Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 January 31

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 30 January 1 February >

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 Speedy keep, nomination was made by sock of banned user. Finlay McWalter • Talk 15:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Evanescence

List of awards and nominations received by Evanescence (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)
Delete as nom. Auwest182 (talk) 15:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close - bad faith nomination.--blue520 15:51, 7 February 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. Jayjg (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trey A. Corrales

Trey A. Corrales (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)

Per

WP:PERPETRATOR, this is not a notable killer. His co-accused's article is already at AfD. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 23:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete. In my opinion, this barely even meets BLP1E... (meaning I don't even feel this person is notable for the single event). JBsupreme (talk) 14:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article said he was even aqquited for everything. So I agree, delete. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 17:28, 4 February 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. Jayjg (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tha Grustle

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

An unreleased album that isn't reliably sourced for a release date, track list. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. List of "confirmed" tracks is unsourced. List of "possible" tracks (which is longer) is unsourced. The only thing reliably sourced, by a single source, is the title. As such, if fails

WP:HAMMER too. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:50, 31 January 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 (default keep). Non-admin closure. Swarm(Talk) 22:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huggle, Sweden

Huggle, Sweden (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)

Once-sentence, unnotable, no refrences, an orphan.

Belugaboy535136 contribs 22:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

FallingRain.com does not limit itself to officially recognized (i.e., as a location in a national census) communities. It's a wonderful service, but when you run your own hometown and then look at the fallingrain.com description of nearby localities, you'll see that most of them are not something that you and your neighbors would never refer to as a "town". An apartment building is a "populated place", but that doesn't mean that it's a community. I'm all in favor of the right to an article for actual incorporated cities and towns, as well as unincorporated communities that have their own post office, but we have to make sure that the inherent right of notability for populated places doesn't get abused-- which appears to be the case here. Mandsford (talk) 02:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you interpret or translate them for us? When I search for the word "Huggle" in the first hit, I get no result; and a similar search in the other hits produces results that I'm unable to relate to the concept of
verifiabilty. Deor (talk) 02:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Of the pages from Heby municipality, http://www.heby.se/index.php3?use=fortroende&cmd=showperson&id=173&lang=1&s_tpl=print is the page for a municipal council member who lives in Huggle Östervåla sockennämnd 1848-1856.pdf AND Östervåla kommunalstämmoprotokoll 1863 till 1882.pdf are transcriptions of minute books with details such as "The parish committee members elected until the year 1850:" and their addresses - some are in Huggle, meaning that Huggle existsed in 1850. del5.pdf has a reference to Huggle ("014 Holvarbo - Huggle - By (I)") in a table at the bottom of page 4 (folio page 85). http://www.booli.se/salda/villa/huggle/327768/ lists the price (and the price per square meter) of a house in Huggle. http://www.holfve.se/brev.htm lists Anders Mattsson, born in Huggle in 1745. http://www.unc.se/foretag/visax.php3?id=1213177 is someone's address in Huggle. So there is plenty of evidence that Huggle is a long-established settlement, closely connected with Östervåla - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An apartment building is populated, but that doesn't mean it's notable.
Belugaboy535136 contribs 12:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
See Hegvalds comment below, it is NOT a municipality, as I stated Heby Municipality is the municipality that Huggle is part of, in Swedish it is a sv:by. I did not want to call it village since I thought by and village was not really the same, that is why I called it place (that was neutral enough), Hegvald did a good job of explaining what I kind of guessed but did not know, thanks. --Stefan talk 00:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Historically speaking, Huggle is a by, which is a historic division on a sub-parish level, consisting of a few farms. "Hamlet" may be the closest English equivalent. (By can also be translated "village", but a by in Sweden is usually nothing like an English or continental European village.) Today, it is just an address. According to http://www.ratsit.se, there are currently 22 people above the age of 18 living in Huggle. --Hegvald (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Eastmain. Lets all move there. JBsupreme (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not one source has convinced me that this is a separate geographical place such as a village. Wikipedia is based on verifiability and this so far has not been verified. All links given above that I have followed fail to show this. That Huggle is real is not the point, unless we have references that show for certain it is a separate inhabited place it fails any claim of notability. If it can be shown that it is a separate "Hamlet" then fine but I don't think this has been done yet including the link Hegvald has given which shows nothing.
    talk) 16:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep real place=notable
    WP:DEFACTO. Why do people want to keep dumbing down the encyclopedia. Has the nominator read the 5 Pillars? Let me quote the opening line of the 1st pillar: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers" (emphasis added) perhaps someone is missing something... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I think that the key word in that first pillar is "elements". The policies that have evolved over the years guide which elements of an encyclopedia, almanac or gazetteer automatically merit their own article and which ones would be open to debate, hence the concept that "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed". All of us, whether we argue for a keep or a delete, have our opinions about what is improving or "dumbing down" an encyclopedia. Although it's debatable as to whether Huggle would be notable now, the Swedish census information that was provided by Eastmain indicates that this would have been considered notable in the 19th century, and notability does not expire. Mandsford (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep looks notable, can be expanded with sources provided above. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 15:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Since the sources above seem to establish that this is a real, established community (though it would help if they were in the article), it should be kept per the general rule for community articles. As far as the "separate place" thing goes, the fact that this has been verified as a named community should be enough, as I don't think Sweden has an equivalent to the Geographic Names Information System for tracking the Swedish equivalent of unincorporated communities/hamlets (which are considered notable and which this pretty much is). TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 05:38, 6 February 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 plenty of secondary reviews (

chat 19:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Catch Me If You Can (album)

Catch Me If You Can (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable album; unencyclopaedic Rapido (talk) 22:30, 31 January 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. although this should not prevent a later redirect if a conensus for such later emerges on the talk page Scott Mac (Doc) 21:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro (song)

Alejandro (song) (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)

The reason for this AFD discussion is because a few editors redirect the page claiming it is not notable. The relevant notabilty is found in

talk) 21:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment Well indeed. Some editors think it's okay to redirect. Hence the reason to have an AFD to get
    talk) 23:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment - The
talk) 03:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
What do you mean by structure of article? --Legolas (talk2me) 04:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although it doesn't have a release date planned yet, the song is going to have a video and it has charted. Alecsdaniel (talk) 12:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Fame Monster, for now. "Will" be released and "will" have a video is not enough to warrant a separate article. Seems it only appeared on the charts during one week? Nymf talk/contr. 14:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Commment Now two national notable charts, but even one is notable enought for
talk) 03:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Can still be includewd in discography and Monster. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Yeah, I know that the article current meets with
    ignore all rules for a second and see this issue with clarity: what's the point of having a whole article to just show that this song was a Top 75 in the U.K. when her discography page already does this job? Redundant much? Sparks Fly 18:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment - Sensible comment. I don't think this is a case or
talk) 03:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I was anxiously waiting for you to reply my argument. Quite presentable? Well, that's in fact a case of opinion of view. Not trying to be rude or something, but to me, you just created a music and lyrics section and thrown one unreliable source for it. [11]; put three random reviews to the song which could be easily merged to
Monster Ball Tour
article.
See? I'm just trying to see what's the point of this article if it doesn't have a worth background section, and every single thing here can be merged somewhere without a problem. Sparks Fly 23:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
  1. The edit you refer to was made by IP 71.93.182.103. Be more careful before accusing me.
  2. The reason why a seperate article makes sense, is both structure and content. The structure allows for a logical progression and a central place to find information about the song. Content wise, placing it elsewhere creates problems of it being removed because it's not relevant to the other article. You could create a Alejandro section in the The Fame Monster article, but it will be an out of place looking section added to the bottom(?) that would make other editors want to remove it.
  3. If you don't believe the last point, please make a start by putting the music sample into the The Fame Monster article and see how it goes.
  4. WP:SIZERULE applies. How about you initiate a discussion on Talk:The_Fame_Monster and see if other editors are happy to split the article in two. As an active phone editor
    I'll be happy to support a split.
  5. The
    WP:NSONGS
    to determine if a seperate article is notable. You think it's not a problem to merge elsewhere, let me ask you, how is it a problem to have it as a seperate article?
talk) 00:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Because users will be reading the same content twice, once in Fame Monster and here. Hence its a waste of article space. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect is approproiate, as opposed to keep, because of
    WP:CRYSTAL. This information should be merged and redirected to The Fame Monster. J04n(talk page) 18:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Thanks.
talk) 19:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment I read that third sentence. Think about what you said 'unlikely ever to grow' does not apply here, we are not talking about some song from 30 years ago with no new information which that wording is intended for; this is as yet unreleased single on the currently most popular(by Google hits, google news, wikipedia page views etc) artists in the world. To contend that this article is 'unlikely ever to grow' is a fantasy. Indeed, there is lots that can be said already and some editors start to add it but it gets removed as they awaiting
talk) 03:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
First, your point is simple the best definition of what is
WP:CRYSTAL. Take a look at this and see if what you brought is still valid. And second, who are we? There's no current information about this being single, and even if this is in fact a single, it's still not enough for it's own page, being a single doesn't warrant that. Third, if the consensus of this page will be delete/redirect, people could create the article 100x and we would delete all these times, we just need to know what do do. I won't consider this last as one of your points but still. Sparks Fly 00:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
It is also interesting how it is all "edit once in a full moon"-people that pops up to say keep. Nymf talk/contr. 21:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


