Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 March 13

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all to Kruger National Park#Rest camps. Consensus dictates these do not have individual notability. However, no prejudice against the future recreation of a list of rest camps if the section at Kruger National Park gets large. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular ^T · C 21:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tamboti Tent Camp

Tamboti Tent Camp (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 camping facility within a national park, lacks references to significant coverage in 3rd party sources. RadioFan (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because [insert reason here]:[reply]

Camp Shawu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

Skukuza Camp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

Orpen Camp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

Berg-en-Dal Camp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

• Redirect to
  talk) 21:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment' I would remind this editor that there needs to be something worth merging into the target, thus the deletion discussion. If consensus is that there is sufficient content there to merge, then so be it, but I'm not seeing it in these articles.--RadioFan (talk) 01:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect/merge - no independent notability. Mukadderat (talk) 16:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• MERGE - I'm not sure if 'merge' is exactly what I mean to say. It seems to me that these 21 different camps & 15 lodges within this national park could stand on their own as an article. 'Rest Camps and Lodges in Kruger National Park' or something like that -- rather than all the details of each of them being added to the main Kruger National Park article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Centerone (talk • contribs) 07:15, 16 March 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 02:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hackney Free and Parochial C of E School

Hackney Free and Parochial C of E School (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 does not assert notability of subject. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 18:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's also blatant spam as it's written in the first person. Aiken ♫ 23:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Change to keep now that reliable sources discussing the topic have been found. Aiken ♫ 01:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a high school; the arguments for keeping are at
  talk) 23:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Are you willing to do the work, TerriersFan? Aiken ♫ 23:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep'. All high schools are notable, and the article has been improved since it was nominated. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated in my comment below, since this is a school for age 11-16, I consider this a middle school. Furthermore, I would not consider a middle school to be worthy of inclusion unless it was particularly outstanding, which does not seem to be the case with this article. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 20:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I respectfully disagree. We should not allow any article to be exempt from using

  WP:OR just because of what it's about. Please prove that all high schools are notable – provide multiple sources that show significant discussion of the topic and I'll happily change my vote to keep. Aiken ♫ 00:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep - easily meets
  is the sort of secondary school regularly kept at AfD. Bearian (talk) 01:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Per
  WP:BEFORE, especially #9 and #10.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment The article is about a school for those in the 11-16 age range, and is therefore a middle school. I nominated the article with the understanding that articles on high schools are generally included, articles on elementary schools generally aren't, and that articles on middle schools would be considered on a case by case basis. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 20:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it is a secondary (high) school, in the UK. Aiken ♫ 20:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, this would be considered a middle school. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 00:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the UK though, so your point is irrelevant. Aiken ♫ 13:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Since the subject of this article is equivalent to a US middle school, I will treat it as a US middle school. 139.225.254.75 (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is this an appalling US-centric comment, it is also inaccurate. Middle school age ranges vary from state to state but typically they are up to 14, two years lower than a UK high school.

talk) 01:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

OK, when I said "equivalent", I should have said "roughly equivalent", which makes sense to me as the subject of this article serves ages 11-16. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 21:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because of the significant coverage in reliable sources. --
  Mkativerata (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep if it is a secondary school. I gather that of this type of school, many terminate at that year, while some of them have an optional program continuing to the age 18. I don;t think this corresponds to a US junior high school, but as the final educational level for most of the students would be a secondary school.It is routine and standard here for all high schools to be considered notable. DGG ( talk ) 01:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You say that you "gather that of this type of school, many terminate at that year". Can you substantiate this? Also, wouldn't a large percentage of students graduating at 16 go on to a trade school? RadManCF ☢ open frequency 21:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• UK high schools are not even roughly equivalent to US middle schools. The key criterion of a high school is that they provide the earliest recognized certification of educational attainment, whether referred to as a school leaving certificate,
  talk) 22:55, 19 March 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 as hoax per

Brenda Destiny Williams

Brenda Destiny Williams (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)

