Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 March 19

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 18 March 20 March >

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 deleted after the real discussion happened in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airavata Das (2nd nomination). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Airavata Das

Airavata Das (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)

Vanity BLP. Wikidas© 00:08, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chelpedo punk

Chelpedo punk (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)

Looks like a neologism. DimaG (talk) 23:48, 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. Drop me a note when this comes out and I can restore it. Until then, deleted. Tone 20:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once (Diana Vickers song)

Once (Diana Vickers 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)

Creator repeatedly removes SD tags. Song fails

WP:CRYSTAL. GregJackP (talk) 23:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

I didn't create it, but i keep undoing the SD tag! The song is due to be released in April! It has references, what is your problem?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by LilJackie (talk • contribs) 23:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I removed the Youtube link that was placed here - this is a discussion over the possible deletion of an article. It is based on the WP standards of
    future events. What the song sounds like is immaterial to that discussion. (GregJackP (talk) 14:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC))[reply
    ]

It Doesn't get released to April!! There are many song pages which have less information and less references! I've also just added references from Amazon!--LilJackie (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Which is why it also fails
    WP:CRYSTAL (GregJackP (talk) 23:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC))[reply
    ]
  • Delete. It's probably likely the song will chart when it is released but until then, why clutter Wikipedia with an article with a yet to be notable song?
    talk) 15:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Don't Delete. This artical shouldn't be deleted, it's out soon, and soon enough your going to re-open it.. a waste of time, you will have to upload single cover again, all the information. I agree with comment abvoe, you only need to add the chart performance.--SitDownOnIt (talk) 18:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is not a valid reason for keeping an article which does not conform to policies. I42 (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week Keep. It has enough information but it needs cleaned up, other then that i would say keep.(CK...... (talk) 15:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
    • The issue is not with the quality or length of the article, but the subject itself. I42 (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is just going to have to be made again in a few weeks if it is deleted now so I there's no point deleting it. --Sumeet 92 (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it?
      WP:CRYSTAL addresses just this kind of assumption. I42 (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Keep. Why is it even being considered for deletion, it has just as much a right to have a page as any other artist releasing a song the same day. It's released in just under 4 weeks, why delete it? --Hithere2008 (talk) 15:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for all those who said don't delete because it hasn't been released yet, unfortunately and ironically, that's why there's this AFD. Please see
    csdnew 05:36, 25 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Annah Moore

Annah Moore (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)

Google search turns up only

WP:AUTHOR. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:00, 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 keep. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 23:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Martin (Broadcaster)

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 individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail

WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep A Google news search of his name and the name of his station finds results [1] from various major news sources about him.

  1. The Sacramento Bee has a number of articles about him, the first one on the list titled Rockin'steady Pat Martin and Monica Lowe have built solid careers as DJs on a strong foundation as a couple[2]
  2. Victoria Advocate mentions how he convinced a very notable band to perform at a Halloween concert. That entire article requires pay to view.
  3. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel talks of how he got members of another notable band to meet together to put aside differences. I can only see the summary, and it not mentioning what band.

His actions are notable enough for major newspapers to publish them. That makes him notable. There is more, but this alone should prove it. Dream Focus 05:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – Nice work, DF. I appreciate the potential save. ttonyb (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added a few of the mentions this guy gets. There are pages of this stuff. Why somebody leaves this as "unreferenced", I don't know. Why it get tagged for rescue, but nobody takes 2 minutes to look this guy up. Sure, 1 blog mention might not seem credible, but taken as a whole, with lots of mentions, this guy is apparently a significant character in his fishbowl.Trackinfo (talk) 16:17, 24 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Braunston

Andy Braunston (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. Article states he authored a book, but he's one of five. No other assertions of notability, no

WP:RS
.

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) 00:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iamamiwhoami

Iamamiwhoami (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 Internet meme mhking (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This seems to be both notable and anything but a mere meme. Google recognizes the keyword and reports about a quarter of a million references and Bing somewhat more. Organizations working this story include not just music sources such as MTV, Billboard, and Variety, but sites interested in puzzles and decryption. It's likely to become an iconic example of viral networking which has spread well beyond its expected audience. Not counting video postings on other sites (Hulu, etc), YouTube alone reports considerably more than a million views in toto. This is an article worth keeping, and if we don't, Wikipedia may be the one place on the web where information about it can't be found. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 06:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject has been treated not only by semi-mainstream sources like MTV and Billboard, but even by the Times Online; I added the reference to the article. Notable enough to pass muster IMO. --MelanieN (talk) 02:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This viral campaign has moved a few people in the world (about 1,6 mio), so why shouldn't it be mentioned at wiki? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.237.177.40 (talk) 09:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, at least until the identity of whoever is behind this is revealed. This viral campaign is clearly marketing something, and once we find out who or what that something is, the information should be moved to the appropriate page; until then, keeping the article seems reasonable. The Mach Turtle (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, of course. I'm a new user, but this seems significant to me, a viral phenomenon rather than a 'meme', whatever that means in this context. I notice Google turns up double the hits on iamamiwhoami that it does on some of the likely candidates such as Jonna Lee and about 12 times that of Karin Andersson. Keep. --Leigh 22:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep per above, and possible snow close.
    csdnew 05:37, 25 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 Shortland Street. Content may be merged at editorial discretion. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 23:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Worthington

Isaac Worthington (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)

Character has existed for too short a time to achieve notability. No sources beyond promotional and fan-edited sites. Article does not attempt to discuss real-world context - just a plot summary. dramatic (talk) 22:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We can cover that when reliable sources cover the attention (and I don't mean "Throng"). dramatic (talk) 20:52, 22 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Astro Boy 2

Astro Boy 2 (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)