WP:FANCRUFT is a serious issue here. --Legolas (talk2me) 06:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment - That's why we have
talk) 03:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
And we seriously don't need duplicate content to exist. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Once in a full moon"? I am certainly not that kind of person. I have made many contributions to Wikipedia in my time as a member. And I'm not just doing this to be stubborn. Almost every day I am seeing new news posts about how Lady GaGa wants to cast Lara Stone in her music video for Alejandro (most came from various European newspapers, but some also came from American ones). I feel that there is no reason to delete this page because a) it will just end up being a waste of time for the people who worked on it and b) there is a very likely chance that it will end up being a single. You'll just waste your time deleting it while others make more. And, eventually, if it is released, it will have been a mistake to have deleted it in the first place. Why should this page about Alejandro, a likely candidate to be a single, be deleted when Ke$ha's song, Blah Blah Blah, hasn't even been released at all? If this is because the page doesn't have much information, it's like I said before: more info will come in time. Again, I see no reason to delete the page. By the way - "Once in a full moon" should be "once in a blue moon". A full moon comes around once a month, right? Sounds pretty frequent if you ask me. Weaselpie (talk) 01:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it has anything to do with the topic at all, but once in a full moon is exactly what I was referring to. People who pop up once a month to do 2-3 edits. Besides, we aren't suggesting that the page be deleted; we are suggesting that it should be redirected. That way it can be restored when/if it becomes notable. As for your comment about casting and that other article supposedly justifying this article, see
Wikipedia:Speculation. Nymf talk/contr. 02:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment - Chart information. Article structure. Information on the song. None of which you would want in
talk) 03:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
The Fame Monster already has them and is needed there. Adding a wikia link doesnot qualify for notable source. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This song was released as a promotional single.. link christmas tree, dance in the dark and beautiful, dirty, rich.--Aaa16 (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You two provided the same point, but I still don't find it worth. The song was never used as a official promotional single; it went only for iTunes before the whole album and still, this is a "fan-known thing", there's no source backing it as a single to promote the album. Sparks Fly 21:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree with Sparks. --Legolas (talk2me) 06:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with previous posts that it will expand in the future, which will mean it is 'permitted' to stay. EryZ (talk) 04:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Expand? See my post above, which clearly mentions that all info found about the song is already preesnt in The Fame Monster. I don't see any need to have two pages containing the same information. --Legolas (talk2me) 06:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no info about the structure, for example. Alecsdaniel (talk) 07:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you want structure info, then why don't you read what the people write and research instead of automatically deleting it and saying that people can't come up with any reasons? Wikipedia is supposed to be a free encyclopedia where users add information and administrators/other members read what is written and decide whether it is good to keep or must be deleted. Weaselpie (talk) 01:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect If it becomes notable after its release, the article can be recreated, for now, it's WP:CRYSTAL and not very notable Alan - talk 23:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In what way do you consider it doesn't meet
talk) 00:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Well I Disagree, I wasn't basing it on
WP:CRYSTAL. I was basing it on meeting notability guidlines. Jayy008 (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment - Never have I seen it argued at AFD that an article should be of GA quality before! Wikipedia has no such criteria. We do not delete article below GA standard. Wikipedia is work in progress; see
talk) 03:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Except for charting, it doesnot meet any other notability guideline, fail again. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You want an article to be notable for two reasons? One is enough.
talk) 03:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Yeah, it's the whole point that we want to know. People are assuming that just because two dubious websites have talked about a music video, that it's already a single. Sparks Fly 22:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm glad you both brought that up, as it's a common misconception.
talk) 03:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment that is a silly pointless comment because BPI and RIAA have said that due to the growth in sales from places like AMazon and iTunes more and more album songs are being sold individually without being released fully as singles. This could mean that eventually we could have pages for every song on an album whether its released or not. there is not enough information here to warrant its own page. Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Take a look at this graph. It's the average number of new tracks each week in the
talk) 22:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment - The exception being those where is nothing there will ever be anything to write about. That does not apply here. Consider
talk) 03:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep Alejandro has charted in the top 5 in hungary! it should be kept as it is clearly a huge hit there and has met more success than most of her songs there. It is also highly likely to be released as a single. For the time it should be kept as it is a highly charting song by Lady Gaga, but when/if it is released as a single, there will be a strong argument to keep it anyway.
Comment - The chart means everything, it's the
talk) 03:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Yeah, but as I said before, what's the point of a whole article just to show that the song hit Top 75 in the U.K. when her discography page already does it? Just
ignore this notability rule essay that you point for a second and think. Sparks Fly 13:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment - It's not just the Charts. I highlighted that because it's the information that makes the article
talk) 19:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Erhm... I do think that you can provide your opinion here moreover a keep argument, since you were the one who nominated the article for delete. (?) Sparks Fly 14:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
  1. I created this AFD to get discussion. I was open and hopefully there was some logical reason that a few editors redirect this article. I did not say delete or keep, so necessary to clarify my position having heard the opinions of others.
  2. AFD is a discussion not a
    talk) 19:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  1. If you nominate an article for deletion, that presumably means that you are going to present a argument to delete the article. So, when you came here to say that you want to keep the article seemed unfamiliar. If you wanted to get a consensus for keeping the article you should have stuck to the talk page. Sparks Fly 20:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - That would of been ideal. But I could not 'stick to the talk page' as the article(and talk) was salted and uneditable. An admin agreed to unsalt if it went to Afd.
talk) 20:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
talk) 18:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
comment, it not as if this information couldn't be included on the album's page until there is clearer indication that this is a single. Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – it is also wild speculation to assume that this article will grow. It's not a single, it's not confirmed to be a single, so until it is confirmed as a single or it receives a substantial amount of coverage for whatever reason, we should assume it will likely not grow. Also, as Sparks Fly pointed out, it's beyond ridiculous to have a page with information that is conveyed/could be conveyed at other, larger articles just because its subject charted as a non-single. Please note that
Chase (talk) 21:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment It seems after research that there is some info for the background of the article. I will try to add them and let's see. Also, I forgot that the song is extensively being performed at

WP:NSONGS. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:03, 8 February 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 both per

WP:SNOW. Both articles salted. –MuZemike 01:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Azulon Dolmayan

Azulon Dolmayan (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)

This page has been A7'd twice in the past three days. Now it appears to claim he was in Harry Potter, although there's no entry for this individual on IMDB. Also a COI. Shadowjams (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also

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. Jayjg (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Local Ghost Haunts

Local Ghost Haunts (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)

I can find no

notability of this web series. Sarilox (talk) 20:52, 31 January 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. JForget 02:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Snowden

Dave Snowden (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)

Written like a resumé and unsourced, tagged since 2008/2007 Pevos (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm pretty much indifferent on this one. I didn't put the material there and I have not edited it, not do I intend to. I do note however that this AfD followed immediately on from a content dispute at
    WP:BRD. My real name is very easy to find as I link to my web site from my user page. Its just too much of a coincidence that this nomination followed that dispute. --Snowded TALK 20:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep That this page was nominated by somebody engaged in a content dispute on Wikipedia with the subject of the article gives an enormous appearance of impropriety, at the very least. BLP concerns mitigated in this case, as subject of the article does not take offense. RayTalk 00:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to be bad-faith nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Nomination looks like bad faith. Moreover, the extensive publication list absolutely meets
    WP:AUTH. LotLE×talk 23:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Speedy keep Google results: 287, 170, 234 Although not 100% conclusive to show notability, shows nominator probably did not spend any time look for references. Okip (formerly Ikip) 01:08, 6 February 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 per

G12 by Nyttend. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Edwin B. Alderson, Jr.

Edwin B. Alderson, Jr. (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)

Despite everything that he has done in his life, I can't find significant coverage for this

talk) 20:44, 31 January 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. Jayjg (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sharpie Permanent Markers

List of Sharpie Permanent Markers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable list Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:36, 31 January 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 Withdrawn. I didn't notice that there was already an AfD and that notability was shown in it. I'll add the links from the previous AfD to the article.

talk) 20:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Benat Achiary

AfDs for this article:
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)

All that I can find in Google is Youtube, Answers.com, music sites that are just profiles or trivial mentions of his such as CD Universe and Emusic, and lyrics. All that I can find in Google News is lots of

talk) 20:31, 31 January 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) 17:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ikonboard

Ikonboard (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)

Seemingly non-notable software. No coverage in

ping 20:10, 31 January 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. JForget 02:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Peicott

Joseph Peicott (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)

Autobiography of a young associate producer of some TV episodes for whom I can find no coverage whatsoever in reliable sources. (There was another Joseph Peicott, killed near Boston in 1993 in a traffic accident.) He does not appear to meet

WP:BIO.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 19:50, 31 January 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) 00:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Somali Irrigation

Somali Irrigation (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)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:36, 31 January 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. JForget 00:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you call on an ipod touch

Can you call on an ipod touch (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)

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide I42 (talk) 19:27, 31 January 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 redirect. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tigran Mansuryan

Tigran Mansuryan (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)

Content merged into Tigran Mansurian; list of works was a complete duplicate anyway, so there was not much to merge. Classical geographer (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect per standard practice after performing a merger. This isn't at all an unlikely search target (it got 150 hits in January), so it will be a useful redirect. Nyttend (talk) 03:42, 1 February 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. JForget 02:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in AdventureQuest

List of characters in AdventureQuest (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)

This is a list of characters for a video game of marginal notability, itself at AfD. Contested prod, with argument normal accepted type of article; better than individual articles of characters, hardly an "uncontroversial deletion".

ping 19:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Makes me think of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional characters who can fly.--Prodigy96 (talk) 04:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Suggest rehoming at AQWiki or similar specialized source. Doubt the AdventureQuest page is going to have room for it; interested parties should note that that page also has an AfD nomination. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 13:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for that find. They already seem to have almost everything one could possibly write about this, and on separate pages, e.g. over 200 pages in Category:Monsters alone. That also explains where the fans have moved, since this page saw no significant editing in quite a wile.
      ping 23:45, 2 February 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. Unresolved issue of whether the sources qualify as reliable. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gamble Fish

