editor, who has not made any edits other than to this article to send it to AfD, AfD'd it with the edit summary "Readded Article for Deletion which was improperly deleted by [IP] prior to the 7 days expiry". Clearly somebody has an improper understanding of how the PROD works. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment & Clarification: I am User:71.101.84.3 and if you look at my edit history (Special:Contributions/71.101.84.3) you will notice that I have been editing on Wikipedia since November. Now that's not a lot of time to be editing but still, I think there should be some consideration. Further if you look at the notice template it states "Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed." Therefore as I am to understand based on this User:76.66.194.212 violated this rule by deleting the AfD before the discussion had been properly discussed and the AfD was properly voted on and closed, So I DO have a full understanding thank you very much. 3littlemaidsfromschool (talk) 00:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for that, however,
Prodded, or 'Proposed for Deletion', which is an entirely different deletion process. And the PROD tag says "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason." So he was entirely proper in his removal of the tag upon his expansion of the article. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
No need to apologize mate and I see the point you've made. 3littlemaidsfromschool (talk) 01:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It looks like the procedural issue has been resolved, so hopefully we don't have to argue about that any more. Substantively, I don't see any good basis for objecting to this article. When I came here, I expected to see a comment along the lines of "there's only one airport so we don't need a list" or some such, but I see that's not the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:22, 12 December 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Viktor Blom

Viktor Blom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Largely a page filled with gossip; there is no proof that Viktor Blom is Isildur1 (and there is a page on Isildur1 anyway) and Blom isn't otherwise notable enough to warrant an article, what with having only a single cash on the HendonMob list. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: He is not notable. Just onother online Grinder. -Koppapa (talk) 13:12, 12 December 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruben Rude

Ruben Rude (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

5-year unsourced biography, marked BLP unsourced since June. Tommy1964 (talk) 19:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced. WuhWuzDat 19:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources provided. -- Alexf(talk) 19:12, 16 December 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. Tone 23:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Posey

Benjamin Posey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced BLP written by User:Benjamin C. Posey, and deprodded by same. Claims to be a trumpet teacher/performer. No sources even verify this person exists, let alone passes

WP:MUSICIAN. Abductive (reasoning) 19:15, 11 December 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. LFaraone 19:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese pop culture in America

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I initially redirected this article to

WP:3 but considering what the creator wrote in this edit summary, it's clear that s/he doesn't quite understand what Wikipedia is all about. Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

While I agree that wikipedia is not a place to post your own work, the impact on Japanese pop culture in America is big and goes beyond just anime and manga so in a way its ironic that this topic was made by someone who was just doing an english paper. I feel this article just needs to be rewritten and have some TLC for it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Farix, a research paper is presumably heavy on the research part as well as containing some OR... --Gwern (contribs) 22:40 16 December 2010 (GMT)
  • Keep - seems like an analogous article (if simultaneously broader and more narrow in scope) to
    From Impressionism To Anime: Japan As Fantasy And Fan Cult In The Western Imagination may assist in the building of the article. --Malkinann (talk) 04:13, 15 December 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

António Moraes Machado

António Moraes Machado (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

talk) 18:26, 11 December 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. Courcelles 23:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Girling

Laura Girling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced BLP; IMDb shows only a handful of roles in TV movies, nothing that would show clear notability. Couldn't find any secondary sources. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It was not unreferenced; it included an External link to the IMDB page on Laura Girling. I converted that to an inline reference, too. The person is notable enough for an article; better to keep rather than force re-creation later. No benefit to deleting, better to allow development. --doncram (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB does not count as a source worthy of keeping an article; if that was true we'd have a million articles on various actors and second unit directors. If there's anything other than (keywords) imdb, then I'd reconsider, but I found nothing. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, IMDB is a valid source for some kinds of information. And Girling got 2nd billing in a movie, The Successor (movie) and has had other more signicant parts than a second unit whatever. So, i think she's significant, and this article should be kept, while u r free to disagree, and obviously do. --doncram (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- —innotata 21:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 21:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Many (perhaps most) editors consider IMDb reliable for credit information, but not for biographical information, and by itself IMDb is not an indicator of notability, since every person who receives a credit for performing services in a released film has (or should have) an IMDb page. I can't find any bio articles or other press coverage about her, other than bare mentions of her name in connection with projects. Unless such coverage turns up, there isn't really a basis to keep the article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:48, 11 December 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. Tone 23:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brighton, Syracuse, New York

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unreferenced article, with no indication of notability beyond the local context. Powers T 18:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- —innotata 21:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Southside, Syracuse, which is what the city calls it, at least in 2010. The South Salina Street Historic District is located inside this region. The neighborhood was the subject of two magazine articles, in Ms. and the now defunct Plenty. (I'm a little amazed myself.) Judging from this history of the area there's quite a lot to say. (Confusingly, city-sponsored Tomorrow's Neighborhoods Today still calls it Brighton, probably because "TNT Southside" encompasses a four-neighborhood area.) --Pnm (talk) 04:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Ms. article doesn't refer to a specific neighborhood, just the "south side" of Syracuse generically. The Plenty article refers to just a single event involving the neighborhood; it doesn't provide the necessary background on the history or importance of the neighborhood. And we already have an article on the South Salina Street HD, which does not automatically confer notability on its surrounding neighborhood. I don't find these sources adequate by any stretch. Powers T 14:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re the Ms. article: it does refer to this neighborhood. --Pnm (talk) 16:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You'll have to help me out; I don't see it. Powers T 18:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems I can only tell from knowing the context: they're referring to a poor, predominantly African American neighborhood. Strathmore and Elmwood are both predominantly white, and Strathmore is affluent. ("Southside" isn't used to refer to Strathmore, except by TNT.) I suppose you're correct, though, that the article applies to both
Southside/Brighton and Southwest. (You can almost see how the highway boxes in
those neighborhoods, as the Ms. article described.)
That's a bunch of OR, clearly, and probably too much for this source to establish
WP:GNG
on its own.
Fact is, this plant is in the neighborhood, and it's the relationship isn't just incidental. It's the this neighborhood's "longtime residents who were asked to move." Do you really think creating Midland Avenue Regional Treatment Facility is a better option?
If you haven't already, take a look at paragraphs 2-4 of the history link. That text isn't cited, but it was copied from the successful application for the historic district (arguably reliable), and describes the neighborhood as a whole. --Pnm (talk) 22:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice if we had some third-party sources that clearly delineated this neighborhood and its importance. I nominated it because such sources appear to be lacking. Powers T 18:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move per Pnm; plenty of significant coverage to be found. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 07:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, rename may be appropriate. This is part of complete, encyclopedic coverage of all the Syracuse neighborhoods; creating a redlink for one of the items in the set is unhelpful, especially since sources do exist.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sources are insufficient; only those neighborhoods with significant third-party coverage can be written about. Powers T 18:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, This is one of 26 established Syracuse neighborhoods. Yes, it is part of the southside, however, so are Elmwood, North Valley and South Valley. Are you planning on deleting them too? That would be kind of crazy because Brighton sits due north of both North Valley and South Valley on the Syracuse neighborhood map. If the page for this neighborhood is deleted it will completely screw up the Syracuse map and links since they refer to all 26 of the neighborhoods including 4 on the so called Southside. Is someone going to recreate the map and fix all the nav bars and links? I have a lot of concerns over this decision and think it is A LOT bigger decision than some out here think. I am actively working on the Syracuse neighborhoods so plan on adding info in near future.--Nconwaymicelli (talk) 16:00, 17 December 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 merge to Melange (fictional drug). Courcelles 23:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spice agony