Speedy: Blatant hoax. According to the article creator (likely one of several socks promoting this person through several articles), this person is a Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue covermodel, a Victoria's Secret Angel, Vogue model, and Playboy Playmate (at the age of 16), which would make her one of the most successful models of the age. It's all very impressive except for that none of the templates at the bottom of the page back it up and no internet source has ever heard of her.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 17:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as vandalism in the form of a
  hoax, and as a second choice delete for being an extremely poorly written hoax: "There was only 1 month later and in 2006 was to parade in December through the gateway of the company, the following year his uncle Hugh Hefner, I call to your cell phone to tell her fence to be submitted to the Playboy Mansion." --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, incoherent, unverifiable, and I'm pretty sure US law forbids pornography portraying 16 year olds... Hairhorn (talk) 18:57, 13 March 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 → AA ^(talk) — 21:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

151.198.187.55/Universal Verification Methodology

151.198.187.55/Universal Verification Methodology (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)

dup of Universal Verification Methodology Anshuk (talk) 17:52, 13 March 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 02:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fever Tour

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 non-notable tour for several reasons. It won't even begin until the end of April. It has not received significant coverage in reliable sources, only brief mentions, and tours like this generally are not notable unless they are highly anticipated by mainstream music critics and are to include extremely popular acts. Therefore, it easily fails

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:CRYSTAL. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 17:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. A tour that hasn't even happened yet is
  WP:CRYSTAL clear. — Gwalla | Talk 23:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete – Most tours will have citations available for tour dates, like this one, but only a few will have extended coverage that would warrant a Wikipedia article. All I see are tour dates. No reviews, no critics expressing their anticipation, no controversies, nor is it an annual festival. I see no reason to keep this. Fezmar9 (talk) 19:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no reason for this tour to have its own article yet. Simply because it doesn't meet the guidelines in
  WP:MUSIC. With only a few dates announced there's clearly no media attention, or reviews as of yet either. Xididthepopex (talk) 01:37, 17 March 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 02:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Saeed Bhutta

Dr. Saeed Bhutta (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 academic. Only one reference provided, that of his own university bio. Google turns up nothing else relevant. (Declined speedy.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unless the article is substantially improved. It's unfortunate that this went to AfD so quickly after creation, but as it stands, it fails to meet
  WP:BLP. The University of the Punjab web site seems broken, with little information on the subject, some discrepancies (he is listed as "Dr", but his qualification is given as M.A.), and with his article "Kafi: A Genre of Punjabi Poetry" apparently having been removed. Google finds nothing else. -- Radagast3 (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment: The lack of working references and total absence of relevant Google feedback, plus the decline of a speedy delete, is why we went directly to AfD so quickly. There was no indication that time would make this subject any more notable. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In this case it seems the author did the wrong thing by removing the "speedy delete". The appropriate response would have been "hangon, I'm not finished." In the absence of new edits, we can only assume that the author is finished, and the article as it stands is a clear case for deletion. -- Radagast3 (talk) 04:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • To be clear, the speedy tag was not removed by the original author, which would violate WP policy. Another editor removed the speedy tag, as is his or her prerogative. The original author did nothing improper that I know of. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I apologise if I maligned anybody. Possibly I misread the history, which made it look like the SD tag had been added and removed twice. -- Radagast3 (talk) 05:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Now that I look a bit more closely at the history, it turns out the original author did remove the speedy tag once, but someone else reverted it. Gotta get new glasses, or go on to bed now. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• delete without prejudice - no evidence to facts claimed. Mukadderat (talk) 16:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails
  WP:PROF. Ray^Talk 03:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• tentative Delete he might be notable, but without more information on just what his publications are and their significance, it is impossible to tell. His official cv is very incomplete: [14]
• Delete in the absence of evidence that he passes
  WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:47, 19 March 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 02:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uiquipèdia

Uiquipèdia (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 site provides only revisionist propaganda. It has no notability : it's a wiki with 5000 articles. Everything is locked and censored by a couple of users. No reliable sources are avalaible about it, it's obviously out of criterias. Xic667 (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Xic667 (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – per nom. December21st2012Freak ^{Talk to me} at 17:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this page is not relevant. Ferbr1 (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Only one secondary source found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Which ? this is a blog. Xic667 (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I can't see any
  way to source this as of yet. Bearian (talk) 01:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• DeleteThe real Uiquipedia is the Asturian Wiki (http://ast.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portada) and not this Uiquipedia in Valencian that everybody knows that is the same of catalan. And I think is not real the thing that the article says "it's written in Valencian Language because it is written in
  Normes del Puig forms that are not official. The official Valencian forms are Normes de Castelló --A2107706 (talk) 15:07, 15 March 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 02:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David J. Smith (Marine)