Gamble Fish (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)

Contested prod. Unreferenced article about a manga with no assertion of notability. Fails

WP:BK. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 18:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Commment A 15 vols-ongoing series published by Akita Shoten([12]). No licensor outside Japan. Absent not only from Anime News Network database but also from the reported news, meaning not a single volume of this series made it into the Japanese manga charts. --KrebMarkt 18:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 01:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 19:10, 31 January 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. JForget 02:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lost in the Meritocracy: The Undereducation of an Overachiever

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)

Almost no content iBentalk/contribsIf you reply here, please place a talkback notification on my page. 18:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Sure it's a stub, but a cursory Google search reveals a lot of information. The book is clearly notable. I have added content and references to the article so please take another look at it. --MelanieN (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Additional comment: I see that this was nominated for deletion, as having "almost no content", only half an hour after the article was created, and while the creator was clearly still working on it (e.g. creating an infobox). Surely we should give people a little time to establish content, before complaining about lack of content!--MelanieN (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In response: Please use the {{under construction}} tag.-- iBentalk/contribsIf you reply here, please place a talkback notification on my page. 00:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really? It says "In general, this template should not be used for new articles with little content."
Personally, I often start an article small, and add information as I research it. Wikipedia seems to accept this approach, see Wikipedia:stub. "A stub is an article containing only a few sentences of text which is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, but not so short as to provide no useful information, and it should be capable of expansion." The fact that an article is a stub, or is very short, is not one of the reasons for deletion.
BTW I am not the author of the article, and I know nothing about this book except what I researched - never heard of it before today. I am just a person who likes to occasionally "rescue" an article from deletion, when I think the subject has merit.--MelanieN (talk) 00:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
  • Keep Due to the two New York Times reviews; that's pretty significant coverage for a new book. ThemFromSpace 15:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Concur with the above, there are sources that document notability. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, here we have notability confirmed in so many words: the New York Times put this book on their list of "Notable Books of 2009".[13]
  • Keep Added notability claims.-- iBentalk/contribsIf you reply here, please place a talkback notification on my page. 03:57, 3 February 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) 17:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A14(M) motorway

A14(M) motorway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is mostly nonsense not backed up by the sources given. It is true that the A14(M) is an unsigned motorway, however it is actually a short section a mile long, commonly considered to be part of the A1(M). It is only referred to on paper.

I attempted to redirect this to the A14 article but the user has just undone the action. The section about the planned upgrade is true, but given that it was only on the cards for 3 years and never really got far in the planning process, certainly doesn't give it notability. Jeni (talk) 18:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I have backed up my point --Rstallard2 (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Backed up what point? The fact you have created an inaccurate page, and once all the rubbish is stripped out you are left with something which just isn't remotely notable. Jeni (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is not inaccurate as all 3 references suggest. You may think this is rubbish but i have added references that prove that the A14 is OFFICIALLY part of the A14(M). That is why we should Keep and add information as it comes --Rstallard2 (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nope, all I'm seeing is you still misrepresenting sources. Please do tell me which one "proves" that the A14 is the A14(M)? Jeni (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sorry, but where have you backed up your point? Where are your official sources? Personally I have no knowledge of this designation and the road is not built to motorway standards. Where are your references from Hansard? By coincidence I have found official reference in the 1960s to a potential M45 running west from Ipswich - I guess it was intended to link to the M45 in Warwickshire but, with respect, that is another story and does not give credibility to this article. PeterEastern (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added my prove as no 2 official documentation shows a road beween a1 and bar hill called a14(M)--Rstallard2 (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No you haven't. You have added proof that there was once a road planned called the A14(M), which we aren't questioning. Jeni (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have found this official reference to the road being called the A604(M) so there is certainly some real history here.[14]
  • Was called a604(M) because the a14 was once the a604. But was renamed to A14(M) When the A604 Became the A14 A14(M) Documentation--Rstallard2 (talk) 20:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, here is a reference from the highways agency to the A604(M) as well.[15]. We hear what you are saying Rstallard2, but these references are about past plans, there was also a plan for an M12, but that doesn't mean I insist that part of the current A12 is a motorway - a motorway is a legal classificiation and I have no evidence that the A14 has that designation today - do you? If you started your article, "The A14(M) was a proposed name for a section of the current A14" then that would be more sensible. PeterEastern (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • At best all it warrants is a well formed mention in the A14 article, its obviously a plan that didn't get too far off the ground. Jeni (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails notability. I do not recall a precedent of all "secret unsigned motorways" having some inherent notability. Edison (talk) 21:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A bit of OR from me: I am a not infrequent user of the A14 over many sections, but in particular the London end and the M6 to M11 area. The section in question here is definitely not built to motorway standard, and while there might have been (and probably were - I'm not casting doubts on Rstallard2's research) it never has been one, and would take considerable work to be of motorway standard. I think the relevant info should be in the A14 article (and also that the **** road should have been built as a motorway as well, but that's PoV...). BTW, if the info on Rstallard2's page is correct, I would congratulate him/her on her/his achievements (spelling...) both here and outside. Peridon (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We seem to be getting off track a bit, above. The question is not if the subject existed (as a road or a proposal, or whatever), but whether the subject is notable under our policies. In this case, I agree with Jeni - a well-constructed reference in the A14 article would be sufficient. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have now researched the available reliable evidence and sumarised it on the A14 talk page here. There is clearly evidence that a 1.2 mile section of the A14 has had and does have many amusingly contradictory designations but there is no evidence whatsoever that there is any current 'secret' motorway of any greater length. I stick with my earlier vote of Delete and will roll the content from the talk page into the A14 article in due course. PeterEastern (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --John (talk) 07:23, 8 February 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. JForget 02:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory P. Joseph

Gregory P. Joseph (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)

The subject of this article has requested its deletion at OTRS ticket#2010013110017466. I tend to support the deletion; he does not appear to meet

WP:BIO from what I can see. Stifle (talk) 17:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment Just a point of order; why would we start an AfD because the subject of a BLP requests it? If the information in the article were objectionable for reasons of accuracy or POV language etc., then the relevant text could be removed on that basis but off-wiki correspondence (that I cannot read for myself) should not be mentioned as part of the nomination here. To avoid doubt, the AfD should be based purely on the merits of the article, in this case the nominator's opinion that the article fails notability guidelines which I presume is true here (disregarding the "tend to support" qualification). Ash (talk) 04:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Re "why would we start an AfD because the subject of a BLP requests it?": we start an AfD whenever anyone requests it. I don't see any reason to deny this privilege to the subject of the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:58, 1 February 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 THIS IS A TITLE. JForget 02:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Think Tank Forums

Think Tank Forums (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)

Seemingly non-notable software. Very marginal coverage in

ping 17:19, 31 January 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 withdrawn by nominator. ... discospinster talk 03:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of documentaries

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)

This page should either be renamed Lists of documentary films or just deleted, it seems to me. Or is this valid as a redirect? The only content are three links that could easily be added to the See also section of

talk) 16:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC) WITHDRAWN per below[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. JForget 02:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EbilGames

EbilGames (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)

If the company is tethering on the verge of non-notability (see

ping 16:51, 31 January 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. Scott Mac (Doc) 21:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AdventureQuest

AfDs for this article:
AdventureQuest (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)

Only reviewed on seemingly obscure sites. See

ping 16:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC) (I think the sources found below are adequate. 01:15, 3 February 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. JForget 02:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pune Gliding Center

Pune Gliding Center (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)

Contested PROD. Seems to be a non-notable field, sources mention it tangentially; a few famous people appear to have visited it, but I'm not sure that confers notability in the sense that we require it. Do we have any relevant guidelines here? Anyway, opening to the community for insight and opinions. GlassCobra 16:16, 31 January 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. JForget 02:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spank jazz

Spank jazz (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)

Contested Prod. Article is an unreferenced assertion of a genre founded on one track on an album by a defunct band. There is no Wikipedia page for the band or the album. No genre references on AllAboutJazz; only reference on Allmusic is the album track title itself. AllyD (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notified

WikiProject Jazz. AllyD (talk) 16:13, 31 January 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. JForget 02:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Khalid Usman

Khalid Usman (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)

Two-line biographical article about a chartered accountant and former town councillor. Sporadically mentioned and quoted in local media, but nothing approaching

WP:POLITICIAN. --RrburkeekrubrR 15:54, 31 January 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. JForget 02:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plain Talk Volume 1-Everything you ever and never wanted to know about Racism and Stereotypes

Plain Talk Volume 1-Everything you ever and never wanted to know about Racism and Stereotypes (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)

Flunks

WP:SPAM; no reliable sources; self-promotional. (While self-promotion is not a reason for deletion, the article's other failings are.) THF (talk) 15:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete per nom. Stonemason89 (talk) 16:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Of the four "References" currently in the article, three do not discuss the book at all, and the fourth was written by the author of the book. No clear claim is ever presented for the notability of the book in the article: no awards, no reviews, no critical reception. —C.Fred (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable sources for the content or importance of this book, and the article appears to be a mix of self-promotion of the book and promotion of the book's author's personal theories. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete gsearch for strings "plain talk" "corey washington" gave no RS hits. self published through xlibris, which has no relevant acceptance criteria. a less spammy article may be recreated in the future if it actually does become notable per WP.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Stonemason nominated me for deletion should be wiped out because I changed some of his edits on the All-White Basketball league. I think that the deletion should be held off for 6 months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plaintalk2010 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC) What spam are you talking about. At the very least some promotional items have been removed personally. I just think it's shady that the guy that I'm involved in an edit war with is the guy who nominates this page for deletion. Now that's a conflict of interest. The deletion process is too subjective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plaintalk2010 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not nominate this page for deletion, User: THF did. Get your facts straight. Stonemason89 (talk) 03:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the closing admin discounted Stonemason's opinion, there are five other editors with good rationales to delete the article. That's enough to show a consensus that the article should be deleted. If you want to build a case for keeping the article, focus on the identified flaws in the article and show where it has received significant coverage in reliable sources.