Spice agony (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article describes a minor detail from a fictional work in a mostly "in-universe" style (as though it were real), contrary to

WP:N. There is no obvious place to merge this content to, even if it were worth merging.  Sandstein  18:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Yes, you're right. But in that case only the part that is at least sourced to primary sources, "Chronology", should be merged.  Sandstein  18:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- —innotata 21:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and lose excessive plot detail in the process. There's no reason that something primarily sourced can't be merged into an article has a variety of acceptable sourcing. Jclemens (talk) 06:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summarize and merge for the sake of building a consensus. Would otherwise support deletion since there are no third-party sources to
    WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:00, 18 December 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. Tone 23:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Curan

Amir Curan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced BLP, could not find any secondary sources. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:00, 11 December 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. Tone 23:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Brakmic

Amir Brakmic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced BLP, could not find any secondary sources. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:57, 11 December 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Kristin Dahl-Pedersen

Ellen Kristin Dahl-Pedersen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparently non-notable author. She has written a few books as a coauthor, but there is no evidence of her, or her books, receiving significant coverage as outlined at

WP:COATRACK to air allegations about the death of a relative. Jayron32 17:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

  • COMMENT: Now, isn't this odd? Here we try to get an article deleted for bringing up rumors and speculations that far exceeeds what facts police so far have released. Trying to "save the article", the assumptions and rumours are taken out of the article, and then deletion discussion runs on - and nobody really understands why the article should be deleted... Until MikeNicho here paste the same bucket of rumours here so we know. [Redacted per the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. Stick to discussion of the subject and the sources for this biography article. Uncle G (talk) 09:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)] Till then namedropping and wild guessing should be avoided. TorSch (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- —innotata 21:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As this article is now, this is just a discussion on whether or not she meets the notability-criterion as an author. Well& good, if kept we need to delete previous revisions of the article where the emphasis was on unfounded gossiping. Finn Rindahl (talk) 12:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not quite enough notability as an author as far as I can see. Geschichte (talk) 16:44, 15 December 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black Rock basin

Black Rock basin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable USGS hydrologic unit, in this particular HUC the Black Rock Desert is lumped together with some adjacent drainage basins, there's no reason to do that outside of the USGS classification scheme. See here and here for deletion discussions of similar articles. Kmusser (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - The 1914 edition the USDA Bulletin does seem to devote an entire chapter to the Black Rock basin.[5] and I have found some more coverage. [6] It does seem to satisfy
    WP:N, maybe not overwhelmingly so. Changed to Weak Delete per arguments below. --Oakshade (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The second one of those isn't referring to the hydrologic unit, since that publication predates the HUC system, note that the HUC is not the same thing as the Black Rock drainage basin (which probably is notable, but is already covered in the Black Rock Desert article). Kmusser (talk) 22:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep/keep— If the article stayed how it is now, the idea of it not failing the notability guideline is laughable, with only 3 Internet sources all from government agencies (and the "not in citation given" templates), but there are quite a few mentions in newspapers, although not very detailed. Add that to its coverage in those books and it begins to establish some notability. Jsayre64 (talk) 04:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
None of those look like they're about the one in Nevada, 2 were about one in Pennsyvania and the rest were all about one in Arizona. Kmusser (talk) 04:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, then. Jsayre64 (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as most of the items classified as HUCs are not notable but are merely database names. This series of HUCs is also problematic since the articles are being created using names that are those of real geo features that may in fact be notable. In the case here, if kept, this should probably be correctly named as Black Rock Desert hydrologic unit. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kmusser. This is not a drainage basin in the usual sense of the word, but a set of disconnected basins roped together by the USGS to fit into their nested hierarchical system at the appropriate size/level. Also, one can find reliable sources mentioning USGS
    hydrologic units like this, but likewise one can find many reliable sources describing ZIP codes. Wikipedia seems to have decided not to have pages on every ZIP code. The situation here is analogous. Pfly (talk) 11:04, 13 December 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. LFaraone 19:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Goblinmania!

Goblinmania! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Pranix

Leon Pranix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet

WP:AUTHOR. The article was PRODed in January 2009, then recreated in March 2009 and not speedy deleted on the ground that there was no debate. The photo was uploaded by the author of the article, User:San-ren who, as far as I checked, never had any other contribution to Wikipedia. No book of the author can be found via Google, only this forum entry, that I find highly dubious. Anneyh (talk) 16:37, 11 December 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 keep, nomination withdrawn. Hut 8.5 16:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Lammers (footballer)

John Lammers (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"Possible Copyright Infringement Notice" has remained in place since 23 September 2010. Unless someone is willing to remove the notice and take responsibility for any copyright violations, the article should be deleted. Dolovis (talk) 16:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep in this case the fact that the article is an unreviewed potential copyvio isn't a reason for deletion. The article was only blanked because it was created by
    WP:CV. I have checked the content of the article and I have concluded that Darius Dhlomo wrote it by summarising statistics and it isn't a copyright violation. Hut 8.5 17:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. He played lots in the top Dutch league. No brainer. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- —innotata 21:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- —innotata 21:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. J Mo 101 (talk) 14:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly notable, lazy nomination. GiantSnowman 14:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination: I searched but was unable to determine if there was a copyright violation due to the numerous wiki-mirror sites. The issue was copyright infringement, not notability. Copyvio tag has now been removed. This tag should have been removed by the editor who contested the PROD, but he left it in place forcing me to open this AfD to discuss the claimed copyright violation. Dolovis (talk) 15:21, 12 December 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.