David J. Smith (Marine) (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 Agree with nom. There is nothing to suggest his career was particularly remarkable, and that he warrants an article. Aiken ♫ 17:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per
  WP:BLP1E. ttonyb (talk) 19:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Thank you for beinging "What Wikipedia is not" to my attention. Eagle4000 (talk) 22:28, 13 March 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 02:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great Britain national cricket team

Great Britain national cricket team (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 crystal ball, per

The logo included in the article is File:England and Wales Cricket Board.svg, which unsurprisingly belongs to the England and Wales Cricket Board, not to this imaginary team. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I had PROD'd it, but BHG beat me to it. :) I'll just use my rationale from the PROD: As per
  Scottish national cricket team . There is no cricket team called the British Lions, it is the England Lions cricket team. There is already an article that discusses cricket in England. Even as a redirect it would be a misrepresentation. SGGH ^ping! 16:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete: Non existant team, so I don't need to say much more. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 16:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No such team. - Kittybrewster ☎ 16:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above. Andrew nixon (talk) 17:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a work approaching fiction. No such team, nor likely to beBrunnian (talk) 17:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – no such team, sounds like a hoax. December21st2012Freak ^{Talk to me} at 17:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Even the 1900 Olympics wasn't really a Great Britain national team. DJ Clayworth (talk) 23:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The team does not - and never has - existed (the team that won gold in the 1900 Olympics were all English. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - If there hasn't been a team named this, how can it be notable?
  _piggle 20:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per above. Harrias (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No such team. Johnlp (talk) 20:58, 14 March 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 Saaheb. JForget 02:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yaar Bina Chain Kahan Re

Yaar Bina Chain Kahan Re (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 song from the movie Saaheb. There is no new data on this article which is not covered in Saaheb. Anshuk (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Saaheb. No need to delete though. Aiken ♫ 17:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 09:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Saaheb. no independent notability. Mukadderat (talk) 16:18, 15 March 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

Qaineit (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)

So far as I can discover, all we know is that her name was on a stela and she may have been

• Keep Queen of Egypt sounds pretty notable. Despite having only one known contemporaneous source, she is mentioned in subsequent sources. --Bejnar (talk) 01:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Question Where do you find evidence that she was a Queen? It's uncertain that she was Den's wife, and coupled with the possibility that she was a wife but not queen...
    talk) 08:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete/Redirect to
  chat 07:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Den, more than notability, there just doesn't seem to be much that can be said about her. It can easily be broken back out if sources appear. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 00:31, 13 March 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, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• redirect and merge verifiable info. Mukadderat (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Madea Goes to Jail. Black Kite 19:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Madea Goes to Jail (play)

Madea Goes to Jail (play) (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 fails general notability guidelines. No significant coverage in secondary sources. It almost but not quite looks like a vanity piece. It has been around since April 2006 and the only reference is imdb. --Bejnar (talk) 22:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge both this article
  Madea Goes to Jail (film) (about the movie) into Madea Goes to Jail, which is currently a disambig page listing the play and the movie. The film is highly notable with reviews in major papers like the NYT and the Boston Globe. The play, not so much. The play/film combination is clearly notable, but it doesn't need three articles. --MelanieN (talk) 04:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC) I'm changing my vote to Keep. The research below by Arxiloxos is persuasive. The play is clearly notable. And while I find it clumsy to have separate articles for play and movie with a disambig page, there is plenty of precedent here for doing it that way - both with Tyler Perry's work and with many other situations where there was a play or book as well as a movie. --MelanieN (talk) 15:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