—C.Fred (talk) 14:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

if the only problem with this article was that it was overly promotional, i would have nominated for keep and probably worked to fix it (i do a lot of small fixups for book/author articles). if the article does stay, i will comment on the "spamminess" on the article talk page. its not relevant here as its not grounds for deletion. it was a throwaway comment essentially in support of its potential future notability. sorry if i sounded too flippant.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, absence of reliable sources = nonnotability. Saying "delete per nom" isn't equivalent to nominating this for deletion. Nyttend (talk) 03:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Self-published book, no reliable sources to establish notability. GlassCobra 18:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, spam being pushed by several SPAs which are being researched for sockpuppetism. Woogee (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per what everyone has already said above. Fails
    WP:3RR. So delete all the way. Rapido (talk) 22:41, 4 February 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. nominator also changed to keep JForget 00:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Arabic units of measurement

Ancient Arabic units of measurement (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)

A search for reference, found little to no support for any of the content of this article. Yes there Ancient Arabic units of measurement, but for most of the units mentioned here no references are found. See example reference in article, what is found has no support for the measurements as documented. The farsakh is the only thing I find close and even that does not match references. Removal on non-referenced content per

WP:V would result in a article that no longer meets the expectations of the title. Prod was removed so bringing to AfD Jeepday (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Could you please substantiate "demonstrably incorrect". So far as I can see the highly reliable reference that I have given below covers everything in the article. Hans Adler 18:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Deletion of an article is generally interpreted as implying that re-creation of the article is strongly discouraged. That would certainly not be appropriate here. As to the sourcing, we need to take into account the systemic bias against cultures using a non-Latin script. If we search for one specific transcription of a unit, then we are only going to find those occurrences that use exactly the same transcription. By simply searching for "arabic units" in Google Books I found the Encyclopaedia of scientific units, weights, and measures, which appeared with Springer and appears to cover everything that is in the article in a single table. Hans Adler 20:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a reliable source (François Cardarelli, ed. Encyclopaedia of Scientific Units, Weights, and Measures: Their SI Equivalences and Origins (Springer 2003) p77-78) at least for units of length, area, and volume. If someone is willing to replace the existing content with something verifiable-- even to the extent of blanking the page and replacing it with the two links to Google books-- then I'd support a keep. Otherwise, we should put a note up saying "This is totally unreliable and should not be taken seriously by someone consulting an encyclopedia". The first requirement of reference information, even greater than that it should be verifiable, is that it be correct. Mandsford (talk) 23:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So far as I can tell nothing needs to be replaced. The present content is backed up by the new reference. Hans Adler 18:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone rewrites it before this AFD closes: incorrect information does not belong in Wikipedia, and the only ways to get rid of an entirely incorrect article are complete rewrites and deletion. We sometimes delete articles for reasons irrelevant to notability (especially through speedy deletion, but not exclusively), so it's not at all uncommon to encounter a situation when there's no problem with recreating an article that was (altogether properly) deleted. I don't see how keeping a mangled article will
    help the encyclopedia more than deletion will. Nyttend (talk) 03:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • 'Vote changed, see below Why on earth delete if the problem is a lack of referrences? -- Egil (talk) 07:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Besides that
farsakh, or should it be completely deleted. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Point taken. As a flashback, I remember this article was created by splitting up a far too big article on historical weights and measures, and I'm sure some of the original content was quite questionable. If you have researched this and not being able to verify, then this article has no value. I will thus change my vote to Delete. Egil (talk) 09:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did any of you actually compare the reference with the current content of the article? What does the article say that doesn't follow immediately from the new reference? Hans Adler 18:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. {{trout}} I don't understand why people here are voting for deletion of an article based on speculations that the content may be incorrect, after someone has found a Springer book that backs up the content. Hans Adler 01:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nom voting Keep, thanks to the work of User:Hans Adler who found and added references supporting the article content. When the reference was first posted here it did not open as readable for me, but the reference on the article clearly goes to a book supporitin the content as written (still room to improve as always). My Orginal research was based on the words for the units, which came up mostly empty Hans focused on the subject a search term and found a great reference. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 12:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, it seems you originally missed my explanation concerning different transcriptions. I think it's important to keep this issue in mind in order to avoid systemic bias against cultures that use a non-latin script. As it happens, my work didn't consist in more than entering "Arabic units of measurement" in Google books and looking at the first hit. The trout is on the barbecue. Who wants some? Hans Adler 12:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close in that nominator has withdrawn nomination. Changing vote to Keep and praising Hans Adler as well. Mandsford (talk) 21:48, 4 February 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. JForget 02:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Soutter

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

Non-notable official of political parties who has not stood for elected office himself. No reliable sources found and indeed there appear only to be passing mentions in a tiny number of newspaper articles. Has been tagged for notability for 18 months or so. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:51, 31 January 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. JForget 02:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Internet car buying in the UK

Internet car buying in the UK (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)

Contested PROD (by blanking). PROD concern "No indication of how this might meet

reliable sources" blue520 14:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

*Delete and do not wish to see Internet car buying in India, Interent car buying in Chile or Internet car buying in the Sahara Desert any time soon. From an encyclopedia's position, we just don't need articles of this nature.--TrustMeTHROW! 20:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)) User has been blocked, refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Trusted_Throw for details.Ottawa4ever (talk) 08:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded.Peridon (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still second what he said. Peridon (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
::Thirded.--Prodigy96 (talk) 00:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)) User has been blocked, refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Trusted_Throw for details.Ottawa4ever (talk) 08:01, 3 February 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 (

chat 19:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

William Croft (linguist)

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

Non-notable BLP of a linguist. The only independent source isn't even about HIM, it's about Greenberg, and only mentions Croft as it relates to Greenberg. That doesn't satisfy the "non-trivial" aspect of our notability policy. The other source is simply a university profile.

UnitAnode 14:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Then you are granting that the person is notable? - Wikidemon (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. Until reliable, secondary sources are found to source the claims, I don't grant that he's notable.
UnitAnode 13:54, 1 February 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. JForget 02:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leroy Ah Ben

Leroy Ah Ben (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)

All that I can find in Google is unreliable sites, a profile, and a trivial mention in The Walkley Magazine. All that I can find in Google News is a few news articles by him. I found zero sources in Google Books. Fails

talk) 13:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Wow. A deletionist. I love you guys. All I can offer is that he's on TV in Australia every night on an evening news program on SBS which broadcasts nationally, which of course doesn't leave a textual trace on the web because he's a broadcast TV reporter. Why not enjoy yourself and go ahead and delete it. Timbomb (talk) 23:09, 31 January 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. JForget 02:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Duriga

Jim Duriga (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)

All that I can find in Google is 123people.com, monkees101.com which only has one sentence, sites to buy his books, profiles, unreliable sites, and Open Library. All that I can find in Google News is three trivial mentions in a local newspaper. All that I can find in Google Books is books by him. Fails

talk) 13:02, 31 January 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. Consensus seems to be that there because the only sources that exist that cover this man are of his crimes, the article fails

WP:BLP1E. NW (Talk) 12:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Edwin Curry

Edwin Curry (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)

I know the definition of "BLP1E" is disputed, but I believe this article in it's current form does fall under the term. The article covers nothing on this man other than one part of his life, how he got jailed for being a pedophile. —

ark // 10:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

The sentence was controversial and other examples in the category similarly focus on this part of someone's life. --
•wicke 10:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
  • I am curious (as an aside and not to take away from this) but is the article at
    •wicke 12:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Keep-The article is sourced and is indeed notable in that the guy was found guilty of 189 counts of indecent assault and sentenced to only 4 years. For

lexical ambiguity in your statement. The article does need a bit work, but as it stands, it need not be nominated for deletion. Smallman12q (talk) 13:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Also, quoting BLP1E, it says "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as
•wicke 13:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
(edit conflict) To me I see this as one event that the trial and the period are one in the same, and as such I would belive the article follows to cover the person only in the context of this single event (But i agree this can have ambuigity to it). That is just my opinion of this paticular article. However I do concede under
WP:PERP that the person narrowly does satisfy point 3 (But not 1 and 2 in my opinion at least). However thats if it has persistant coverage to be historical which you could probably argue this will. Maybe retitling the article and re writing portions to reflect the trial and not the individual would be more appropriate rather than deletion and in time if there is continual coverage the article could reflect the individual? Ottawa4ever (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
"Notable because he was sentenced to 189 counts of assault" sounds like an
arbitrary number to me. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
It could be argued that "unknown crimes until the trial" equals "one incident." The additions by Candlewicke are preliminary parts of the same trial plus apparently someone beating up the perpetrator after his misdeeds came to be known. The early hearings of a trial are part of the same trial, hence the same event. Getting beaten up is generally not the stuff of which encyclopedias are made. Edison (talk) 01:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a side note I dont think those articles have a problem with BLPE or PERP (Just my thought here though), and are quite different from this article and its concerns that have been raised as has been discussed above. Discussion should also be kept to this article alone and wether it should or shouldnt be deleted. Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are differeces...--TrustMeTHROW! 22:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC) User has been blocked, refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Trusted_Throw for details.[reply]
  • Delete I think
    WP:BLP1E still applies. The event, in this case, can be said to be Curry's trial, which appears to be of only immediate interest (I can't imagine anyone taking an interest in this 15 years from now). In response to Wnt above, this guy does not at all compare to Eric Harris/Dylan Klebold and John Wayne Gacy. Harris and Klebold were involved in an event that's unquestionably significant on its own (BLP1E says bios are appropriate for "Individuals notable for well-documented events"). Gacy has had whole books written about him, and attracted far more attention than this guy. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
*Keep the events are notable and have been subject to mass media coverage.--LittleGordon 20:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)) User has been blocked, refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Trusted_Throw for details.[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. JForget 02:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chako Abeno