Spartaz Humbug! 04:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

James Goold Hall

James Goold Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, just a student accomodation Maltesedog (talk) 16:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless stupefyingly vacuous recitations such as the following qualify for notability:
For this residents also get a cleaner who cleans the shared area once a week. One potential downside is that cleaners do not clean residents shower rooms or bedrooms....Flats do not have their own washing machine or dryer although there are a few laundrettes which are on the John Anderson Campus and are open between 9.00am and 10.30pm.
EEng (talk) 22:32, 11 December 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. Alexf(talk) 19:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Karthik Naralasetty

Karthik Naralasetty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD removed without explanation or improvement. PROD reason was Non-notable per

WP:BIO, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. I applied PROD2 to the article. Other problems are that some of the links provide no information about the subject whatsoever, an that the only external link is to the guy's Facebook page. Overall, this just does not seem like a notable enough subject for an article. — Timneu22 · talk 14:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete The one link to The Hindu was probably ok to get it past A7, but it's just a local interest piece in the local edition of the paper. Nothing else at all to show notability. FWIW, the de.wiki and te.wiki links that came with the page don't exist either. —SpacemanSpiff 18:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the only RS coverage is a local edition interest piece.--Sodabottle (talk) 09:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Checked for sources, did find some self published ones and other promotional pieces, but nothing that would indicate notability. Same reason as those stated above. Netalarmtalk 04:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not
    notable enough for an article. Rabbabodrool (talk) 15:48, 13 December 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Demons (Short Film)

Demons (Short Film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

WP:MOVIE, filming has yet to even start jsfouche ☽☾Talk 14:04, 11 December 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Murphy

Jeff Murphy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual. Unless you think "bullpen catcher" is a notable position. It's not an official part of the coaching staff, so I don't think it is. It's also an orphan. Three articles link to it, and I'm sure they mean other "Jeff Murphy"s. Muboshgu (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • He's not listed as a coach, he's listed as a member of the staff. Surely you don't think the assistant trainer and director of amateur scouting belong in these templates now? I question the result of that three-plus year old discussion. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Bullpen catchers used to be listed with the main coaching staff, it was only this past season that they moved them down to staff... but they have uniform #s and I would think they are worth keeping as coaches. Spanneraol (talk) 22:31, 4 December 2010 (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) 13:57, 11 December 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.

talk) 19:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Flashcard Exchange

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)
WP:WEB is not met in this case. You believe the opposite. Hopefully consensus will be reached here and we'll both live with the result. Carlh (talk) 15:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes... some sort of explanation would be useful. onebravemonkey 09:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, hold on. It was
canvassing, but I'm pretty sure which side of it you are at the moment... onebravemonkey 09:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes. Maybe you recall, almost all of the Keep voters were sockpuppets made solely to attempt to stop Crammage from being deleted. You can see warnings made by
Supermemo page made by one of the Crammage sockpuppets. I'm no AfD expert. I did not mean to break any rules. Not a mistake I will repeat. I barely managed to make the AfD :). I usually participate when others take the lead. Here is "my side": I have a few interests on Wiki that I monitor every few months one is Flashcards, E-learning, and Spaced Repetition- a subject which unfortunately attracts a lot of adverts. I've participated from the side mostly (or via speedys) on Bettermemo, IFlipr, MemorizeIt, Mental Case, and StudyProf. Fought the good fight and lost on Winflash and Anki. I have nothing in particular against Flashcard Exchange and in this case I don't think Cunard is at all acting in bad faith or indeed has anything to do with the website. We just have an everyday disagreement over notability. My goal is to keep the E-learning/flashcard related articles relatively clean. I think they are ok now and part of the reason is that individual sites and programs are generally kept off. Of course I'm willing to live with the consensus. --Carlh (talk) 15:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Education World is a reliable source and their reviews are written and edited by their staff (see their about page for more information). The editorial analysis in this source—"The site is simply designed and intuitive to use"—makes it more than a directory listing. (While the second source reviews another product, it provides significant coverage about Flashcard Exchange. (The
    general notability guideline defines "significant coverage" as "more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material".) This website is marginally notable but has enough coverage in reliable sources for me to support retention. Cunard (talk) 01:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • It's perfectly okay for you to chime in. You can learn more about how to link to sources at
    Wikipedia:Linking#External links section. Cunard (talk) 00:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Thanks, Cunard! :-) It's not so much the linking part but the awareness of the applicable Wikipedia-guideline articles in order to reference.  ;-) (UTC)Katieshy 08:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the
    talk) 06:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  13:06, 11 December 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Knight (publisher)

AfDs for this article:
Christopher Knight (publisher) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No references in

notability, gnews archive search brings back press release and trivia mention elsewhere. first AFD arguments are not convincing CutOffTies (talk) 12:42, 11 December 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. MBisanz talk 01:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guntmar Wolff

  • Speedy Delete I am the author of this article and after reviewing it and the given references when I first wrote it, it seems that the references do not exist anymore, so there is no validation for any of the statements written in this article. Please speedy deletion. Thank you.
Guntmar Wolff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Image cultivation for Guntmar Wolff. Topic not relevant for wikipedia High Contrast (talk) 14:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to have this page removed. I was looking for information on him and it is great that it is on Wikipedia!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.2.231.58 (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC) — 79.2.231.58 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete conducting seminars is not intrinsically notable, and that he somehow managed to get an otherwise reputable magazine to do his advertising for him doesn't make it any the more notable. DGG (talk) 03:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seminars are perhaps not inherently notable, but he also published at least one book with a notable publisher. You didn't comment on that. - Mgm|(talk) 10:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And neither is conducting seminars intrinsically unnotable. Notability has to be decided for each individual case.
    Phil Bridger (talk) 10:10, 13 January 2009 (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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rheinair

Rheinair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find any references that this company is an airline at all. Judging from its website, it's rather a travel agency or even only a booking platform. Anyway, as there are no reliable third-party sources to be found on the internet that offer a deeper coverage, Rheinair clearly fails notability per

talk) 11:20, 11 December 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THOMAS (neuroscience)

THOMAS (neuroscience) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is a combination of a non-notable blog theory by

Rumping (talk) 09:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Professorpotter (talk • contribs) 23:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Sorry, I am just learning how to sign comments.. :-)[reply]