Cannot be

reliable sources
. Google searches comes up empty. Per
WP:CRYSTAL
. Deprodded by article creator, AfD'd instead. Jarkeld (talk) 22:17, 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 no consensus. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 23:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taproot Foundation

Taproot Foundation (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 reliable thrird party sources reporting on this organization. Lots of news hits but the are mostly press releases. The few actual news hits are reporting on people who happen to be members of the group not the group itself. Ridernyc (talk) 22:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, a few passing mentions as Ridernyc states, also some press releases. Insufficient to establish notability. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The current entry is VERY weak, but organization operates in 6 cities nationally with third party references from time magazine, forbes, msnbc, fast company, new york times, chronicle of philanthropy, etc. organization's "pro bono action tank" and president aaron hurst also reported on by many third party sources Rebecca273747 (talk) 02:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then you will have no problem at all providing us with these independent references that discuss the organization not it's members. Ridernyc (talk) 02:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just added a few references/websites (and i got rid of a few sentences that were very biased/ unsubstantiated)- do you think this is more on track? i can go in and add more references, but I dont have much experience editing wikipedia articles (or dealing with the wikipedia etiquette) and (full disclosure) I know some of Taproot's New York staff so I didnt want to make any big changes/overstep my bounds. I tired to make it more objective/supported than it was before. thoughts/input? are the types of websites and references I added appropriate/moving in the right direction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebecca273747 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
sorry! not used to the coding for signing either!Rebecca273747 (talk) 05:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through the time article and found no mention of Taproot, and the other sources seem to be from somewhat questionable sources. Seems this organization is spending a lot of money on PR. Ridernyc (talk) 13:39, 18 March 2010 (UT
They're in the times article but its not a great reference- swapped it out for references from forbes, ny times, and onphilanthropy which i think are a bit stronger- maybe that's helpful? Rebecca273747 (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Forbes article is a passing mention while discussing another person. We need substantial coverage of the organization in reliable sources. Would love to see this non-profits reports and see how much they spend on PR. Ridernyc (talk) 23:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 22:12, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mundane cyborgs

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

Possible hoax, article on parent family of cyborgs is nominated for speedy deletion. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 21:33, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Akimbo Podcast

Akimbo Podcast (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)

Podcast of questionable notability. Provided sourced are either primary sources or furm posts - no independent or verifiable third-party sources provided.

TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Subject doesn't seem terribly notable. I'm sure there are thousands, if not millions, of similar podcasts. Why does this one merit an article? RadManCF ☢ open frequency 21:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unremarkable podcast, I was the one who tagged the declined speedy.

csdnew 23:31, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GodzHell

GodzHell (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)

Game of questionable notability. Previously deleted under

TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:22, 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 redirect to ASCII art. Content may be merged at editorial discretion. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 23:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2channel Shift JIS art

2channel Shift JIS art (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 about the ASCII art which is used on, and comes from, a Japanese Forum. Not one reference to demonstrate notability, this entire article is a mass of OR Jac16888Talk 20:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki to WikiBooks for a book on text-mode character based art ("ASCII art") and then merge/redirect to ASCII art (which needs to be renamed anyways, since it's not all ASCII). 70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect The article contains too much unnecessary information about characters of a long list. Following 70.29.210.242's recommendation, only a single representative character (e.g. Monā) should be included in the article ASCII art. 24.98.201.105 (talk) 02:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect/Leave I　think this articles merge The Shiftjis-art.(or leave).--基 建吉(MOTOI Kenkichi) (talk) 20:48, 22 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. Mentioned on the wthr article, seems enough. Tone 20:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Calabro

David Calabro (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 on an insufficiently notable local news sportscaster. Does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (people). Contested PROD, so comes here for deletion. — Satori Son 20:05, 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 Keep Clear consensus on notability and sourcing. As per DGG, disagreeing with a person's position is not grounds for deletion. Mike Cline (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Attwood

Tony Attwood (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 academic whose article only has a single citation. And most of the page consists of what is apparently advertising for his books that are published at "Future Horizons", a source fringe at best. UltraMagnusspeak 19:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Unclear whether this AfD is intended to relate to Tony Attwood the psychologist or Tony Attwood (writer), the direct mail writer? Neither of the pages has been marked with an AfD notice. AllyD (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it is the psychologist, his page lists a lot more than the Future Horizons publications, including two books at 2598 & 6451 in Amazon UK sales rankings. They're also available in French, German and Japanese translations. And try typing Tony Attwood into Google Scholar for a massive number of citations in studies on Asbergers. Even if this AfD is properly flagged, it looks doomed to fail. AllyD (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AfD wasn't properly formed (step 1 missing). I've fixed this and remain neutral. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Apologies for that, I guess twinkle malfunctioned and didn't add it to the page, I will check in future that it worked correctly --UltraMagnusspeak 08:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Twinkle does that to me sometimes too, no worries :-) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Established authority. GS cites give
    WP:Prof #1, at least. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:46, 22 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 Current Protocols. Already redirected. Tone 20:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current Protocols in Immunology

Current Protocols in Immunology (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 textbook of the Current Protocols series. The editor, User:Cpeditorial has created a set of these book articles. I see nothing notable, except links to buy, when I google search for them. Would possibly support a merge to Current Protocols (a page I am not nominating).