P.S. If the decision is to simply delete this page, then the disambig page Madea Goes to Jail should also be deleted - or better it should become a redirect to the film. Whatever the decision is about this page, I believe we should end up with just one article. --MelanieN (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with User: MelanieN. Merge everything into Madea Goes to Jail, mention both in the lead of the article, and have a separate small section about the play.--PinkBull 15:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Merge The play did inspire a movie...merge the play and movie was one page per above.
  chat 04:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge As per Melanie's suggestion. The play is the inspiration for the famous film, so there is no reason to delete this outright.
  talk) 12:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I agree with the idea of a merger, but I disagree with your reasoning. Notability is not transferred, and there is no need for a redirect with the tag "(play)" if there is only one article. So merge and delete. --Bejnar (talk) 19:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This play, like all of Perry's "Madea" theatrical productions, was massively successful, toured widely, and was extensively covered and reviewed. A search of <"Madea Goes to Jail" play> at Google News produces hundreds of hits, and while many of them aren't about the play, here are some that are:
  Minneapolis Star-Tribune("The mighty `Madea' visits Minneapolis; As in other cities, Tyler Perry's mostly black fans are flocking to his show, mixing soul concert, sass, song, sermon and sweet inspiration." . . . "Now he is making his Minneapolis debut in "Madea Goes to Jail," which opened to whoops and hollers Thursday at the Orpheum Theatre.") [22]; Dallas Observer[23]. I can keep going, but I think the point is made. If the editors decide it's better to deal with each Perry property in a combined article about the corresponding play and movie, that might be a legitimate editorial decision, but it sure as heck isn't because the plays aren't notable.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Since most, if not all of the articles that

WP:PLOT in the process. The level of coverage suggested by Arxiloxos

comments above are not quite borne out by the texts of the articles, please do read them. For example, the article in The Boston Globe reads in its entierty:

"Madea comes to Worcester"   Over the past six years, Tyler Perry has become an industry. His success began with plays, such as the new Madea Goes to Jail, which is at the DCU Center in Worcester this weekend. Madea, Tyler's popular character, has spawned smash films, such as Diary of a Mad Black Woman. Madea began as a tribute to Perry's mother and aunt and was never intended to be the franchise it has become. But after the first production, Madea was too popular for Perry to put on the shelf. Perry says he will retire Madea after Madea Goes to Jail, at least for a couple of years while he works on other projects. He begins production on Daddy's Little Girls next month, which he will produce and direct from his own screenplay, before moving on to Jazzman's Blues, another of his scripts. Madea might return after that, but for now, Perry will be happy to have a break. I want to step back for a minute and take it all in, he says. Madea Goes to Jail runs tonight through Sunday at the DCU Center in Worcester. $52.50-$55.50. 617-931-2000, www.ticketmaster.com. --Bejnar (talk) 16:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The articles I selected were taken from the first few pages of search results; they were all written in connection with a production of "Madea Goes to Jail." Some are straight reviews, some are background, some are brief, but it's not true to say that they all place "emphasis on Diary of a Mad Black Woman", and there are many, many more pages of search results, bearing in mind that many of them are at pay sites so you can usually see just a few lines. But this is a little bit beside the point. Merging the articles for each Madea play/film, or even merging all the Madea articles into one, as a matter of editorial discretion, is one thing, although I certainly don't think it would be appropriate to do this at Tyler Perry since he is now connected with considerably more that just Madea. The key point is that a merger decision for one property in a big, hugely popular series, shouldn't be done via a narrowed AfD based on a nomination claiming, contrary to the evidence, that the subject had "no significant coverage in significant sources" and was akin to a "vanity piece".

Perry's Madea plays have been a massively successful, very long lived project, with significant impact in African-American popular culture, and they deserve thorough encyclopedic treatment. Currently, it appears that each of Perry's plays has its own article, and and any substantial change in this structure ought to be discussed with reference to the whole corpus, not just one small part of it. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:55, 14 March 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

Baldwin P. "Bulletproof" Vess (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 minor character without any reliable third person sources or notability it should be merged or deleted Dwanyewest (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Main character of a notable cartoon series and toyline. He was the leader of the good guys as I recall. And all of the characters from this series should've been nominated together to save us some time. You seem to be going after one series after another, nominating everything in it. Dream Focus 07:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- yet another article about a character from a minor TV show that has absolutely no
  original research. The tone of the article is also excessively flowery and, while for proper articles this is an issue that can be fixed, here it cannot be done because there are no sources to enable balanced coverage. Reyk _YO! 10:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete nothing of value to be had from this article 84.9.159.20 (talk) 14:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• <del> — per nom as unsourced, non-notable. it's wp:plot and wp:or. Jack Merridew 20:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  C.O.P.S., since it's reasonable to assume that this is and could be a useful search term. The only information reliably sourced (elsewhere, mind) is the voice actor, so there is nothing really to merge. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as article fails to cross either the verifiability or notability thresholds. Would normally suggest merge to main article but the vast majority of this information is already included in the
  C.O.P.S. article ice certainly warranted. - Dravecky (talk) 07:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep in some capacity per
  WP:SENSE. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep and reference better, standard fictional biography. --69.142.103.133 (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge. Has one reference - main character and toyline suggests sourcing feasible. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep main character in major series. Conceivably merge, but I think that for the main characters an article can be justified. In any case, it would certainly be a redirect not a delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 05:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the detailed sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.171.234.216 (talk) 10:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The source is a basic description which hardly covers the subject character hardly worthy of an entire article wikipeda's guidelines state that sources must substantially cover the subject if this subject has to be kept I think it should be merged as there is not overwhelming sources to justify a solo article. Dwanyewest (talk) 14:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:GNG. No evidence whatsoever that this fictional character has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." — Satori Son 14:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