  • Delete Here's the problem with this article. It is a construction not used by people in the field. It is not something found in the peer-reviewed literature and many of the claims made in the article are not supportable. If those are removed, you are left with connections between oxytocin and social behavior that are well-known and are present in the oxytocin article itself. No need to create a separate redundant account. AlbertHall (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Lack of peer-reviewd papers is a concern, but there are articles using this term in respected non-peer-reviewed publications (e.g. [10], [11]). Searches for "oxytocin mediated attachment" also show quite a few results (e.g. [12]), which are clearly discussing the same concept using only slightly different terminology. If the theory is controversial, it should be noted in the article, but this is not in itself a reason to delete. JulesH (talk) 10:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - THOMAS does not seem to be notable independent of Zak, the author of both of the articles you cite mentioning the theory this article is about. Zak is also attached to the sources in the article that specifically mention the theory. Some of the general concepts the theory seeks to tie together are mentioned in the articles that three of the words in the theory's six word title bring up. The theory itself, however, is not discussed in any reliable sources, peer reviewed or otherwise, that are not by or about Zak. -
      talk) 02:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Delete Actually, it does not seem to appear in Zak's scientific work, either. Not even he uses the term! DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 18 December 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kameel Al-Wabary

Kameel Al-Wabary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It is not clear this individual meets the notability guideline

WP:BLP for over 2 years. Polargeo (talk) 08:19, 11 December 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nexus (film)

Nexus (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined PROD. Would speedy if there were a category for films. This is a

reliable sources. The link to Variety is simply a film production chart, which verifies the existence of the production, but does nothing to satisfy notability requirements. Steamroller Assault (talk) 06:35, 11 December 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. ···

Join WikiProject Japan! 17:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Universal Century

Universal Century (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This particular event has no reliable third-party sources to

WP:NOT#PLOT information about the timeline directly. Shooterwalker (talk) 06:06, 11 December 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 redirect to Shannara. Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shannara timeline

Shannara timeline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Artice is a

WP:NOT#PLOT information such as development and reception. This article has no third-party sources that directly talk about the chronology, and it will be very hard to talk about development or reception of this timeline. Shooterwalker (talk) 06:02, 11 December 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. LFaraone 03:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Slatter

Angela Slatter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable author lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail

WP:CREATIVE. ttonyb (talk) 05:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment - Please let me know who you believe an expert in the field to be and I will get an answer from them. Suffice to say that the Ditmar and the Aurealis Awards are the two most important and respected Australian SF Achievement Awards. These awards are archived on Locus - a recognised source. How much more proof do you need? Punkrocker1991 (talk) 00:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From Locus http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/Ditmar.html "The Ditmar Awards are the Australian equivalent of the Hugos, given by members of the Australian National Science Fiction Convention for professional and fan works by Australians." These have been awarded since 1969.
http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/Aurealis.html The Aurealis Awards are given to works of SF, fantasy, and horror by Australians. They differ from the Ditmar Awards by including young adult categories, omitting fan categories, and by being judged--in fact, there are separate judges for each division. These have been awarded since 1996.
  • Comment – The point I was trying to make was I am unfamiliar with the Australian awards listed. If you are saying they are adequate then, I can only assume they are. Assuming as such, the article will most likely survive the AfD.
  • Comment The Aurealis and the Ditmar are the two highest achievement awards that may be given for a piece of work in the Australian SF community. They both have international recognition, and the nominees and winners are reported widely in SF publications all over the world. There are even wikipedia pages for these awards, so I would assume that this means the awards have satisfied wikipedia's standards for notability.Punkrocker1991 (talk) 01:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ditmar and Aurealis awards might be important and respected, but according to the article Slatter didn't win them. She was nominated for one, "shortlisted" for the other. That plus some dust-jacket blurb is the best that seems to be on offer. EEng (talk) 23:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
WP:BIO states "or has been nominated for one several times". Five nominations for two sets of national awards is more than several, satisfying the criteria (it appears your objection relates more to the evidence required to satisfy the criteria). I would also ask if you have any experience in either the Australian Science Fiction community or the publishing/library industry, to determine whether you are suitable to judge the notability of reviews (including starred reviews) in Publishers Weekly. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 01:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment - I also believe that the author does qualify under
    WP:CREATIVE, specifically "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Numerous independent reviews of her work, including two reviews in Publishers Weekly, one of those being a starred review. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 06:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment - How many more experts in the field do I need to produce to justify this? Punkrocker1991 (talk) 00:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I am not sure an expert would be needed here. A quantitative analysis is more subjective than a qualitative analysis. ttonyb (talk) 00:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commentcan you please be more specific as to what you are looking for here, I'm not sure I understand. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 01:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I am not looking for anything. I have voiced an opinion. ttonyb (talk) 01:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I respect your right to hold an opinion and voice your opinion. In this case, I am seeking to ascertain what additional material I can produce to sway your opinion. Angela Slatter is a well respected and notable writer in the Australian SF community. As such I seek your help in demonstrating this so that she can be recognised in Wikipedia. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 01:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I do not see a significant body of work. What work is well known? How has her work been the subject "of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews?" ttonyb (talk) 01:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment

Reviews of her first collection, Sourdough and other stories

Reviews of her second collection, The Girl With no Hands and other tales

These are only a selection of the reviews out there in independent periodicals. i can provide more if you request. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 02:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (see later comments) - No reliable secondary sources are provided in the article - they are all self published or blogs. One is even a deadlink to a facebook page. Punkrocker, thanks for providing the sources above, but I do not believe these qualify as reliable sources. They simply appear to be blogs without editorial oversight. At least one of them is signed "Punkrocker1991". Producing expert opinions in itself is not going to help, unless said opinion has been reported in a
    WP:GNG at the moment, and a quick google search doesn't produce anything better than that mentioned above. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 03:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
As mentioned above, she didn't win these awards. And CREATIVE (which is the same as AUTHOR) requires a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work that has been the subject of multiple articles or reviews. A short story or stories being mentioned in an article coverering a bunch of different authors doesn't meet that standard. EEng (talk) 23:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As mentioned above, the criteria isn't only about winning, it is also about multiple nomination. She has fulfilled this criteria. She has had two books published, both were reviewed in Publishers Weekly. Combined with the other reviews, this fulfills the "collective body of work". Right now, i can go to all of the major online bookstores, and purchase two titles written by Slatter. Both publications are from award-winning independent publishers, and are not self published. One title, Sourdough and other stories features an introduction written by World Fantasy Award-winning writer Robert Shearman (who has also written for Dr Who). Punkrocker1991 (talk) 05:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How does Slatter not meet
    WP:CREATIVE when she has received five national award nominations and multiple reviews in established publications such as The Australian and Publishers Weekly for two books and several short stories? Several of the reviews listed by Punkrocker1991 are from online sources, but these I see as support for the 'subject of multiple articles or reviews' criteria of WP:CREATIVE. When all is added together, I believe the author's notability is sufficient. Yes, this author is not Mark Twain, John Grisham or Stephen King, but WP:CREATIVE doesn't require that level of notability. Outcast44 (talk) 14:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment These are the full text of the two Publishers Weekly reviews -- as Publishers Weekly has a wikipedia entry can I assume that PW meets the criteria for a notable and reliable source
10/25/2010 Fiction Web Exclusive Sourdough and Other Stories Angela Slatter, Tartarus (www.tartaruspress.com), $50 (238p)
ISBN 9781905784257
"Australian author Slatter (Black-Winged Angels) displays a rare gift for evocative and poetic prose in this collection of 16 dark fairy tales featuring characters that will be familiar to readers of the Brothers Grimm, but themes (such as long-simmering vengeance and unnatural death) that push them out of the kids' stuff camp. The knockout short but powerful opener, "The Shadow Tree," about a royal servant's response to the cruelty of the king's teenage children, climaxes with a chilling resolution. And "Little Radish" neatly tweaks the well-known tale of Rapunzel. Yet Slatter doesn't always rely on the creations of others for her ideas, as the title story, with its baker narrator, amply demonstrates. She has a knack for crafting opening lines that almost hypnotically draw the reader in ("The sight of the inn picks at the stitches of my memory. The splintered shingle, emblazoned with a faded golden lily, swings in the breeze"). Her considerable talent should translate well to the novel-length fantasy she's currently working on. (Sept. Starred Review)"
09/13/2010 Fiction Web Exclusive The Girl with No Hands (and Other Tales) Angela Slatter, Ticonderoga (www.indiebooksonline.com), $22.50 (210p)
ISBN 9780980628883 "In this collection of 16 previously published and new stories, Slatter presents twisted, fractured, illuminating fairy tales and dark fantasies that beguile in their elegant simplicity. Many of the stories are reiterations of classic fairy tales from all over the world. But by retelling the tales in a more intimate manner, Slatter illuminates the symbiotic relationship between pleasure and pain. The sexually candid "Bluebeard" is an empowering tale of a whore and her daughter who best a monster. The wholly original "The Living Book" personifies the intimate act of reading, while "Skin" reworks the Gaelic legend of the selkie into a tale of revenge and redemption from the seal woman's perspective. An afterword elucidates the source material and intent behind each tale. Dark and sinister, these shorts place strong, empathetic female protagonists into harrowing, horrifying, or humble circumstances and see them triumph. (Aug.)" Punkrocker1991 (talk) 05:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment – Having a Wikipedia article is not a guarantee that the subject is a reliable secondary source. 04:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Can I ask then what is a reliable secondary source? I am beginning to feel frustrated at trying to meet ever-changing arbitrary standards. You may also wish to know that SF Site won the Locus Award for best SF Website. Does this make the source more reliable? If someone can give me a benchmark I will try to reach this, and if I cannot reach this benchmark I will not oppose the deletion of this entry. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 04:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – There is nothing arbitrary about the definition of sources. Please see
    WP:RS. Can I ask that you please help by following the format of marking your your comments with the Comment title. It makes it easier to read the threads of thoughts. Thanks... ttonyb (talk) 05:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment I have read that page extensively. Can you please tell me whether Publishers Weekly is a reliable secondary source? Similarly can you please tell me if the SF Site is a reliable source? See below, can you please tell me if The Australian newspaper is a reliable source? Punkrocker1991 (talk) 05:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – If they meet the criteria in
WP:RS they are. If you notice I did not say the articles were not valid sources, I said just because the entity that published the source had an article in Wikipedia, it did not guarantee that it was a valid source for the article. There would be a high probability that anything published in the entity would be, but not a guarantee. ttonyb (talk) 05:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment How about this review in The Australian newspaper http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/imagination-that-deftly-defies-northern-gravity/story-e6frg8no-1111116985682

"Dreaming Again demonstrates that there is a distinctive Australian voice in speculative fiction, heard in the irreverence and humour of the stories and in the use of Australian landscapes. Indeed, reading this anthology makes it obvious just how much of the best overseas work is derivative of US and British culture and locations. It is a pleasure to see something as out-worldly as science fiction and fantasy writing grounded in our culture and landscapes.

An excellent example is Angela Slatter's The Jacaranda Wife, about a woman born of a jacaranda tree. It weaves together themes of colonisation and indigenous lore on a 4000ha sheep station. It could only have been written here and is one of the best stories in the collection."