Collectively, the page is simply a topic listing, and a link. The entry has

WP:DIRECTORY issues, largely due to a lack of notability for each. Shadowjams (talk) 19:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Speedy redirect to
    Supreme Court Reporter. The individual state reporters are not separately notable. Studerby (talk) 21:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge They can best be treated together. or possibly merged. Current protocols is not a textbook. It is a notable group of publications , one of the the major classic groups of reference works in biochemistry and related subjects. It's published by Wiley, a major biomedical publisher. It's indexed in Scopus, Pub med, Excerpta Medica, the standard indexes. It would probably be possible to show the publications as individually notable, but that does not mean that merging might no be the best way to present the material. The best known of the series, Current methods in molecular biology is in over 500 WorldCat libraries in print format; the present title, Current Methods in Immunology, is in print format in 187.) As books, they were published as a binder of looseleaf sections for the methods, and were updated by additional sections for additional methods--in that sense only are they analogous to legal reporter format. The books are not analogous in content to legal reporters. They're collections of standard methods,each section standing alone, not classified results of decisions. Science librarians consider in most librarians consider this a terrible format to keep track of. and in most libraries they were replaced by a CD ; a library received a single CD with all the sections, and unlocked those titles it had subscribed to. They are now usually subscribed to in the form of a database, and the library pays for what sections it chooses. It is extremely difficult from available records to find out how many libraries subscribe to which of the sections. I agree the contents as entered were not very useful, and I'll fix up the article or articles. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 25 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 Current Protocols. Content may be merged at editorial discretion. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 23:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current Protocols in Human Genetics

Current Protocols in Human Genetics (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 textbook of the Current Protocols series. The editor, User:Cpeditorial has created a set of these book articles. I see nothing notable, except links to buy, when I google search for them. Would possibly support a merge to Current Protocols (a page I am not nominating).

Collectively, the page is simply a topic listing, and a link. The entry has

WP:DIRECTORY issues, largely due to a lack of notability for each text. Shadowjams (talk) 19:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Merge They can best be treated together. or possibly merged. Current protocols is not a textbook. It is a notable group of publications , one of the the major classic groups of reference works in biochemistry and related subjects. It's published by Wiley, a major biomedical publisher. It's indexed in Scopus, Pub med, Excerpta Medica, the standard indexes. It would probably be possible to show the publications as individually notable, but that does not mean that merging might no be the best way to present the material. The best known of the series, Current methods in molecular biology is in over 500 WorldCat libraries in print format; t As books, they were published as a binder of looseleaf sections for the methods, and were updated by additional sections for additional methods--in that sense only are they analogous to legal reporter format. The books are not analogous in content to legal reporters. They're collections of standard methods,each section standing alone, not classified results of decisions. Science librarians consider in most librarians consider this a terrible format to keep track of. and in most libraries they were replaced by a CD ; a library received a single CD with all the sections, and unlocked those titles it had subscribed to. They are now usually subscribed to in the form of a database, and the library pays for what sections it chooses. It is extremely difficult from available records to find out how many libraries subscribe to which of the sections. I agree the contents as entered were not very useful, and I'll fix up the article or articles. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 25 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 Current Protocols. Tone 20:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current Protocols in Cytometry

Current Protocols in Cytometry (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 textbook of the Current Protocols series. The editor, User:Cpeditorial has created a set of these book articles. I see nothing notable, except links to buy, when I google search for them. Would possibly support a merge to Current Protocols (a page I am not nominating).

Collectively, the page is simply a topic listing, and a link. The entry has

WP:DIRECTORY issues, largely due to a lack of notability. Shadowjams (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Merge They can best be treated together. or possibly merged. Current protocols is not a textbook. It is a notable group of publications , one of the the major classic groups of reference works in biochemistry and related subjects. It's published by Wiley, a major biomedical publisher. It's indexed in Scopus, Pub med, Excerpta Medica, the standard indexes. It would probably be possible to show the publications as individually notable, but that does not mean that merging might no be the best way to present the material. The best known of the series, Current methods in molecular biology is in over 500 WorldCat libraries in print format; t As books, they were published as a binder of looseleaf sections for the methods, and were updated by additional sections for additional methods--in that sense only are they analogous to legal reporter format. The books are not analogous in content to legal reporters. They're collections of standard methods,each section standing alone, not classified results of decisions. Science librarians consider in most librarians consider this a terrible format to keep track of. and in most libraries they were replaced by a CD ; a library received a single CD with all the sections, and unlocked those titles it had subscribed to. They are now usually subscribed to in the form of a database, and the library pays for what sections it chooses. It is extremely difficult from available records to find out how many libraries subscribe to which of the sections. I agree the contents as entered were not very useful, and I'll fix up the article or articles. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 25 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 Current Protocols. Tone 20:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current Protocols in Cell Biology

Current Protocols in Cell Biology (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 textbook of the Current Protocols series. The editor, User:Cpeditorial has created a set of these book articles. I see nothing notable, except links to buy, when I google search for them. Would possibly support a merge to Current Protocols (a page I am not nominating).

Collectively, the page is simply a topic listing, and a link. The entry has

WP:DIRECTORY issues, largely due to a lack of notability for each textbook. Shadowjams (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Merge They can best be treated together. or possibly merged. Current protocols is not a textbook. It is a notable group of publications , one of the the major classic groups of reference works in biochemistry and related subjects. It's published by Wiley, a major biomedical publisher. It's indexed in Scopus, Pub med, Excerpta Medica, the standard indexes. It would probably be possible to show the publications as individually notable, but that does not mean that merging might no be the best way to present the material. The best known of the series, Current methods in molecular biology is in over 500 WorldCat libraries in print format; t As books, they were published as a binder of looseleaf sections for the methods, and were updated by additional sections for additional methods--in that sense only are they analogous to legal reporter format. The books are not analogous in content to legal reporters. They're collections of standard methods,each section standing alone, not classified results of decisions. Science librarians consider in most librarians consider this a terrible format to keep track of. and in most libraries they were replaced by a CD ; a library received a single CD with all the sections, and unlocked those titles it had subscribed to. They are now usually subscribed to in the form of a database, and the library pays for what sections it chooses. It is extremely difficult from available records to find out how many libraries subscribe to which of the sections. I agree the contents as entered were not very useful, and I'll fix up the article or articles. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 25 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 Current Protocols. Tone 20:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current Protocols in Bioinformatics