It seems that this AfD was never listed on a daily log. I have added it to today's log. Flatscan (talk) 05:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The argument for for keeping this article seems to notability is inherited because he appeared in COPS as a main character but the only reference is from a encyclopaedia which barely gives a brief description of the character but which is that character was voiced by Ken Ryan now that is hardly substantial coverage to justify a whole article. Dwanyewest (talk) 05:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, I still think he's notable as the main character of a notable series. At least the nominator's claim that this is a "minor character" is invalid in my opinion. JIP | Talk 06:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not enough material for an encyclopaedia article. Just a retelling of the story. People would do better to buy/rent the DVDs, read the comic books, or whatever. Kitfoxxe (talk) 07:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• comment Whatever the problems, there does seem to be quite enough material--if anything , it needs to be shortened. the work itself is a suitable source, and the almost complete emphasis of plot is appropriate, for a spin off article, but not the entire work. DGG ( talk ) 06:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with
  WP:PLOT. Dwanyewest (talk) 07:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to
  C.O.P.S.. The show itself is only arguably notable. It currently has insufficient citation to reliable secondary sources. This article definitely fails the notability standard for coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per Reyk. There is no real world notability to speak of, and worse yet, there are NO third party references in this article! JBsupreme (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not factually accurate, as the article does indeed contain a third party reference. It is also not truthful to say it has no real world notability. Main characters that appear both in a show and as a toy that we can hold in the real world are indeed notable. We can indeed
    verify from a secondary source that "C.O.P.S. centred on the story of Baldwin ‘Bulletproof’ Vess, a sort of techno Elliot Ness, and his crusade to bring down Brandon ‘Big Boss’ Babel, the cat-loving, iron-fisted mafia godfather of Empire City." No legitimate reason exists whatsoever for redlinking the article of the main character of a mainstream franchise and certainly not when it contains some secondary source references that can be merged to the main series article. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Indeed, the nominator's claim "a minor character" when discussing the single most prominent character in an established notable series makes it seem like he/she thinks individual television show characters are automatically non-notable. JIP | Talk 20:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with cops. Was this tried originally? Okip 00:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and then use the article talk page to discuss a possible merge and redirect. Article subject is not a minor character, but is rather a major character in a notable series and has real-world notability through being subject of a notable toyline. Specially NOW that the article has been sourced since nomination, issues with article length should be handled through
  regular editing and not deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Notable lead character of notable show adequately supported by encyclopedic references. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• One of the links used as a sources I believe is a
  fansite [24] used to justify this article and the information is more about the show than the character which means its not substanial coverage. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• You are mistaken. Dennis Publishing are professional publishers and the source has an editorial staff. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps, but the source provides only the barest of mentions. Abductive (reasoning) 08:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Redirect. My searches reveal only trivial mentions of this topic, always in the context of the show. I searched without the "Bulletproof", and by "bullerproof vess" (get it? Bulletproof vest?) and found only the name of the voice actor. But this is covered in the main show article, so the character had not been analyzed at all in reliable third party sources. Abductive (reasoning) 08:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm aware of
  Terrorcons have, to my recollection, appeared in less than a dozen of the Transformers cartoon's almost one hundred episodes. Baldwin P. "Bulletproof" Vess, on the contrast, has appeared in pretty much every episode ever of C.O.P.S. JIP | Talk 21:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Commment: Lots of keyboard wear created by this discussion. I perceive that the show is considered notable, so we're just arguing about whether the primary character gets his own page or not? Either way, that's just an organizational question of where to put this content, whether here, or on the show page with a redirect. Having the separate article does no noticeable harm to the project, so I'll lean keep.--Milowent (talk) 18:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rock Krusher were merged and from what I can see no notable information from either article has been merged because they like this are merely plot summaries and there is nothing worthy merging except character names Dwanyewest (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 12:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep. Major/main character in a notable series is a suitable spin out article. As usual a route of less confrontational and thoughtful discussion should have
  -- Banjeboi 13:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• If you are referring to
  C.O.P.S. is very sparse. We should work with reorganization based on sourced content. Not much coverage is being provided by those who are voting to keep, and my personal research does not show much, either. I'm not sure why people are arguing that being a main character equates a stand-alone article. Amount of sourced content should be our litmus test, and if the passage in "Reception" is the best that can be done, we should present the character within the constraints of the main article. Erik (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep - The article has 2 sources, but there might be more out there. December21st2012Freak ^{Talk to me} at 17:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't see significant coverage in the sources given and I haven't been able to find any on my own. Only two lines in the entire article have actually been verified: his existence and a name-drop from a nonnotable blogger. ThemFromSpace 09:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge or redirect. Most of the keep !votes here ignore policy. Nothing supports the proposition that major characters from notable cartoone are somehow notable. Sounds like
  Mkativerata (talk) 21:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, main character from notable series. The policy supporting this is called Wikipedia:Summary style. As the main character in the series, nearly any discussion of the series will cover him. If there is enough content, it is legitimate to split off the section on this character into its own article. --GRuban (talk) 15:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Without any
  secondary sources which analyse the topic, the topic isn't notable. There is no need to invoke summary style, since there is zero information available from secondary sources. Abductive (reasoning) 18:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge to
  WP:SS does not apply here; merging preserves edit history and consolidates all C.O.P.S information in one place. Erik (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I think is likely the only acceptable compromise because many of the C.O.P.S. characters have been merged into the main character and there clearly isn't sufficient third person data to justify a solo article I would rather a decision one way or the other rather than a no consensus like Big Boss. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No evidence of real-world notability, the article's one reference does not prove that. Ryan4314 (talk) 15:45, 21 March 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, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Nering