Does this add to the argument in favour of this entry? Punkrocker1991 (talk) 05:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Another review, this one from the review website Australian Spec Fic in Focus http://www.asif.dreamhosters.com/doku.php?id=dreaming_again "One of the few stories in the collection that has a strong Australian flavor, Angela Slatter’s “The Jacaranda Wife” holds elements of traditional myths transposed into an Australian context. Written with overtones of historical gender and racial power, and a goodly splash of eeriness, Slatter’s story is a tight, short, gripping read." ASiF has won several Australian Ditmar Awards for reviews, and the reviewer in this article, Tehani Wessely, was a judge at this year's Western Australian Premier's Book of the Year Awards http://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/Pages/default.aspx?ItemId=133947 Punkrocker1991 (talk) 05:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A review in The Australian - now we're talking. Slatter's mention is brief, but probably more than trivial as required in
    WP:GNG. I don't think any of the other sources make the grade. It's a pretty thin basis for notability, but it might just get it over the line. Thoughts?--Yeti Hunter (talk) 13:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete, (see below)
    WP:AUTHOR: The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Also-ran for some awards? Phrase-length mention in review of an anthology? No, sorry. EEng (talk) 23:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment
    WP:GNG Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Two phrase length reviews singling out her work in a 35-story anthology seems to satisfy this criteria. "Some awards"? These are internationally recognised national awards. A bit like calling The World Series "some baseball game". Punkrocker1991 (talk) 01:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment
    WP:GNG Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. My understanding is that a trivial mention would be along the lines of, "Dreaming Again features stories by a, b, c, Angela Slatter, d, x, y and z". To have a story singled out for description and praise in a review of a 35-story anthology, in a major newspaper, where not all stories are mentioned, is non-trivial. To have this same story mentioned and singled out in two such reviews (by different reviewers) surely carries some weight to satisfying the criteria. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • CommentTwo reviews in Publishers Weekly deal with her work exclusively. PW is an independent and relevant industry publication (or secondary source, in wikipedia terms). Punkrocker1991 (talk) 05:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (a) Significant or well-known work or collective body of work which has (b) been the subject...of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. We need some work of hers (an individual story) which is significant or well-known, and which has been the subject of [etc]; or we need a review of her collective body of work. But these are just the usual positive mentions of early, individual pieces by promising writer: "haunting...climax truly sinister...beautiful imagery...otherworldly...strangely touching." No comment on "collective body of work." That her story was mentioned, where at least some of the 35 others weren't, only tells us that it was not the least remarkable among them. And finally, no one's minimizing the significance of the awards: it's just that she did not win them. EEng (talk) 14:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I registered at PW so I could read the reviews. They're a couple of short staff-written pieces along the lines EEng mentions above. Certainly no widespread recognition at this stage. Apparently she has a full-length novel coming up. If that turns out to be a bestseller, then there's nothing to stop the article being recreated, but I don't think she quite gets there at this stage.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 22:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC) see revised comments below.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 02:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you bother? Lost among the Comment Comment Comment Comment Comment Comment Comment maze above is the full text of both. Total: 300 words. Give it up. EEng (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I give up I give up. It is obvious that wikipedia has no interest in documenting any Austraian writers. Had I known that wikipedia was a place where only writers like John Grisham, Barbara Cartland and Jeffrey Archer were notable, I wouldn't have bothered. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 23:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've been in a bad mood lately and apologize for my harshness. On the otherhand, a statement such as "Wikipedia has no interest in documenting any Australian writers"... c'mon, do you real feel that anti-Australian bias is at work here? Or is it just annoyance that you keep pushing this marginal case? Ms. Slatter seems to be a very promising writer. As already noted, why not wait a bit until her smash best-seller comes out to rave reviews -- then notability will be manifest. EEng (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do feel an anti-Australian bias here, as both sets of our national SF awards have been repeatedly denigrated. Maybe it's not anti-Australian, maybe the bias is just non-US. Slatter is a well known and respected writer in the Australian SF community, and I have tried to convey this. If only bestsellers qualify, you might as well delete this entry. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 01:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Let's all step back and take a deep breath. I feel better. Now, let's all remember that Wikipedia is a cooperative effort of volunteers to provide the definitive online encyclopedia. All editors must abide by
WP:CIVIL, what I am seeing is a blurring of those basic tenets of Wikipedia. Number one, Wikipedia is not a place for bias against or in favor of any subject/topic. It is place that encourages intellectual discussion, but never bias. If there is suspected bias, the editor that feels slighted should discuss it in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or other appropriate venue. I have looked and I do not see a statement that says, "Wikipedia has no interest in documenting any Australian writers", I do see a lot of discussion that indicates a lack of support for the writer in question and a lot of back and forth comments. For goodness sake, there will always be disagreement in AfDs. Let's all try to keep the discussion focused on the AfD and not the appropriateness of logging into a site that might provide support for the subject of the article. ttonyb (talk) 01:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment Many thanks for pointing me in the direction of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I have now logged this as the failure to recognise national Australian SF Awards can create a element of bias against Australian writers. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 02:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly don't think that's necessary. I'm Australian for starters. See my revised comments below.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 02:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have looked through this article and find virtually no information about the author's work. I now have a dream that her works be judged not by the color of their reviews but by the character of their content. From looking at some reviews found by Google, her stories appear to be in the horror and fantasy genres, but the only occurrences of either of these words are in the titles of award nominations, not the article text itself. In the whole article only two sentences mention her literary style or a story summary and one of those is a direct quote from a reference which is entirely acceptable as part of an article but not as 50% of the substantial content. I accept that a stub may require significant additions and still be kept, but my concern is that if there were currently more relevant and interesting potential content supported by reliable sources, the knowledgeable and enthusiastic main author would already have used it. Most of the current references are an attempt to support the existence of the article, rather than supporting originally written content discussing the author's output in any detail. Nothing against the reappearance of this article once there is better referenced content available. --Mirokado (talk) 22:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's possibly an excess of minor works listed, and the lead is woefully context-free. But deletion isn't the answer for trivial issues like that. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 23:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the basis of the two PW reviews. Publishers Weekly is a very selective source, and has generally been accepted here as a RS for proving notability DGG ( talk ) 22:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's possibly the case. However, it's not really a core issue here: COI doesn't stop you from working on articles, and the main question for AfD is whether or not the subject meets the notability requirements. Potential POV is something best addressed on the article's talk page. - Bilby (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly is too weak a word. "Core issue" or not, Punkrocker's activities represent a grotesque waste of everyone's time in pursuit of (at best) his own vanity and (at worst) lucre. Here's Punkrocker1991's...
  • ...self-description as an "SF editor": [15];
  • ...upload of a file (logo for Ticonderoga Publications) described as "Source: I [name] created this work entirely by myself.... Author:Punkrocker1991";
Note: I just realized that my original post was missing the link to the upload; here it is: [16]
  • ...creation of what appears to be an article on himself, in which the subject is described as "editor of Ticonderoga Publications" and (surprise!) winner of "2 Ditmar Awards and 1 Aurealis Award" [17]; and
  • ...edit history showing edits of articles on Ticonderoga and the authors it publishes [18].
Every author, however modest, keeps a most outrageous vanity chained like a madman in the padded cell of his breast. -- Logan Pearsall Smith.
Care to explain, Punkrocker? EEng (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • you need to be careful in how ou approach this - there is a important distinction between discussing a COI and outing. That said, it isn't the issue here - COI is a problem because it can lead to a strong POV in an article, but for AFD the question isn't POV, but notability. You might want to take this up in the editor's talk page or on
    WP:COIN. - Bilby (talk) 23:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Thanks for the warning, but per
    WP:OUTING
    (my italics),
Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia...If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, their wishes should be respected, though reference to self-disclosed information is not outing.
A lot of editors spent a lot of time trying to educate what appeared to be simply an inexperienced editor who, as new editors often do, merely failed to realize the extent to which Wikipedia policies and terminology don't comport with what a newcomer would expect. Now we find that all the crying about denigration of Australian awards and so on was just his own sore ego, and his activity here look suspiciously like an attempt to boost sales of his own product. He's made his own bed, and he'll have to lie in it. I've posted COI notices on the various articles he's edited about authors his firm publishes. For now I'll wait for someone else to raise the issue at COIN. Anyway, we're still waiting to see what Punkrocker has to say for himself. EEng (talk) 23:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't really the place for the discussion, but my concern was that you're connecting an on-wiki pseudonym with an off-wiki pseudonym to then draw a connection, not stated directly in either place, with the editor's name. The first step shows possible COI, so it is sufficient. Going further than that, when the editor hasn't self-identified, is a problem. The conflict between COI and outing is an ongoing concern, but in this case we can handle one without the other. :) - Bilby (talk) 05:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was another editor who googled the word punkrocker1991 out in the greater web. Look again at the links I gave above, in particular the file upload, in which Punkrocker1991 did self-identify, by name, that name being a founder of Ticonderoga Publications which publishes Slatter. The COI question is apropos here -- Slatter's publisher, with a financial interest in securing an article on her, should not have participated, or at the very least should have done so very gingerly and with full disclosure. So, Punkrocker1991, are you or are you not the person you said you were in that upload? (P.S. to Bilby -- thanks for reviewing the COI question in the various articles I tagged -- I was in no mood to make an impartial review of the individual edits.) EEng (talk) 13:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response As I said below, I do not believe that any COI issues are relevant to the AfD discussion here and I am willing and happy to discuss these at my talk page. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
COI is not relevant (directly) to the question of Slatter's notability, but it certainly is relevant to your participation in this discussion. From
WP:COI
:
Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, its author's family members, employer, associates, or their business or personal interests, places the author in a conflict of interest....Conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article, though other problems with the article arising from a conflict of interest may be valid criteria for deletion....[I]f you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when:
  • Editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
  • Participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors...
If what you said elsewhere on Wikipedia [19] -- that you are Angela Slatter's editor and publisher -- isn't actually true,why don't you just say so now? EEng (talk) 03:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI agree with what Bilby has said in that any assumed COI issues are not relevant to this discussion and I am more than happy to discuss these at my talk page. I would also remind everyone of wikipedias principle of assuming good faith and also the guidelines that can be found here
WP:HOUND. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 00:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment I don't see what WP:HOUND has to do with this particular discussion: there is an "overriding reason" for the affected articles having been tagged, if there are other wider issues the search for a remedy lies elsewhere. A conflict of interest can exist independent of any intention to profit from it, so any concerns do not automatically imply lack of good faith. They do however mean that possibly uncomfortable questions may need to be asked. Please can you explain why the article as written so far provides an ISBN number for only one of her published books? (There is a reason why I decided not to add the other one while reviewing the article content, but I'd like to hear your reason for not including it.) --Mirokado (talk) 04:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AnswerAt the time I created the article, i had only the ISBN to The Girl With No Hands available in a convenient location. Upon your drawing my attention to the ommission of the ISBN for Sourdough I have now added this. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 04:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response Thanks for the prompt (and good-natured) answer. (My reason for not adding it was that it seems only available in an edition limited to 300 copies and I was hoping there would also be another edition that I had missed.) --Mirokado (talk) 05:05, 18 December 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gana sangh kshatriya