Current Protocols in Bioinformatics (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 textbook of the Current Protocols series. The editor, User:Cpeditorial has created a set of these book articles. I see nothing notable, except links to buy, when I google search for them. Would possibly support a merge to Current Protocols (a page I am not nominating). Shadowjams (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge They can best be treated together. or possibly merged. Current protocols is not a textbook. It is a notable group of publications , one of the the major classic groups of reference works in biochemistry and related subjects. It's published by Wiley, a major biomedical publisher. It's indexed in Scopus, Pub med, Excerpta Medica, the standard indexes. It would probably be possible to show the publications as individually notable, but that does not mean that merging might no be the best way to present the material. The best known of the series, Current methods in molecular biology is in over 500 WorldCat libraries in print format; t As books, they were published as a binder of looseleaf sections for the methods, and were updated by additional sections for additional methods--in that sense only are they analogous to legal reporter format. The books are not analogous in content to legal reporters. They're collections of standard methods,each section standing alone, not classified results of decisions. Science librarians consider in most librarians consider this a terrible format to keep track of. and in most libraries they were replaced by a CD ; a library received a single CD with all the sections, and unlocked those titles it had subscribed to. They are now usually subscribed to in the form of a database, and the library pays for what sections it chooses. It is extremely difficult from available records to find out how many libraries subscribe to which of the sections. I agree the contents as entered were not very useful, and I'll fix up the article or articles. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very aware of the content distinctions; the point re: legal reporters is that the series collectively are an information tool in a field, and that the individual titles represent a relatively non-notable segmentation of the information. The might caveat on Current Protocols itself was because I'm unfamiliar with day-to-day practice in the bio-medical sciences and therefore do not know if the Current Protocols series is the only/dominant/leading tool of this type, or a "Johnny-come-lately" with .05% market share that is being flogged heavily by a major publisher, with everybody who's anybody using (to pick a plausible publisher) the similar series by Elsevier. Studerby (talk) 17:44, 25 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 Current Protocols. Tone 20:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current Protocols in Essential Laboratory Techniques

Current Protocols in Essential Laboratory Techniques (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 textbook (0470089938) and aside from listings to buy it, I don't see any indications from a google search why it's uniquely notable to warrant an article. Shadowjams (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or Merge (The actual title of this one is Current Protocols Essential Laboratory Techniques, without the of) This is different from the others: its a except intended as a general laboratory reference. It could possibly best be kept separate, but it could be merged as being a selection from the other parts. It is a notable group of publications , one of the the major classic groups of reference works in biochemistry and related subjects. It's published by Wiley, a major biomedical publisher. It's indexed in Scopus, Pub med, Excerpta Medica, the standard indexes. It would probably be possible to show the publications as individually notable, but that does not mean that merging might no be the best way to present the material. The best known of the series, Current methods in molecular biology is in over 500 WorldCat libraries in print format; t As books, they were published as a binder of looseleaf sections for the methods, and were updated by additional sections for additional methods--in that sense only are they analogous to legal reporter format. The books are not analogous in content to legal reporters. They're collections of standard methods,each section standing alone, not classified results of decisions. Science librarians consider in most librarians consider this a terrible format to keep track of. and in most libraries they were replaced by a CD ; a library received a single CD with all the sections, and unlocked those titles it had subscribed to. They are now usually subscribed to in the form of a database, and the library pays for what sections it chooses. It is extremely difficult from available records to find out how many libraries subscribe to which of the sections. I agree the contents as entered were not very useful, and I'll fix up the article or articles. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 25 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Telephone Game

Telephone Game (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)

Completely unsourced, non-notable topic about a pricing game that appeared on

talk) 18:59, 19 March 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. Tone 20:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

E. E. Ramey

E. E. Ramey (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)

Mayor for two weeks of

Mayor of Ashland, Kentucky (another unnecessary entry, but never mind that), which should be amply sufficient. - Biruitorul Talk 18:59, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kami Merabi

Kami Merabi (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 cannot find significant coverage for this individual.  fetchcomms☛ 18:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I can find no significant coverage about him as a business person, nor as a male super model. All I can find a are social networking sites and directories such as Facebook and LinkedIn. This may be an autobiography as the initial editor's name is an anagram of Kami Merabi. -- Whpq (talk) 16:02, 22 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tshepang Trust

Tshepang Trust (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)

Previously nominated in a pair with Stop HIV, viewable here. Resubmitting as its own entry. - Vianello (Talk) 17:52, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Blackwood

Sarah Blackwood (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)

What good is a disambiguation page when the two pages it attempts to present are nonexistent?

local radar | current conditions) 17:29, 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 keep. Tone 20:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong First Division League 1931-32

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 seems to have little, if any, content of value, including exactly one blue link and one red link outside of the navbox.

local radar | current conditions) 17:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article needs expanding and tidying, but top-level league season pages are numerous on Wikipedia and thus the page should be kept. Eldumpo (talk) 09:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Eldumpo. Nfitz (talk) 22:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For AfD disscussion, an article should be judged on its subject not its content. As mentioned above, top-league season articles definately have a place in Wikipedia, even if this one needs expanding. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:25, 23 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 g11 self-promotion, and arguable g7 author request per one of author's (now-deleted) comments in this AFD. Note that author is now blocked for legal threats. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Estavillo

Erik Estavillo (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)