Michael Nering (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 article for a non-notable person, with no secondary sources and only a few obscure primary sources written by themself. This page has been tagged for notability since 2008, and has still not been provided any evidence. I added a prod tag, but it was continually removed by someone - I assume the article's subject - with no reason, no discussion, and still no evidence for notability. Iulus Ascanius (talk) 15:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the notability is being positioned as a researcher. This person meets none of the criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (academics).Iulus Ascanius (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails to provide references, other than some publications (GS cites for the publications given are 27, 23, 40, ??). Fails
  WP:BLP. -- Radagast3 (talk) 11:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Insufficient evidence of notability for satisfying
  WP:ACADEMIC. Nsk92 (talk) 00:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak Delete. As the article is written, the claim depends largely on two of his papers, "The Distribution of Person Fit Using True and Estimated Person Parameters" (1995) and "A comparison of the person response function and the l(z) person-fit statistic" (1998), but these papers have been cited only 18 and 15 times, respectively, over their publication lifetimes of >10 years. WoS shows his h-index is only 5 with cumulative citations to all his research work of roughly 90. His books are listed, though not emphasized, but it's not clear whether they've had significant impact. I'm glad to change positions here if someone can show that they have. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• I'm from the area, and the impact is minimal. The 2005 book is volume 144 in a long series of what are essentially monographs. The 2010 book has been out for 11 days, so there is of course no impact. Moreover, Nehring only served as editor. If you click on that link, you'll see that all the content was written by other people.Iulus Ascanius (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Notability is not established. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. Despite the books, I don't see a lot of evidence for passing
  WP:PROF, but I'm not convinced this criterion is so relevant since he seems not to be an academic). —David Eppstein (talk) 02:45, 19 March 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 02:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ctrl+Alt+Del: The Animated Series episodes

List of Ctrl+Alt+Del: The Animated Series episodes (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)

List of episodes for a non-notable web series.