Advanced search for: 
"gana-sangha"
In books/documents 
Google Books  · Questia
Internet Archive  · WorldCat
In the news 
Google News: recent  · archives

Questia  · New York Times
Los Angeles Times
Wall Street Journal · Washington Post
Financial Times · BBC News
The Age · The Hindu
News Limited · Fairfax Media

In academic/legal journals 
and reference works 
Google Scholar: academic  · legal

Microsoft Academic: new  · original
Oxford Reference  · JSTOR
PUBMED Central  · Questia
HighBeam  · Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages 
Google Web Search  · Advanced Search
Searx 1  · 2  · 3  · 4
Bing  · DuckDuckGo  · Startpage
Yahoo · Yandex · Gigablast
Images (free) 
Google  · Flickr
More 
Wikipedia Free English newspaper sources
The Wikipedia Library
Gana sangh kshatriya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Seems to be a complete hoax. [20] 0 Google books hits and [21] Scholar hits. Most web references are wikipedia mirrors [22]--Redtigerxyz Talk 05:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Redtigerxyz Talk 05:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete THe article seems incoherent and does not seem to be clear about what it is talking about. Very few references , not all are trustworthy and seemingly none about the title itself. Possibly an OR, seemsl liek an alternate version of Mahajanapadas. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 08:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I gave this one the benefit of the doubt when it was created but if its coherence and verifiability is still so poor as to make it impossible to tell if it is a real subject after all this time then we have no choice but to delete it. It's not like we can ask the author. He hasn't been seen since creating the article. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verifiability poor? Has anyone apart from me read the sources cited? At least one (Singh2008) supports an entire quarter of the article, not least because that quarter of the article has been lifted wholesale, with only very light paraphrasing, from that source. Verifiability is not poor at all. The real problem with this article is the blatant plagiarism, the poor introduction, and the bad title, which should more properly be the name that I've fixed in the handy little tool ⇗ above (and at which we currently have a fairly bad and uninformative article). Uncle G (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Having been asked to review this for copyright concerns, I've found that significant content was copied directly from the 2008 source. The article is now blanked for copyright problems; if the AfD determines that an article is appropriate here, it will need to be rewritten. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:57, 12 December 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. LFaraone 03:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of communities on U.S. Route 66

List of communities on U.S. Route 66 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As a stand-alone list, this isn't notable. The majority of entries should be in U.S. Route 66 or its state-level subarticles. The title is an unlikely search term. Imzadi 1979 → 03:03, 11 December 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) 05:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ideas for Bright Ideas

Ideas for Bright Ideas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Self-published album of demo songs. Lacks significant coverage by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Cindamuse (talk) 02:31, 11 December 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) 13:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IdeaConnection

IdeaConnection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a promotional article about a

nonnotable subject that has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. It is puffed up quite a bit but none of the citations evidence much notability. ThemFromSpace
00:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC) Delete Nothing on Google news. Breawycker (talk) 01:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:35, 11 December 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.