Poorly sourced, seems to be nothing but COI and coatrack. He was involved in a couple lawsuits, that's about it. Possible BLP violation since it's more about the lawsuits than the man. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think some editors think if they overwhelm us with tons of copy, we won't catch on. But I nominate for deletion definitely because of the

coatracking. (I just didn't know how to describe it before; thanks, Hammer10 lb.!) Most sourcing is likely from the creator's own website. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]


Actually, my "very informed" friends, the man behind the law@gaming name is me, Erik Estavillo himself. Now, a lot of you are voting for deletion. But before you do, I have to ask, "How many of you wikipedia editors can honestly google your name and get any results like I do?" If anything is a coatrack, it's the fact you all make assumptions about the editor while you yourselves couldn't improve an article significantly if you tried. By the way, I vote for deletion, haha. I'll always be remembered for what I did while you won't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.195.210.152 (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google results do not a Wikipedia article make. Jus' sayin'. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, self-promotion by nonnotable person. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just googled you NawlinWiki, your real name too. Talk about non-notable. Good day sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Law&gaming (talk • contribs) (the article creator).
      • Um, no, "NawlinWiki" is not my real name, oddly enough. And yep, I'm nonnotable -- that's why there's no Wikipedia article about me. Same should apply to you. Also, please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:24, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Writing Disorder

The Writing Disorder (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)

Was prodded with reason "New magazine, does not yet have any indication of notability. Article creation premature, does not meet

WP:N". Prod removed by article creator stating "I object to this article being deleted because it has been substantially updated and referenced - naming many prominent people on your site." However, there still are no sources. The added information consists mainly of name dropping: some information about the people who founded the journal, where they went to school, and who their notable colleagues were. Evidence of notability is still lacking, hence: delete. Crusio (talk) 17:10, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hellflower

Hellflower (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)

Previously deleted article about a band of questionable notability. With the exception of one news story from this week about recording an album, all provided sources are primary references. No serious indications of notability yet.

TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:57, 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 keep. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 23:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Chastain

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 doesn't meet the guidelines of professional wrestling related biographies. It lacks several points such as references, a career section, an "in wrestling" section, and the championships need more information such as how many times he won the title and who with for Tag Team Championships. Plus he is not notable enough to warrant an article at this time.

Hey yo!I didn't do it! 16:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Weak keep, he barely seems to pass
    WP:ATHLETE for his feud with The Sandman in TNA (which included two ppv matches), but that combined with his other titles and mentions in numerous reliable sources are enough to keep the article around. As for articles being deleted because notability isn't listed in the article...I think you misunderstand. Articles are deleted because the subject isn't notable, no matter if the article is great or poor. Wikipedia is a work in progress, and articles can be improved. However, when there are no sources available (which is different that them being present in the article), then it is deleted as non-notable. Nikki♥311 03:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I suggest that you either strike or refactor the first sentence of your "comment" forthwith. Even if you were right which you were not, calling other editors
bold faced liars is unacceptable. Nancy talk 15:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you. Nancy talk 15:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Nikki♥311 03:18, 26 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 closed. This isn't an article, and shouldn't be brought to AFD. One can take it to

WP:MFD if they like, though there's probably little chance of deletion there. WilyD 19:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC) The closing admin was a fucking idiot, and I've gone ahead and deleted the article as A10. So, "closed" is still the correct outcome. WilyD 21:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Roger Stritmatter:Backup/Oxfordian Theory

AfDs for this article:
Roger Stritmatter:Backup/Oxfordian Theory (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)

Duplicate of

talk) 16:54, 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Church (TV personality)

Church (TV personality) (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)

Promotional and possible autobiographical article for a "personality" of questionable notability. Only sources referenced are either primary or user-submitted - no independent or verifiable third-party sources provided.

TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete. Not notable - Does not meet qualifications for notability - Article written like a promotional piece --SuperHappyPerson (talk) 03:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)SuperHappyPerson[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 Snow Keep only nominator recommends deletion; no delete votes.

csdnew 02:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Carnival Glory

AfDs for this article:
Carnival Glory (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 is non-notable. The article consists primarily of advertising. The article was previously deleted after an Afd discussion. Clconway (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to muddy this discussion too much, but I should note that all of the above applies equally well to every one of the articles in Category:Ships of Carnival Cruise Lines. In my opinion, all of these articles should be deleted unless the ship is truly noteworthy (e.g., holds a record of some kind, was involved in a newsworthy incident, etc.). Clconway (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A notice has been made to the associated WikiProject at

WP:AFD#Notifying interested people. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:59, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Sicoli

Frank Sicoli (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. Autobiographical article for a person of questionable notability. No independent or verifiable third-party sources provided. Also a recreation of an article from the same editor deleted in 2006.

TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:34, 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 as material has already been properly transwikied to Commons, as indicated. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cardinals´ coats of arms

Cardinals´ coats of arms (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 just a gallery of images. Wikipedia is not a

WP:IG. Kimontalk 15:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

  1. Delete Yup, great repository. Just it's not needed in an encyclopedia. Buggie111 (talk) 16:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to commons for the above reasons. Ensure copying to commons has taken place (if possible) before deletion. Bfigura (talk) 17:08, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Periodic Table (Simon Basher book)

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)

Completing nomination by anon user. The rationale (with my bolding) is Fails

notability for books. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done)
15:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC) PS - If TenPoundHammer's reading this, it's not just you who fixes up redlinked AfDs. [reply]

  • Delete, I have failed to find any
    notability for books. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]