Chako Abeno (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)

Delete. This is a non-notable and unsourced

WP:BLP article. I searched Google News Archive and found 1 relevant match, which was a passing one-liner mention from activeanime.com. That's it. JBsupreme (talk) 08:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

  • As creator or co-creator of a more than one notable manga, she would on the face of it pass
    WP:BEFORE been the better route? But in any case, beyond that additional sourcing has been added, making this a keep. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep per Eastman, Quasirandom, and http://www.google.com/cse?cx=009114923999563836576%3A1eorkzz2gp4&q=%22Chako+Abeno%22 --Gwern (contribs) 17:10 31 January 2010 (GMT)
    • Gwern, what is this custom search that you are citing? It says "Wikipedia RSs for manga and anime" but I am seeing tons of blogs? I am intrigued. JBsupreme (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Welcome to 21st century, where evil vetted RS critics not only review manga on their Reliable Source manga/anime/comics websites but also from their very own personal blog. Saying that those critics are only experts when they write reviews in their RS websites and cease to be experts when they write reviews in their blog would be utter bullshit. From Wikipedia editors point of view this is hellish to use because the dogmatic blog = not RS restriction. --KrebMarkt 18:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • What Kreb said. With a few exceptions, all the blogs being pulled up are either on the Wikiproject's list of online RSs, were cited in the recent discussions about a large network of allied reviewers who publish in said RSs, or are just showing up in the results because they haven't been filtered out. (The CSE has a large whitelist, and blacklist, but everything else is on a 'greylist' - it shows up if it scores high enough anyway.) If any of them are particularly bad and should never show up for any query, feel free to point them out to me. I cleaned up several of the Chako Abeno pages, but I didn't clean past page ~5 of results. --Gwern (contribs) 18:42 1 February 2010 (GMT)
  • Keep Per above, and references from all the notable manga she has worked on. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Reliable sources more than sufficient to pass the relevant notability bar, as demonstrated by Eastmain and Quasirandom. The existence of systemic bias is not an argument for deletion. Rebecca (talk) 15:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The body of work makes them notable. Dream Focus 20:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are reliable sources. - 23:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
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. JForget 02:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Konstantin Popov

Konstantin Popov (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)

There does not appear to be enough substance here to support a biographical article. He made the news only within the last few days because of his killing. However, there has been been no biographical coverage of this individual prior to this single event, and he was even described as a "little-known 47-year-old journalist who specialized in writing about economics" in one of the recent news articles about his death.

Wikipedia:Notability says "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability." Dominic·t 08:02, 31 January 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. JForget 02:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cornish American

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)

Essentially this is a

WP:OR. Nor is there any evidence that people from one county in England have especially high numbers of people in America, as to be worthy of an article. No other Encyclopedia in the world includes such an article. Delete as FORK political activism on the part of Joowww. - Yorkshirian (talk) 07:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

There are no native speakers of Cornish in Cornwall, let alone in the United States; the last native speaker died in the 1700s, before the United States existed. Also Cornwall was never a country but rather Dumnonnia was (as was Northumbria, Gwynedd, Clwyd and Gwent). But this is all besides the point "Cornish American" is itself
WP:SYNTH as a concept, there is no presentation of evidence that "Cornish American" is a notable concept to be included in an Encyclopedia. There is no evidence that any of the examples listed in the article regarded themselves as "Cornish Americans". The concept is as OR as Gwynedd American or Northumbrian American. - Yorkshirian (talk) 09:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I disagree with the suggestion that "Cornish American" is
Kingdom of Cornwall and Dumnonia. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
There's no doubt that some people in the US highlight their Cornish roots, and that some of them have set up websites about it, but it's much less clear whether the phrase "Cornish American" is commonly used, and whether the concept of a "Cornish American" is at all
talk) 01:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
You can also buy t-shirts that say "I shot JR". And your point is? --Joowwww (talk) 13:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Er, humour? Although there was a small serious point underneath it, ie that the verifiable existence of a phrase or term does not of itself mean it needs a Wikipedia page. --
talk) 13:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep Further reading section and external links section prove that there is a Cornish ethnicity active in the United States. --Joowwww (talk) 11:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Following the logic above there should be pages for Mercian American, Northumbrian American and other of the pre-cursor kingdoms of England and for the various former kingdoms/regions of Europe etc.
    talk) 17:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
This is not about counties or ancient kingdoms, it is about the modern-day ethnicity. --Joowwww (talk) 21:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably the modern concept of Cornish ethnicity though is derived very much from the place, and its history, otherwise it's wholly random and invented? And that's the point that people are disputing - what makes Cornwall as an area of England and the UK, and its people, any different from other historical and contemporary areas in the country, all of which had, and to varying degrees still have, a distinctive regional identity? I'm not saying that's not the case, but it needs to be demonstrated substantively, and with reference to proper sources. In this case, we need reliable and serious evidence of the concept of "Cornish Americans". --
talk) 01:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
The Cornish were considered to be a separate people from the English for centuries, until around the 17th century. There are people in Cornwall who still do. Yorkshirians weren't and don't. That's the difference. --Joowwww (talk) 13:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, as I said then. --
talk) 13:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep, Eastmain above says it well. DuncanHill (talk) 00:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The Cornish immigrants to the US and their descendants self-identified as Cornish, and were regarded as a separate ethnic group apart from the English, especially in the mining communities where they settled. The article has validity and provides good information for Wikipedia readers. A definite keep.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and if the article's title has insufficient evidence in reliable sources, rename it. The article's references section lists a number of books discussing the migration history and identity issues of the group in question, which is the usual standard for deciding whether to keep or delete articles like this (not "they set up some websites" or "there's some famous people with ancestors from there", nor "other groups don't have such pages" or "area of origin is not unique"). cab (talk) 10:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per the reasoning of cab. - Zangar (talk) 18:08, 5 February 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. JForget 02:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Botev Vratsa Forever

Botev Vratsa Forever (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)

Fan club with 60 members and no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 06:35, 31 January 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. JForget 02:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Viscendo

Viscendo (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)

Made-up word, obvious vehicle for

db-g11 as blatant advertising. User:Jodybasye contested my PROD.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 06:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I agree with nominator, it is obvious spam for the company. Also probable conflict of interest given article creator's name is same as company domain registrant. Original speedy deletion tagging was correct in my opinion. -84user (talk) 11:35, 31 January 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. JForget 02:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DragonFable

AfDs for this article:
DragonFable (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)

I deprodded this video game after I found one relatively short review on about.com I felt it deserves a discussion. (Besides, I see it has been brought to AfD before, so a prod was procedurally invalid.)

ping 06:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: http://www.netzwelt.de/download/7030-dragonfable.html its german and a description + small review of the game, can it be used as reference? GBK2010 (talk) 02:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not familiar with this particular online magazine so I can't judge how reliable it is. But since it offers the game as a download I think it might have interest in promoting the game; that is, I doubt if it is an
notability. Reyk YO! 02:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I am familar with netzwelt. It's a fairly high profile German site (top 100 or so, see their "press" page, Alexa ranking, etc.) The reviews on their download pages are written by their staff, not copies of manufacturer's description; they have a dozen writers, see their impressum. I'm not very fond of reviews on download pages because they are otften quick, "filler" takes, although the netzwelt ones are better compared to others of this kind (
ping 03:34, 1 February 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. JForget 02:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Crust (Avril Lavigne album)

Pink Crust (Avril Lavigne album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is of unverifiable nature, based on unreliable conjecture citing no sources, though a Google search results in unreliable sources using the possible-hoax name "Pink Crust". Possible disparagement toward artist. Correct, updated, and verified information on the fourth studio album can be found on the Avril Lavigne article. Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 06:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like a
reliable sources confirm a track listing or release date.  Gongshow Talk 06:56, 31 January 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) 17:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MechQuest

AfDs for this article:
MechQuest (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)

Seemingly non-notable video game. Arguably its notability should be discussed here, rather than edit warred over the redirect to the company, which itself may be deleted soon.

ping 05:48, 31 January 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. JForget 02:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

609th Air Communications Squadron

609th Air Communications Squadron (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)

This squadron, performing a ground combat service support function, is not notable. Any relevant material can either be placed at Shaw Air Force Base or 20th Fighter Wing. This nomination is in line with previously determined community consensus over separate non-combat ground forces' companies (a unit at the same level). See eg Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/101st Chemical Company (United States) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/722nd Ordnance Company (United States). Buckshot06 (talk) 05:12, 31 January 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. JForget 02:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1625 Sheridan Road (Wilmette)

1625 Sheridan Road (Wilmette) (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)

Unremarkable building, no evidence of notability for design or history. Acroterion (talk) 03:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also 1616 Sheridan Road (Wilmette) and 1500 Sheridan Road (Wilmette). Same issues. Acroterion (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia, SecretName101. This is your first article, and I'm presuming that you've written about something that you're familiar with. However, I hope that you will agree that it wouldn't be practical if we had an article about every five story building in the world. We have to set limits on articles, based upon whether something is notable enough that it gets attention outside the local area. As the saying goes, "Everything gets published on Wikipedia, but not everything gets to stay on Wikipedia." Mandsford (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the book you're referencing give any indication of something unique about this building (and 1500?). If so, you should include that in the article. What you want to do is to explain why this building is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia (and personal liking isn't enough: it must be historic or have a historic event associated with it, or be notable on the basis of its design). Who was the architect? Acroterion (talk) 03:47, 31 January 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. JForget 02:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kae's File Manager