The series was previously nominated at Articles for Deletion and was merged into the webcomic article, which was subsequently also deleted at Articles for Deletion. Taelus (talk) 15:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, ideally speedily as a page dependent on an already deleted page. Guy (Help!) 19:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Ctrl+Alt+Del's article was not deleted but redirected; either way, this is effectively a G8 speedy deletion in that it is a subpage of a now no longer (effectively) existing page. Delete with haste. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Ctrl+Alt+Del was deleted, history and all, and a redirect put in its place. See the AFD [25]. This article seems rather pointless without the main one. [26] Google news search for Ctrl+Alt+Del: The Animated Series gives 18 results, but none of them readable without a paid subscription. [27] So no idea if this series has been covered anywhere. Dream Focus 07:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

http://www.joystiq.com/2005/12/02/ctrl-alt-del-the-animated-series/ An editor at joystiq mentioned these episodes. I can't remember if joystiq is a reliable source or not. Where are all the reliable sources listed? Other places might mention this also. Looking through all the Google results after some filtering. [28] Dream Focus 07:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the source guidelines at

WP:VG/S

- Joystiq "A blog network; use of this site and its affiliates should be carefully considered. Often, it is best to demonstrate the reliability of the individual authors sourced."

Additionally, that page they did on it doesn't seem to say much other than "This will exist. And it will cost this much and be out in Feb.", so I am unsure it helps with notability here. --Taelus (talk) 11:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, non-notable animation based on non-notable webcomic, lacking in significant coverage by reliable sources. Or Speedy delete under Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G8 Starblueheather (talk) 18:42, 14 March 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, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Slim Domit

Carlos Slim Domit (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)

Being the son of the world's richest man is not sufficient to establish notability. His merits as a business executive include nothing about why Wikipedia should have an article on him.

• Note: This debate has been included in the
  talk) 15:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment I'm guessing that none of the spanish articles about him on google news contain anything notable? Silverseren^C 21:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked that. If it is likely that there are sides to him that may make him notable, the article may be flagged for {{

talk) 07:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep. The plentiful coverage found by the Google Books and News archive searches linked above shows obvious notability, as would be expected for the chairman of a company with $5.5 billion annual revenue and nearly 80,000 employees.
  Phil Bridger (talk) 10:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep With the recently added references I am convinced that the subject is notable in his own right. __
  talk) 14:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silverseren^C 15:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As has been noted, this article can be improved, so I have tagged it for rescue. Silverseren^C 15:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to make the comment that the article still doesn't assert notability. I have changed my opinion from nominating the article for deletion to keep, but I'd like to see the article text make a better case of why he is notable. The now presented references do seem to have enough information about him to make this case. __

talk) 19:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

How is saying the the subject is chairman of a company with $5,500,000,000 annual revenue and nearly 80,000 employees not an assertion of notability?

Phil Bridger (talk) 19:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Because if that is all the information we present we need simply a redirect to that company's article which states that he is their CEO. __

talk) 20:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep COB of one of the world's largest companies is notable. Even if he holds that position merely by family influence, he holds that position, and it still makers him notable . DGG ( talk ) 02:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - He has plenty of
  reliable third party press coverage and is notable for being a chairman of the board. The university he went to is no slouch either. --Morenooso (talk) 10:29, 19 March 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 under criterion

Raven-symoné's 5th studio album

Raven-symoné's 5th studio 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)

Typical

• Strong delete. The teenmag interview seems dated. No signs of activity, no title, no release date…way too early to have an article. (Additionally, there was no sourcing whatsoever for the very long track list, so I've removed that from the article as unverifiable.) —C.Fred (talk) 19:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Textbook
  WP:HAMMER. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. User:kww—
• Delete - standard case of
  WP:CRYSTAL. I also believe that there was another AfD recently about the same projected album, under a slightly different article title, but I can't find it. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

If you can find it, please do.