  • Keep - This book has been favorably reviewed in Publishers Weekly, New Scientist and the website of the Royal Society of Chemistry, and has also been covered in the Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books and the Journal of Chemical Education. These links have been added to the article, which has been somewhat expanded with information from these sources and others. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to cite point #10 from the section on
WP:BITE, I do not think it is a good idea to pounce on such articles when they are benign – as this one clearly was – because it can serve to drive away new contributors from the project. I think I have shown that this book fulfills the requirements of WP:Notability (books), but even before I knew that to be the case, it seemed to me to be a bad idea for the article to be PRODed and then brought to AfD. Even if the book was only of borderline notability, the project is in no way hurt by having an article about it in the encyclopedia, but we can be hurt if we drive away new editors by not helping them and by making editing here an uncomfortable or unpleasant experience. By no means does this mean that every new article written by a new editor should be immune from scrutiny, but in this case, a little bit of common sense should have come into play, at least in my opinion. The editor who created the article did a really decent job at putting it together, and deserved to be rewarded with something other than a deletion hammer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:22, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nishant Rajawat

Nishant Rajawat (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 for an unreferenced and BLP of an Indian entrepreneur brought here for what seems to be a general lack of reliable 3rd party sources

Tikiwont (talk) 15:14, 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. There are two issues here. As pointed out by the nom, there aren't any reliable third-party sources of notability, and the second issue is

WP:ATHLETE. The claims to be an "All-American" do not intrinsically pass either tenet of this (especially if he was only named as a second-teamer, which it appears that he was) and linked with the lack of other sourcing means that notability cannot be asserted at this time. Black Kite 11:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Josh Kassel

Josh Kassel (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 have nothing but respect for Mr. Kassel, but I can't see that he meets our notability guideline at

WP:ATHLETE. He had two good seasons for the Black Knights; what the article doesn't tell you is that his senior season was much less successful. At this point, he appears to be out of hockey and is presumably fulfilling his military commitment as an officer in the U.S. Army. While laudable, that's not particularly notable, and I don't think we need this article unless someone can find some reliable third-party sources to bolster alternate claims of notability. Powers T 15:09, 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 keep, no valid deletion rationale remaining, and no delete votes.

Non-admin closure --Pgallert (talk) 18:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Freedom of religion in Laos

Freedom of religion in Laos (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 essentially a copied US Government report from 2007. I would have speedy-ed it for copy-vio except the report is public domain. Hamtechperson 15:03, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carnivores (band)

Carnivores (band) (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 deleted before, and re-introdced to the project. The author has placed a {{hangon}} tag on the article this time (I was browsing through

CAT:CSD. I figured the less controversial way to figure out if this page should be deleted or not is to bring it to AFD for discussion. DustiSPEAK!! 14:10, 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 keep. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baptist Park School

Baptist Park 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)

As mentioned in the disputed prod, the article lacks any verifiable assertions of notability, and was created by a now banned user for vandalizing the same page. Funnyfarmofdoom (talk to me) 14:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thing is, determining consensus here at AfD just needs a majority of the responsible editors, which is not hard to achieve, For a disputed guideline or policy there usually needs to be somewhere between 66 to 75 % agreement--except that typically the strong opposition of only 2 or 3 people is able to prevent a finding of consensus on a policy. But you;re talking as though we were handled the policy from some authority and could not deviate from it. We make our own policy, and we can make whatever exceptions and interpretations to it we please. DGG ( talk ) 22:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I happen to think "significant coverage in reliable sources" is a standard that should apply across the board and I'll put that view across firmly in school-related AfDs. But no-one badgers me for holding that view so I won't badger those who think schools should be held to a lower standard. AfD after all is a forum for community-wide consensus just as much as our policy talk pages. --
Mkativerata (talk) 22:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep per the criteria stated at
    WP:HS/N. School's existence is verified, it has plenty of hits in GNews Archives (for sports activities, mainly), the consensus to keep high schools works well, and there is no reason to go against it here. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:33, 23 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Index of Navassa Island-related articles

Index of Navassa Island-related articles (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)

Great Seal of the United States of America) and the rest are (or ought to be) found in the main article. This list, therefore, serves no useful purpose.  Sandstein  13:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

  • That is an argument for keeping this general type of list, but what's at issue here is whether this type of list makes sense for this topic. Surely you are not arguing that we ought to have a list of this type for every article in Wikipedia? That would violate
    WP:IINFO, as does this list.  Sandstein  08:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep: Navassa Island is a territory occupied by the United States but disputed by Haiti. This territory is of sufficient importance to merit an "Index of" article. I'm not sure how deleting this article would improve Wikipedia. Yours aye, Buaidh (talk) 14:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As much as it pains me to say this: Usefulness is not a reason to keep or delete any article. That said, Navassa Island is Notable, ergo a list of articles related to it is perfectly suitable for WP. This is not an indiscriminate list. Although it can be improved, especially the lead-in, there is nothing here that violates
    WP:CLN --Mike Cline (talk) 16:04, 26 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 WSYX. Tone 20:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wsyx-dt2

Wsyx-dt2 (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)

As I mentioned in my attempted PROD, the article has no information that justifies a separate page from the main WSYX article. Upon looking at other pages discussing MyTV, all others not only make significant assertions of notability, but they have third party references and a complete history. Funnyfarmofdoom (talk to me) 13:46, 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. Tone 20:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

School of Inspired Leadership

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

Delete. Seems to be non notable school and this is the second time has been moved to mainspace. Being used as a advertsing platform.

talk) 02:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Speedy delete,
    unambiguous advertising: ...eco-friendly campus promotes the use of natural light and the entire campus is a smoke-free zone. The classrooms at SOIL are designed to promote peer networking and social interaction. Learning studios and innovative technology allow for the study process to be more interactive and impactful.... - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:55, 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.