AfDs for this article:
Kae's File Manager (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)

Zaroo independent sources for this, hic.

ping 03:31, 31 January 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. JForget 02:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Atmospheric rock

AfDs for this article:
Atmospheric rock (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)

Improperly "citing" a single album as evidence for a genre's existence does not a legitimate genre make. C1k3 (talk) 02:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral. I filled in the stub from a redlink, if i remember right. The example is just an example, of course, but Google reveals a fair amount of usage of the term as a genre by bands, review sites, online stores, etc. This article, Post Rock 101, seems to recognize it as a subgenre alongside
    talk
    ) 2010-01-31 05:35
  • Delete, another sub-subgenre with hopelessly muddled inclusion criteria. Hairhorn (talk) 05:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Like "brutal death metal," no sourcing = no article.--WaltCip (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not quite a case of
    WP:NEO, I don't think, but I believe that the spirit of that guideline is equally applicable here. Cocytus [»talk«] 00:36, 7 February 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 and redirect. Jayjg (talk) 00:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Red and Blue (EP)

Red and Blue (EP) (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)

This is an EP by Stefani Germanotta, recorded a couple years before she found

WP:NALBUMS.  Gongshow Talk 02:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

note: I merged info already feeling that it is relevant no matter how this discussion goes. If no kept, I believe the redirect is appropriate. J04n(talk page) 21:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did merge the info to Lady Gaga discography and the info I added was deleted about 5 hours later, so I do agree with Sparks Fly, if there is no destination delete. J04n(talk page) 22:28, 5 February 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. JForget 02:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smuxi

Smuxi (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)

This article has been tagged as needing sources for a long time and none have been presented even after extensive editing. Miami33139 (talk) 02:34, 31 January 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. JForget 02:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enhanced Programmable ircII Client

Enhanced Programmable ircII Client (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)

Delete. Well, at least I've heard of this one, it has that going for it. I searched Google News Archives and Google Books, with no success at finding substantial coverage from reliable third party publications. I tried queries "Enhanced Programmable ircII Client" and "EPIC +IRC". JBsupreme (talk) 02:09, 31 January 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 Passes

chat 20:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Linda Harasim

Linda Harasim (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)

Typical academic CV - written articles, edited and contributed to multi-author books. Doesn'tseem particularly notable. Scott Mac (Doc) 01:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per the nomination which seems to be spot on. JBsupreme (talk) 01:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear Keep. GS cites are 1203, 430, 428, 398, 351, 195 etc. etc.
    WP:Prof #1. Poorly researched nominations waste the time of editors. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC).[reply
    ]
I'm afraid I don't understand a word of what you've said? What's a GS cite? Yes I researched this. Please indicate why she's notable?--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not part of an editor's duties to explain Wikipedia's
WP:Prof policy to people who can read it for themselves. Advice often given to newcomers to a topic is to lurk around for a while to learn the conventions that prevail before jumping in as an editor. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC).[reply
]
Notability guidelines are not policies there are guidelines. They tell people "what usually tends to happen on AfD", they in no sense disctate what ought to happen. There is no need for anyone here to pay the blindest bit of attention to them. I don't. I use my own judgement.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
She means the citation counts reported by a Google scholar search. These numbers are a (not very good, but easily measured) way of quantifying the impact a scholar's work has had on other scholars, and in this case they are well above what has usually been considered here to be at the passing level for
WP:PROF #1. For instance, over 1200 other published academic works have cited her book Learning networks: A field guide to teaching and learning online in some way or another. No doubt many of these citations are trivial passing mentions but very likely not all of them are. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
The article doesn not indicate notability. I'm not sure you've indicated anything remarkable here. Most accademics in this field get called as witnesses, I imagine. None of these article give her more than a passing mention, in the same way they'd mention a policy inspector who investigated a case.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is this some strange new meaning of the word "none" with which I'm unfamiliar? My comment above called out two specific articles for which the coverage of her is clearly more than a passing mention. As for "the article does not indicate notability": we are not supposed to say things like "She fulfils
WP:SELFREF. There is a paragraph discussing her research accomplishments; you are expected to deduce for yourself that these are the things she is considered notable for. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Two of those works she edited, the other she co-authored - these are very typical things for an accademic to do. Even most junior lecturers do this type of thing. There is nothing remarkable here.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You could probably make a good argument for deleting 95% of the least notable BLPs. *** Crotalus *** 14:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
so you think that any argument based on notability guidelines is invalid at an afd? Somehow, I was under the impression that arguments were supposed to be based on guidelines or policy. DGG ( talk ) 21:38, 2 February 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

Jeff Chapman (Georgia politician). Cirt (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Chapman Waste Disposal

Chapman Waste Disposal (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)

A waste disposal company. Having a notable founder does not make a company notable. The only external links were spam for the founder, not the company. Sgroupace (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. An earlier version had references but was deleted as an expired prod. Could someone please restore the history so that those references could be evaluated? - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I've restored the revisions that were deleted previously through
    proposed deletion per Eastmain's request. There were never any references in the article, the only difference between the article now and when it was deleted was a corporation stub template. I did a search for references before deleting it when it was proposed for deletion and found nothing significant to suggest that it met our notability requirements, so I still endorse its deletion. -- Atama頭 17:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Redirect to
    Jeff Chapman (Georgia politician). As company itself does not seem notable, better off as a subsection of the founder's article. Turgan Talk 13:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Eastmain is correct, per
WP:POLITICIAN, on Mr. Chapman. I tend to agree that most waste disposal companies are not notable in an of themselves (can anyone here recall the name written on the side of the truck that hauls away their garbage each week?) and that the inherent notability of an owner doesn't get passed on to in King Midas fashion to everything the owner touches. Mandsford (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Unlikely yes, of course, but "plausible" is quite a different matter. Redirects are cheap, as they say, and we generally retain them if there's a possibility it could be useful. There are any number of reasons someone might type "Chapman Waste Disposal" into the search box, even if it only happens once in a blue moon (since Chapman is apparently running for Governor there might be more interest in him and his history). A redirect does no harm, and I suppose there's a chance we could stick some small tidbit from the article and merge it into Chapman's bio.
    WP:R#DELETE doesn't have a reason for deletion that would apply here. It's pretty trivial whether we delete or turn this into a redirect, but I think the latter makes more sense. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:36, 9 February 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. nomination withdrawl - oops JForget 00:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Magarshak

Gregory Magarshak (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)

The subject does not meet the notability criteria for a musician (

WP:N
.

I am not a New Yorker or a music aficionado, So I do not know how unusual it is for a child to appear at Carnegie Hall to perform his own work with a professional orchestra. It does not match the

WP:MUSN
criteria, but if we can find reliable sources that assert that this is unusual and that cite this particular performance, then we can establish notability. If someone can chime in and say "no, this happens a lot," then it's not notable.While looking for sources, also check "Gregori" in addition to "Gregory."

Arch dude (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It hardly ever happens that a child appears at Carnegie hall and performs his work with a professional orchestra. Magarshak was the youngest person to do this as far as I know, the youngest pianist to perform on that level. You can ascertain the notability at http://magarshak.com/piano where several TV programs and magazines are referenced. For example, in the article from "Daily News Magazine", "the youngest person ever to enter Juilliard on a scholarship". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.143.76.29 (talk) 01:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This may very well be true. but we cannot depend on magarshak.com. we need to use reliable sources: see
WP:RS
for an explanation. Please note: it is perfectly acceptavle to cite the Daily News, even if we cannot access the article online. It is NOT acceptable to cite your web site, for two separate reasons: first, it is not a "reliable source," by our very narrow technical definition. Second, it is a web site that is improperly providing unauthorized copies of copyrighted work. Wikipedia has a prohibition against citing such sites. So, to prove notability, you need to do the following:
  • Cite the Daily News article directly, not your web site. It is not necessary for the cited material to be online, but it does make it easier if you can find it online. (I can help you format your citation: Please post a note on my talk page if you need help)
  • Cite at least one additional "reliable source."
  • Make sure that at least two reliable sources (can include the above) comment on this specific performance. Note that a simple performance announcement is insufficient: we need a full article that spends at least a few paragraphs on you specifically.
  • Make sure that at least two reliable sources (can include the above) indicate that this is unusual.
-Arch dude (talk) 03:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, so let's cite the Daily News and New York Newsday directly. Or, you can use the actual Carnegie Hall stagebill, which talks directly about how unusual the event is. The Russian article talks about it in no uncertain terms ("unprecedented", etc.) but it's in Russian so I don't know if that's acceptable. I would definitely appreciate your help in formatting it, if you could spare a bit of time. Also ... those stills on the site are from programs like "A Musical Encounter" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0307785/) where there was an entire episode devoted to this. I just don't know where to find it online but if you looked through the series you'd see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.125.45 (talk) 05:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cite and Keep: I, the original deletion nominator, am changing my implicit !vote from "delete" to "keep", assuming that the outcome of the referencing effort is positive. See my talk page for details. If there is a process for withdrawing an AfD nomination, then we should do that. I would still appreciate another opinion: I almost never participate in AfD and I may not be doing this right. Basically we still have a COI newbie, but I intend to mitigate this by monitoring the article. -Arch dude (talk) 23:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:57, 31 January 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) 00:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dalton Boutte

Dalton Boutte (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)

Formerly unreferenced BLP for which references are thin on the ground.