Speedy delete criterion G4 would apply most likely. —C.Fred (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

The result was keep. no consensus at all for deletion JForget 02:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sindhu Joy

Sindhu Joy (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)

Sindhu Joy is not notable enough for a WP bio. She contested a parliament election and lost but doesn't give her any major role in politics. She was a student leader and addicted to various social networking services like Facebook or Orkut. Would that make for a WP article? She was awarded PhD in some subject recently, which she calls An alter in the living as of Sindhu Joy towards Dr Sindhu Joy She fails WP:Bio. This article can be a troll magnet due to her controversial career, too. No worries deleted. --117.204.85.175 (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Google news seems to have enough material about her career as a student leader to satisfy notability concerns.[29]. (NB, I completed the nomination proces on behalf of the IP nominator.) –– Jezhotwells (talk) 12:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Enough coverage in mainstream media (starting from 2002) to satisfy
  WP:GNG. Coverage isn't limited to her failed candidacies, but focuses mainly on her role as a student leader ( to clarify: being a "student leader" in Kerala is not just restricted to campus activities. It is a highly visible and higly politicised role.) --Sodabottle (talk) 16:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment: When there is a more specific point in policy like

WP:Politician it is better to start from there. Especially so, since our subject's assumed notability is solely based on her political career. I think she would fail wp:politician although she has been much in the news recently due firstly, to her candidacy, secondly, to some controversies. --117.204.89.8 (talk) 16:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

First, coverage predates her candidacy and second "some controversies" is how lot of subjects get coverage. As long as the article is balanced and does not violate

WP:BIO which is coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources and subject has plenty of it. (and note the references added are just English ones, there must be lot more Malayalam sources)--Sodabottle (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I beg your pardon. I can't see any indepth and significant coverage of lasting nature in the media except electoral, which as you know is ephemeral and needs to be discounted per the aspects of policy we both cited. When you say, there is no harm in keeping the bio, I suggest you to do a check on the history of the article. Time and again highly inappropriate material has been added.--117.204.89.8 (talk) 17:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We agree to disagree then. I took a look the article history as you suggested. most of the disruptive edits seems to come from IPs. I have watchlisted the article and keep an eye on it. If (the article survives the AfD and) the disruptive edits continue, i will ask an admin to semi protect it. --Sodabottle (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets the test of "
  Mkativerata (talk) 18:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep "currently the National Vice President of Students Federation of India" is alone a fairly good indication of notability IMO, and there is clearly plenty of coverage in reliable sources. DES ^(talk) 23:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would be more inclined to accept this if she were he president, not the VP. For one think, some such organisations have multiple VPs. DGG ( talk ) 06:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DGG is correct. there are currently four--Sodabottle (talk) 13:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and there are hundreds of student organisations in India. --117.204.82.201 (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 11:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iorlas

Iorlas (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 character that is only mentioned in passing and never actually appears in any books. Nothing is actually know about him it's all original research speculation. Ridernyc (talk) 14:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A person who is nothing more than a name, "existing" only in a single sentence fragment. No reliable secondary sources can have recorded any substantive information about him, since Tolkien put none into the book. Deor (talk) 05:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is too little information even to merge somewhere IMO. Many characters from LoTR are more or less notable, but not every person with a single one-sentence off-stage mention and no significance to the narration, much less any real-world significance or impact. DES ^(talk) 19:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. Mukadderat (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• merge to a listing. This isvery major fiction, and it is appropriate to give at least some indication of who every named individual is. DGG ( talk ) 06:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose you mean to List of Middle-earth characters? But that article currently is a bare list, having no details and no red-linked entries. DES ^(talk) 02:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is the problem they keep redirecting and "mergeing" even though there are no targets for this cruft. Ridernyc (talk) 02:58, 20 March 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 02:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Caves of Element

The Caves of Element (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)

Upgraded from prod due to previous CSD-G11 attempts, with creator removing templates. Fails

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'd have let the PROD go until if and when the author or someone else removed the template, but yeah, as the person who PROD'd this, I agree with all the nom's points. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Spam for a game that doesn't exist yet, by a company that can't even be verified to exist. — Gwalla | Talk 00:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — doesn't seem to assert significance (or anything that can easily be verified; it doesn't cite any sources) Cheers!☮ —
  talk 12:34, 15 March 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 as a G12 violaotion. — CactusWriter | ^needles 21:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baja rc car

Baja rc 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)

Creator repeatedly removes db-spam tags. Article fails

• Speedy delete as blatant spam.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 14:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Filled with weasel wording, fails
  WP:SPAM. Darkfight (talk) 15:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy delete.
  Rankiri (talk) 16:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy delete – advertising and copyright violation, clearly goes under
  WP:G12. December21st2012Freak ^{Talk to me} at 17:39, 13 March 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

Baldwin P. "Bulletproof" Vess (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 minor character without any reliable third person sources or notability it should be merged or deleted Dwanyewest (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]