WP:CSD#A7 - being in a foreign language is not a reason for speedy deletion, but giving no credible indication of importance or significance is. JohnCD (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Komunitas satu indonesia

Komunitas satu indonesia (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)

After plugging this into a translator, I got the following: "The Indonesian community is a group that formed in the leading networking site Facebook by Willy Christian, this group was formed with the aim of bringing people together who have a sense of concern for Indonesia. Especially the younger generation, because the hands of future generations mudalah Indonesia." It is a Facebook group, and is not notable. A speedy was declined because Not in English is not a valid speedy deletion reason. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 13:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as A7 and tagged as such.
    csdnew 13:16, 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 keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Urdu in Aurangabad

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)

Topic is too specific. Content exists in other, more general articles. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (note : the user is also the creator of this article.)

I think the article highlights the contribution of

Aurangabad city to the development of Urdu
language and culture. It traces the history of the language in the deccan and since Aurangabad was the capital of the deccan first under the Delhi sultanate and then under the Mughal Empire, its contribution to the development of the language should be recognized.

As it is, there are very few and sketchy articles on Urdu Language, therefore I request the administrators to keep this article as it helps a reader in increasing his knowledge about Urdu language. It also adds to the resource on Urdu language available on wikipedia.

Also many prominent Urdu poet and writers who do not find coverage on wikipedia are covered in this article, like: Balaji Trimbak Naik Zarra, Mirza Daud, Muhammad Mah Mehram, Arifuddin Ajiz, Dargahquli Khan Dargah, Fazli, Sarim, Lala Lachmi-narian Shafiq, Shaikh Chand and Yusuf Nazim. With so many writer and poets (not covered by specific articles) from Aurangabad I think the article does justice to the topic and does not require a deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IXU79 (talk • contribs) 09:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC) IXU79 (talk) 09:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Creator seems to have a good case for keeping. Aurangabad indeed has a urdu tradition with a number of newspapers, journals and poets. As long as the new content is sourced well i see no problem in keeping this.--Sodabottle (talk) 14:26, 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 Nomination Withdrawn Improve per N..... Mike Cline (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acting under a description

Acting under a description (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)

Author removed prod. Basically just an essay on "acting under a description". Totally unencyclopedic

csdnew 08:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

This is an emerging idea in philosophy and references have been provided to two world renowned philosophers who developed the idea. I request that this article be sent to philosophy specialists for review and judgement. I have also linked the entry to two other relevant entries that should help to provide context and scholarly credibiltity. I am a Ph.D student in philosophy and psychology and consider myself suitably qualified to write this entry

Amerywu (talk) 09:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I respect the thoughts of the reviewer and request one week to redevelop the article.

1) "Acting Under a Description" was G.E.M. Amscombe's most influential idea. One reason for adding this article was because it was missing from the Anscombe article. 2) "Acting Under a Description" has been developed over the last half century by a number of philosophers and is a key strand in the philosophy of intention (see your own article or any other article on intention). Philosophy of Intention is a separate field. 3) The explication of Hacking's work includes one example (the playground) that is not from Hacking. Providing illustrative examples is not uncommon in wikipedia. Nonetheless, I can use an example from Hacking if preferred. Other than that, there is no synthesis. 4) The article probably needs expanding to explicate the roots in Foucault as well as Anscombe.

I will work on it and appreciate any comments that make it more appropriate to the Wikipedia format. I do not write many articles for Wikipedia, but this is an article that should be available. 96.49.160.240 (talk) 15:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will work on the article and seek help from others as well. Amerywu (talk) 18:52, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon coordinator

Pokemon coordinator (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 may like Pokemon (it's my favorite thing ever),but this is just fancruft.

csdnew 08:21, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkletoes

Twinkletoes (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 series of books by non-notable people.

csdnew 07:55, 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 Delete.

Maashatra11 (talk) 11:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

831 Magazine

This magazine is still in print is focused only in central coast, MalanieN needs to do her research. Coasttocoast: please verify before you post inaccurate information.

831 Magazine (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)

Local magazine with no signs of notability. It appears to have shut down after only 2 issues. Reads like an advertisement, may be a COI despite article creator claiming to be unbiased. Coasttocoast (talk) 07:49, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Swann

Richard Swann (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)

notability requirement. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:14, 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 no consensus. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of jazz albums

List of jazz albums (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 list is impossible to maintain and has an inherently POV scope "The following is a list of the most important, notable, historically significant Jazz albums. Consequently, no albums should be in red, only the best articles should appear on this page. Album titles are first." —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not over till it's over. A deletion request doesn't stop time. ¦
Reisio (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Wikipedia is not a poll. SilverserenC 08:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A list of articles on notable Wikipedia subjects is appropriate. If we can maintain the articles, we can maintain the list. (that we might possibly have more articles than we are properly maintaining is another matter, but removing a list of them won't help things).

Categories and lists are complementary, and there is no reason not to have both. Lists have the particular advantage of providing some information about the material in which they appear, thus facilitating identification and browsing. Browsing is a key function of an encyclopedia. As a general rule, for topics like this, if there is a category, there should be a list. It should better be a complete list of those in Wikipedia than this selected list, unless some real criterion can be found. DGG ( talk )

  • Keep.
    Rankiri (talk) 16:37, 25 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 Great potential for improvement - strengthen criteria, lead-in and improve sourcing. Mike Cline (talk) 00:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Albums considered the greatest ever

Albums considered the greatest ever (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)

Almost none of this is about the "greatest album ever", but (e.g.) the greatest album of the 1970s or the greatest British album of all time. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:50, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ace of Base unreleased songs

AfDs for this article:
List of Ace of Base unreleased songs (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)

Unnecessary fork of

List of Ace of Base songs, unsourced. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:43, 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. JohnCD (talk) 19:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of rare AC/DC songs

AfDs for this article:
List of rare AC/DC songs (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)