Does not seem to be generally notable; news mentions seem to be mainly passing references rather than in-depth coverage (VP sells stock! Hold the front page!) and most of the information in here is completely uncited.   pablohablo. 10:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:54, 31 January 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. JForget 02:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ty Russell

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

Fails

WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk
) 00:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC) *Delete The article says Russell is circumcised and reportedly has a 7-inch penis.. Need I say more about the encylcopedic value (or lack thereof) of the article?--Prodigy96 (talk) 07:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC) User has been blocked, refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Trusted_Throw for details.Ottawa4ever (talk) 08:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep He passes
    WP:ARTIST #3 as he stars in at least 29 published films (a significant body of work, any could be used as a verifiable source). In 1995 he won a Gay VN award for best sex scene, so he also meets the PORNBIO requirements. Nominations for deletion are not intended to replace "improvement needed" tags and PORNBIO is not an excuse to a purge gay pornstars from Wikipedia when their body of work is self-evident. As for value, this is part of hard to find gay history, of rather more encyclopaedic value than a separate article for every fictional character from Avatar and to remove it as unencyclopaedic because of a mention of "penis" is effective censorship. Ash (talk) 07:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 08:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 08:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ash. There should be more in the way of non-trivial coverage for this person, but apparently meets some level of notability criteria as a past recipient of this 1995 award. JBsupreme (talk) 18:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep because he won the mentioned 1995 award, which does help to establish some notability for inclusion.--TrustMeTHROW! 21:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC) User has been blocked, refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Trusted_Throw for details.Ottawa4ever (talk) 08:04, 3 February 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) 20:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Carrigan

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

Fails

WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk
) 00:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

What is the world was that supposed to mean? Please, please (please!) tell me that isn't a 2 Girls 1 Cup reference... Stillwaterising (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there appears to be a recent rush of delete opinions either exclusively based on PORNBIO or strongly based on it (from the names of the contributors, likely to be a result of the link I included at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Pornographic_actors). In this case Carrigan is an established film director for the specialist genre of erotic wrestling, please take that into account as PORNBIO is for actors not directors. I would also like to point out how blunt a criteria PORNBIO is by contrasting Corrigan's significant impact to the field, and his notability for being the second most credited actor in the history gay pornography, with Christopher Ashlee who amazingly passes PORNBIO because he was once named (along with seven other actors) in a group scene award in a 2009 Grabby but is notable for absolutely nothing else and has been credited with just 2 not-particularly-notable films. Ash (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The films he was in won the awards, not him, so fail.
  2. No mention of nominations, fail.
  3. Is not a Playboy playmate, fail.
  4. Hasn't started a trend, nor starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature, nor is in the hall of fame, fail.
  5. Has only featured ONCE in mainstream media, fail. Ryan4314 (talk) 15:33, 9 February 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. Cirt (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Harmon

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

Fails

WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 00:52, 31 January 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.

talk) 03:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Mohammad Gulzar Saifi

Mohammad Gulzar Saifi (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)

A whopping total of 26 Google hits for this name. 161 for just "

Mohammad Gulzar Saifi into the article The Final Inch and deleting with or without redirect. (A note: The user who started this article is currently unable to participate in this discussion due to the terms of an ArbCom decision. If it is felt that my nomination of the article at this time is inappropriate, please postpone it until he is able to contribute directly to the conversation.) Bueller 007 (talk) 08:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy keep. Nominator is suggesting merging, which is not a deletion. See
Taemyr (talk) 13:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I am not necessarily suggesting merging, although I would be satisfied with this outcome. I would like a decision about whether the article should be kept at all---hence I said "delete with or without redirect". Google hits seem to suggest that the subject of the article is completely non-notable---from what I understand it's not even been well confirmed that he is actually the protagonist in the movie---and therefore he may be unworthy even of having his info copied to The Final Inch. And if he is truly the protagonist, the meagre amount of information we have about him could be copied to the page about the movie, but that does not necessarily mean that a redirect page should be used. I am indeed asking for opinion about deletion of this page, therefore WP:Merge and delete does not apply. Bueller 007 (talk) 04:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Merge to
    WP:BLP1E case, and he would be best covered by being merged into the article on the film. Robofish (talk) 12:14, 31 January 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 - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Silex Flash CMS

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)

Reference review:

  • Official site: Reliable, Not independent of the subject.
  • Sourceforge: Reliable, Trivial.
  • GNU- Reliable, Trivial.

I can't find

talk) 18:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

The nature of the sources used to show notability necessary depends on an article's subject matter. Mere "obscurity" should not cause sources to be discounted, if they are considered to be
sock puppetry and is tagged to enforce policy.[reply
]
Actually the prominence of the sources matters, because we'd have every topic from a college newspaper here otherwise (like every student who had a paragraph written about him, and so forth). In this case all the sources blog-like, and with the exception of the O'Reilly one are self-published. The O'Reilly blog only reproduces the official blurb of the software, and asks readers about their opinion. Some of the other look like
ping 08:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Also the creator of the page,
ping 09:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:49, 31 January 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. Cirt (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sourav Chatterjee

Sourav Chatterjee (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)

He seems to be a marginally notable academic. The article has been subjected to edit warring ranging from attempts to stub it to one sentence to adding silly puffery. I'm nominating it in the hope that the claim(s) for notability will become apparent.

ping 05:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Do you have sources saying that? Because mathematicians bloom early, so I could just as easily make up a rule that he should be famous by now. His citation count is 68, 22, 19, 18, 15, 15, 14, 10, 8, 7, 7, 6, 4.... I also note that the article makes no particular claim of an advancement in the field; it just says "he worked on" some things. One has to ask; if every professor works on some research topics, will not every professor get an article? Abductive (reasoning) 03:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The citation 68 is not him, but someone from Department of Physics and Astronomy, Northwestern University. But even the other numbers are not at all that low for 2-year-old math papers. He has sort of revolutionized Stein's method, finding striking new applications, e.g., gave a new and simple proof of the Komlós-Major-Tusnády strong approximation theorem (1976) for random walks and Brownian motion, which is a strengthening of Skorokhod's embedding theorem. The original KMT paper has 637 citations on Google Scholar. So, these are clearly advancements in probability, how great, I don't really know how to judge. At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Whack-a-mole.3F, I wrote that
He might be exceptionally good, but it certainly seems too early to have an article on him. For instance, I know a lot of youngish probabilists who are more notable than him (say, based on citations of their first ten papers on Google Scholar, or on prizes) without wikipedia articles on them. But, with the current more realistic article, I don't think it matters much if it is deleted or not.
Maybe wikipedia should have articles on those other youngish probabilists, too. Anyway, My “vote” is weak delete, but can also keep. --GaborPete (talk) 06:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The loss of the paper with 68 citations is very damaging to his case, and really should clinch the deletion. Abductive (reasoning) 06:58, 4 February 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. (

talk) 02:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

AmeriCares

AmeriCares (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)

Hello there, Don the Sockpuppet made this nomination because no references exist for the article and it is written like a advertisement. Five Ton Sockpuppet (talk) 00:46, 31 January 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 deleted, per

talk 10:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

RedSQ

RedSQ (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)

Contested prod. No reliable sources to verify notability. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this
    talk) 15:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:46, 31 January 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) 00:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

American Technologies Network Corporation

American Technologies Network Corporation (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)

This article does not meet the notability guidelines for Wikipedia. Much effort has been made on the part of Phantomsteve to research notability, but none was found. The creator and main editor, Stripedfox, has admitted to COI. See the talk page for a detailed discussion between Stripedfox and Phantomsteve. I had previously proposed this for deletion, but since it was controversial, the PROD was removed, therefore I am now nominating through this method.

talk) 02:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

I wanted to ask all of you several questions about this article and about Wikipedia guidelines. As I understand, the main argument was that all of the publications I signed were promotional and ATN maybe have payed money for the material about their company. And for example "The New York Times" is more trusted and respected magazine. But, as I know, publishing in "The New York Times" also costs money. Two years ago to place the article to the first page of this magazine was nearly 2000$. Now, I think, it is much more expensive. So, the first question is, do you consider that only that magazines which take more money for the place on their pages than the rest are more trusted than others?

As for the next question, I have already written about this some time ago and I want to repeat this again. This company does not produce products of daily use, but it offers equipment for Army, Law Enforcement, Police, hunting, hiking etc. So, I think that this branch is enough important for the general Encyclopedia like this one. And as for the night vision and thermal night vision, do you really think that these inventions are not enough important for the world? And ATN were the fist who has developed some technologies for this branch, that many other companies now use (It is in my article).

Also I wanted to ask you to be so kind and list that magazines, publications and Award nominations that can be verified specifically for this industry. And I ask you not to write platitudes but to list concrete publications, which can really be interested to write an article about this company сonsidering it's specificity without money and which are really enough trusted for Wikipedia. Because I think that if there is no enough trusted sources for this concrete theme, it does not mean that this information is not interesting for Encyclopedia, that only means that there is info that is not enough developed in magazines, but despite that it still has it's informational value.