Spartaz Humbug! 04:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

The Riot Before

The Riot Before (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable band. No reliable sources. My request for speedy deletion was deleted though there are no claims of notablity in this article. Corvus cornixtalk 00:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the
    talk) 01:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
With respect to the 'deleted' speedy deletion request: Given that
WP:MUSIC
considers two albums on a major indie label as notable, the released albums/EPs indicated in my eyes some importance to pass A7 and warrant further discussion. Otherwise, it would probably have been deleted as clear A7 in the almost two days that it was tagged.
Anyways, their albums seem to have been reviewed on e.g.
Tikiwont (talk) 09:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 11 December 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 no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Raddon

Rich Raddon (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)

WP:BLP1E: this person has an entry because of one controversial event (their resignation). Passing mentions in news stories about a minor website they co-founded don't negate this. Nor does having a notable brother. Rd232 talk 11:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 11 December 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) 05:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Allen Greenberg

Steven Allen Greenberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparently non notable lawyer, gets quoted, but I see no significant coverage in reliable sources. Unrefed BLP since 01-2009, declined speedy. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:26, 11 December 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) 05:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Ball

Jonathan Ball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-sourced BLP. Has been PRODed once and declined once. No notable sources to pass

WP:BIO. All sources point to company, not individual. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 03:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 11 December 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 redirect to

Spartaz Humbug! 04:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Sally Jaxx

AfDs for this article:
Sally Jaxx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 11 December 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) 05:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

White Ring (band)

White Ring (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable band lacking GHit and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail

WP:MUSIC. Diskotech (talk) 07:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 11 December 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. -- Cirt (talk) 13:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kriya

Kriya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reason to keep Wikidas© 10:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 11 December 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) 13:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

L Arnold Hustad

L Arnold Hustad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced BLP, ineligible for {{

BLPPROD
}}

Just another professor; no claim to notability apart from editing a version of one book. On the other hand, he is a fan of 'Star Trek'. Discuss.  pablo 10:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 11 December 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) 13:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Mizuno

AfDs for this article:
Kim Mizuno (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced BLP, ineligible for {{

BLPPROD
}}.

I don't think this photographer qualifies under

WP:ARTIST, presuming that applies to glamour photography, and I now note that this was previously deleted but recreated at Mizuno (photographer), so may qualify for speedy deletion. pablo 11:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)edited  pablo 11:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 11 December 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) 13:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Green (Celebrity Wine and Spirits Consultant)

Michael Green (Celebrity Wine and Spirits Consultant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has been PRODed twice already. Fails notability at

WP:GNG. This Michael Green is not returned by Ghits. Kudpung (talk) 12:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Delete at best I can find a few vox pop comments by the subject, but nothing about the subject. Nuttah (talk) 08:50, 11 December 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) 13:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rideauview Bible Chapel

Rideauview Bible Chapel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet inclusion criteria per

(code of ethics)     13:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 11 December 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. -- Cirt (talk) 13:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Munyaradzi Gwisai

Munyaradzi Gwisai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced

WP:V.  Sandstein  13:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 11 December 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 redirect to

Spartaz Humbug! 04:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

North Division Street explosion

North Division Street explosion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Although the event described in the article was a tragedy, I don't believe it meets

Flank speed 18:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 11 December 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) 13:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HTML art

HTML art (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I tried finding any sort of sources to indicate that there is a medium or art movement called HTML art but there is nothing out there. This article is basically a how-to guide. freshacconci talktalk 21:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is wery yong art culture, that has no typicaly name. Some unit artworks are accessible in video guides, not in HTML source code. This article shows the principial possibility to this artwork creation in any hypertext markup, that supports the table creation. Tha article expands the theme history as it is - at the begin of development. Kirill Borisenko (talk) 23:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. I tried to find sources, too, and the best I found was a one-paragraph definition in the Alt.Ascii-Art FAQ. Unless secondary sources are found it's not a fit for Wikipedia, since the article could only include definition, howto, and original research. --Pnm (talk) 01:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Delete - one of the source is here HTML art on AstroDigital --Kirill Borisenko (talk) 12:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 11 December 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.

Tikiwont (talk) 13:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Atria (Half vampire)

Atria (Half vampire) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No references, would appear to be original research. 5 albert square (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 11 December 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 no consensus to delete. ···

Join WikiProject Japan! 17:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Vanilla Series

Vanilla Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

With few exceptions, most of the releases in this series do no pass the

reliable third-party sources. The notability of an individual release is not inherited by the rest of the series. —Farix (t | c) 00:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Then where are the multiple reliable third-party sources about the series itself that shows that the subject pass
WP:NOTE? —Farix (t | c) 14:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Also, The Right Stuf International (TRSI) is not the only licensee of properties from the Vanilla Series—Media Blasters/Kitty Media has also licensed a significant number of series, not just three. MB/KM merely does not use the "Vanilla Series" brand to advertise them; compare their respective ANN Encyclopedia entries: Vanilla Series and Kitty Media. Thus it is not appropriate to merge the articles. As for another source, Mania.com's Anime/Manga section (formerly Anime on DVD) has reviews of most of what has been released in English—see Vanilla Series Collection and Kitty Media.
Whoops—I was wrong about the age of the Vanilla Series brand. It seems that the first release was in 1997, not 1999. Regardless, The Erotic Anime Movie Guide does not cover it to any extent.—DocWatson42 (talk) 15:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to The Anime Encyclopedia, some titles were retroactively considered part of the series by the company. I think the series was actually created in 1999, but the first title that they now consider part of it was released in 1997. Calathan (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see nothing but a huge list of titles here and aside from Campus most if not all are non notable and unreferenced, if this article is kept the focus should be less on the titles and more on references for the company. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:23, 16 December 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) 05:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just World Books

Just World Books (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A publisher established this October, with four titles. There's a whiff of promotion here, and no independent notability. Prod was removed. Scott Mac 00:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although this article has several mentions at other websites, they are only passing mentions. Therefore I can't see that this organisation meets
talk to me 12:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete Basically, not yet. Of the 4 books published, there are a total of 3 WorldCat holding libraries, taken altogether. Since they were just published in October 2010, this doesn't indicate they might not be notable, but at the moment there's no real basis for notability .
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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 06:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mbulaheni Charles Mphephu

Mbulaheni Charles Mphephu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Persistently unreferenced

verification. Chester Markel (talk) 00:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

The article also seems to be an autobiography. Wikipedia is not an appropriate forum in which to write about yourself. Chester Markel (talk) 00:39, 11 December 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) 05:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xpress Train

Xpress Train (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Beyond two reviews by the same reviewer—which according to

WP:NFILM. —Farix (t | c) 00:03, 11 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_December_11&oldid=1142642316"