And for the last one, I give you the link to the list of magazines and PDF files of the publications about this company. This list is constantly updated and I hope that you will find respected in this area magazines there that will be enough trusted for Wiki. And I also wanted to recall that in other Encyclopedias only subject specialists approve articles, so if you are Language Specialist you should correct and approve only text, but not the informational content I think. And to approve or deny the article I will kindly ask you to consult with specialists in this concrete theme. That is all, I hope you will review your opinion after consulting with specialists about this theme and I will wait for your decision.Stripedfox | Talk 10:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:45, 31 January 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. Cirt (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pál Sümegi

Pál Sümegi (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)

Procedural - I declined a PROD on this one, since Gscholar turned up decent citation counts. I know nothing about archaeology and read no Hungarian however, so I refer here for further discussion RayTalk 00:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and moveAdd his name and the sentance of why he's notable with citation to List of Hungarians. It will remain redlinked and keep its one sentance long article structure and two references and the redlink might prompt someone to actually create a real article. Nefariousski (talk) 02:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

I do not agree with the deletion. Notability and fame are not the same. His notability is supported by the above-written references. Earning fame in geoarcheology as in many other auxiliary sciences of archaeology or historiograpy (heraldics, faleristics, sfragistics) is practically impossible unless someone starts a National Geography TV carrier on some popular issue such as "How to dig out the Holy Grail?" My personal opinion is that we can find easier notable historians among 'unknown' researchers than among famous essayists compiling 1000 page best-sllers by up-grading commonplaces on popular issues. Rokarudi--Rokarudi 17:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Lots of notable books authored, member of prestigous academic society. Widely cited. Why are we nominating these sorts of things?! LotLE×talk 22:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The brevity of the article, I suspect. Not that this is a bad reason to delete an article; this one says, in total, "Pál Sümegi (born May 11, 1960 in Tapolca) is a Hungarian geoarchaeologist at the University of Szeged." As such, it could be deleted under A7. If people can be bothered to tell us what somebody is noted for, why have an article, right? Abductive (reasoning) 09:44, 8 February 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) 00:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One Lone Car

One Lone Car (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)

Does not meet notability guidelines. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources (references provided are either primary ones, blogs or trivial). No indication of awards, charted singles or albums or anything else that might help meet notability guidelines. Not on a notable label either. RadioFan (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable band.
    chat 07:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Do Not Delete- I live in NYC and I've seen lots of write ups about this band when they come through. Also, i found this from Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas --

http://www.pegasusnews.com/news/2008/dec/13/live-review-one-lone-car-radiant-and-calhoun-lolas/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bball606 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:39, 31 January 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) 00:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fremont College

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)

significant third-party references
. Reads like an ad, author is apparently a single purpose account. Searching Fremont College on google returns three related hits: this article, and two links to their website, google news comes back with absolutely nothing.

Accredited or not, as a for-profit institution, Fremont should be held to the same notability standards as a business, and in that regard, it fails miserably.

says you, says two 23:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Technically, yes they are accredited. It is through one of those national organizations designed to meet the bare minimum DoE requirements to receive Title IV federal aid, not one of the more recognized regional accreditation agencies. I also remember reading somewhere that the idea of all schools being notable does not necessarily hold true for for-profit institutions. Anyone can set up a career school and get dubious "national accreditation" and call themselves a college.
says you, says two
13:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Past consensus has stated that accreditation is not necessarily an indicator of notability when the school in question is for-profit or proprietary, these schools are to be treated like businesses for
says you, says two 05:16, 31 January 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) 00:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Robertson (television)

Lisa Robertson (television) (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)

Not to be confused with any other person of the same name, the subjec of this minimally referenced biography is a TV presenter on QVC. The article is essentially a paraphrase of the QVC page on her. Press reporting seems largely limited to passing mentions and a stalking case some years back. No doubt well-known thanks to her work, but not necessarily "notable" in the

WP:N Wikipedia sense. Not much here here really. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete non notable biography. There is a lack of a properly referenced body of work. Stormbay (talk)
  • KeepThis article should be reinstated and should not of been deleted.I see less notable people with less information and no referenced body of work having biographies listed on Wikipedia.Also almost everyone article or biography is a paraphrase from where the contributor has copy and pasted it from somewhere else.Laker44 (talk) 20:52, 3 February 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) 00:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Search3

Search3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable website, article written by

single-purpose user who is a co-founder of the company. There is some coverage here, but beyond that I have been unable to find any significant third-party coverage from reliable sources. Haakon (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]


Thanks for your review, i understand the feedback and can provide significantly more links to articles written about Search3 from many sites, will that help? I can't do much about the WP:SPA if other independent people edit the document does that remove this concern? I also see many sites like ours within Wikipedia so would love your assistance to make this page more appropriate, can you help edit it?--Cdclayton (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment cdclayton, the issue isn't really that this is the only thing your editing. A thousand people could edit it, but that doesn't make it any more or less notable of a search engine
    chat 07:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Delete for now, with no prejudice against recreation later when it becomes more notable (more than Yet Another Me-Too metasearch with release-buzz that promptly falls into obscurity). I checked the refs, and they seem to be are mostly roundup/annotated-lists (not in-depth), passing mention, or near-launch-time items mostly quoting involved people (not independent in-depth analysis). DMacks (talk) 08:26, 1 February 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. The IP user who was the person who actually wanted deletion did not come participate in the discussion, the formal nominator had no !vote, and nobody else has participated. With nobody actively calling for deletion, the most appropriate way to close is as keep, without prejudice to renomination if someone is actively willing to argue for deletion. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mikey L. Hoeven

Mikey L. Hoeven (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)

Creating this debate page on behalf of [86.40.214.5] who did not complete all steps for AfD. Reason given was: "Notability is not inherited, this is a biography with no independent multiple reliable sources, graduating, having children and being married for 25 years is not notable" DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note - I created this debate page as part of the editing process and have no vote, but the original nominator does make some good points. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:31, 31 January 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) 00:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mustang Mike

Mustang Mike (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)

Autobiography of unremarkable wrestler. Fails

WP:GNG. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 10:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:30, 31 January 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 relevant content to

talk) 04:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Darshan Singh

Darshan Singh (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)

Darshan Singh is only mentioned in primary sources, namely news sources, and only respect to a single event, namely the execution of Van Tuong Nguyen. He does not meet the general notability standard, nor the specific one for people, because of lack of coverage in secondary sources. See also People notable only for one event. Request Deletion Bejnar (talk) 06:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:29, 31 January 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. JForget 00:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

English country music

English country music (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)

This article is unreferenced, and because of the nebulous subject matter, I see no way to reference it. Even if we verify the events described, we cannot easily verify that the culturual significance is anything other than the article author's opinion. Chutznik (talk) 06:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:27, 31 January 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. JForget 00:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Desktop Factory

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

Non-notable corporation, lacks external refs, is a small startup that never actually sold a product and was consumed by another company. MBisanz talk 05:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:26, 31 January 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. JForget 00:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Briody

Dan Briody (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)

Considering the only source is an op-ed piece in a newspaper and the books don't appear to be notable on their own (the first is ranked 873,000th on WP), I believe he fails our notability guidelines. MBisanz talk 05:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:26, 31 January 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) 00:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pint o' Politics: A Discourse on the Modern Poltical Climate

AfDs for this article:
Pint o' Politics: A Discourse on the Modern Poltical Climate (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)

Self-published book with no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 04:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:25, 31 January 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. Cirt (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kaneva Game Platform

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

Article describes thing which no longer exists RawrMage (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 01:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:24, 31 January 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) 00:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manga BoyZ

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

Non-notable role-playing game, with no coverage in

reliable sources. TNXMan 21:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Manga BoyZ is not a Manga but Role-playing_game ! Le Grimoire is a publisher in France since 1992. Manga BoyZ is one of the universe published by the editor. Four books are available. Reliable sources can be found. --Ellwen (talk) 19:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 01:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:23, 31 January 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. JForget 00:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Necessary Records

Necessary Records (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)

I can't find significant coverage for this

talk) 02:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

talk) 01:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:19, 31 January 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) 00:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Airpushers

Airpushers (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)

I can't find significant coverage for this

talk) 01:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:17, 31 January 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. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 21:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Summerton

Emma Summerton (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)

Not notable. Does not meet any of the criteria of

WP:PROMO Wikipeterproject (talk) 00:03, 31 January 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. Cirt (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Ferguson (photographer)

Adam Ferguson (photographer) (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)

Not notable. Does not meet the criteria of

WP:CREATIVE Wikipeterproject (talk) 00:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment - sorry, I just had to ask :)
    talk) 07:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment: That's no problem. Even though I am arguing to delete the page, I can clearly see why you would have thought it was worth creating. Of course these debates - regardless of their outcome - should never reflect on an creator/editor who has acted in good faith (as you have clearly done). Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Response): Thanks for the links. Unfortunately the definition of a "non-trivial" source is a bit subjective. There are however some guidelines on relaible sources at
WP:RELIABLE, which seems to favour news articles and scholorly sources. Self-published articles, blogs and promotional material are considered "questionable sources". Some of the links you provided might fall into the latter category. There are many, many photographers (and other creative professionals) who get mentioned in a range of material, but I am not sure that these are what the guidelines intend. Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Response. The "creative" in
WP:CREATIVE is just a tag. If you read the first line of the criteria, it's for creative professionals, where the word "creative" means "make stuff". It covers scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals. It doesn't, as far as I can tell, try to imply that the creative professional is particularly artistic. Wikipeterproject (talk) 14:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep. Interned at VII, shortly thereafter invited to join a small and select group (people from VII and Magnum) to appear (he's here) at "Seeking Justice: Social Activism through Journalism & Documentary Practice". No he doesn't meet WP:CREATIVE, just as a huge percentage of Wikipedia biographees don't meet WP:CREATIVE. Flash your tits for a photographer one day and be airbrushed into the centre pages of Playboy (US circulation 2.4M) and you are guaranteed an article, have photos by you shown in Time (US circulation 3.4M) and you're still a nobody. Do note, however, that its bizarreness aside, WP:CREATIVE is just one part of a page whose preambulatory nutshell says that A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Ferguson was covered very significantly by Photo District News, got more than a mention at Time, and is written up (not merely as an alumnus but as a featured guest) by an arm of Griffith University. These are all independent of Ferguson and their total adds up to significance to me. -- Hoary (talk) 14:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes
    WP:GNG. Coverage in Photo District News and Time is non-trivial in my opinion. Jujutacular T · C 19:57, 9 February 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_January_31&oldid=1142641505"