Making them "rare" songs is inherently

WP:OR and is likely to create a perpetual problem with sources. Either expand to List of AC/DC songs or delete. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment While I'm not condoning the article (I've never been happy with it despite trimming it occasionally), this list is not actually a list of arbitrarily chosen songs, it is basically a list of songs only released in one country, songs subsequently removed from later releases, B-sides, and songs that were not officially released at all. There is no OR. That said, these criteria have never been mentioned at all. Furthermore, the term "rare" is a poorly chosen one, as few of these songs were ever truly hard to find. They were merely harder to find than most AC/DC songs. I would have recommended a simple clarification of the criteria and a change of title but the recent release of the Backtracks album has rendered the majority of these "rare" songs extremely easy to find, and in fact, "common". Removal of these would leave a rag-tag group of bootlegged and pirated songs that would be impossible to source adequately. Incidentally, most of these songs had their own articles until I prodded them all ;) AC/DC have suffered a bit on Wikipedia from utterly trivial article content. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Might be worth reading my above comment. I'm not saying the article shouldn't be deleted, but at least it should be deleted for a proper reason. It's not a subjective list. Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, due to the subjective nature and seemingly also indiscriminate, of the "rare" qualifier. -- Cirt (talk) 13:44, 26 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzz Phantoms

Fuzz Phantoms (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'd like to see what the consensus is on this one. This band has yet to release a single, let alone an album; but the band members include one notable musician. I'm thinking a redirect/merge to

Darren Cordeux Kisschasy may be appropriate here until the band achieves notability, but am interested to see if notability already is or could be established. Steamroller Assault (talk) 06:01, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David P. Emrich

David P. Emrich (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)

specific criteria for entertainers set out in Wikipedia:Notability (people). Guest9999 (talk) 05:44, 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 keep. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Martyn "Bomber" Bradbury

Martyn "Bomber" Bradbury (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)

unsourced BLP. There is some negative material here, but possibly not enough to categorise it as an attack page. I doubt that sufficient reliable sources can be found to justify an article. Prod removed without sources being added.gadfium 05:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 05:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Easy enough, he is on tv all the time and is a former Craccum Editor. Notable in my books. Lack of sources is not a problem, I spent less time to find a source than I took to write this "Keep"! (I've add it too) Mathmo Talk 05:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Being a former Craccum editor is hardly notable, otherwise I'd have an article. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 06:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and being a Craccum editor alone is hardly a reason but being one amongst a number of reasons is enough. Mathmo Talk 07:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Hi there - not sure what your protocol is on these matters - I'm the chap in question here and would very much enjoy keeping my wikipedia page thanks - the reason there are numerous edits is because I get a bit of grief from the right wing blogging community and that community seem pretty happy to edit things that are simply not true into my profile at times when debate on the blogs gets heated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.91.147 (talk) 18:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As fas as I know, none of that is sufficient reason to keep a wiki article. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:40, 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 speedy delete. Tone 20:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Elconin

Dan Elconin (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)

Appears to be a

WP:COATRACK article — it's nominally about an author, but in truth almost all of the content is actually about his novel, which itself failed a previous AFD. There's also no sourced evidence of notability demonstrated here; none of the "references" are independent sources. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 05:09, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Almost-rival

Almost-rival (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)
Also adding
Almost~rival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: Changed to redirect as article contents are nearly the same. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Author removed PROD, non-notable neologism.

csdnew 05:08, 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 00:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch Blitz World Championship

Dutch Blitz World Championship (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 event at a school.

csdnew 04:52, 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 redirect to The Beano. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Big Fat Joe

Big Fat Joe (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 character from The Beano DimaG (talk) 04:23, 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 keep. The consensus is that this is a valid use of a disambiguation page. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 07:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Akira Suzuki

Akira Suzuki (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)

Neither of the articles this page is supposed to disambiguate exists. allen四names 03:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I can't actually find a policy that supports this deletion reason but
    common sense says there's no reason to have a disambiguation page if it doesn't provide any meaningful disambiguation service. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Keep -- disambiguation entries need to have blue links, but those blue links are allowed to be in the description. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-oversight on my part, one of those days when I meant to start an article then got on something else and forgot. Stubs have been created for both now.--Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 05:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The two articles may not survive a notability challenge but they now exist. I withdraw my nomination. Thank you. – allen四names 14:25, 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. JohnCD (talk) 19:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Bennett

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

No evidence of significant coverage from reliable source. Also no evidence of major roles; according to IMDB appearance in

WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 03:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

False claim? Are you that ignorant? Barneystimpleton (talk) 03:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • False; he's scheduled to appear in the series, no evidence of "star". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – As indicated above, the film list you refer to was not his and was for a 42 year old actor. It listed the actor playing a police officer when he was 4 yrs old. I suggest you re-read the list for clarification. ttonyb (talk) 23:07, 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 Nomination withdrawn. If someone wishes to incubate this, go right ahead. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flutter (film)

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

No significant independent third party coverage. Fails notability. —Mike Allen 02:52, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vulgarism

Vulgarism (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

improvement. Rodhullandemu 02:38, 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 no consensus. Actually leaning towards a weak keep - but it would be nice over time hopefully to see some more additional source coverage in the article from other secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 04:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Intro and the Outro

The Intro and the Outro (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:NSONG
; "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album."

I have to question whether this article is anything more than a mass of

WP:NSONGS is not fulfilled. Ironholds (talk) 12:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:27, 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 no consensus. Presented here are specific reasons to merge it, specific reasons to keep it, and specific reasons why merging it is specifically a bad idea. The article is clearly not going to be deleted based on this discussion, but I'm wary of pretending there's any real consensus as to what to do with the material. ~ mazca talk 13:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joy to the World, Our Teacher's Dead

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)

Parody song with no significant cultural impact or notability. The sources listed are to forum posts and personal websites, not reliable sources. Most of the article consists of various lyrics, not prose about the song. I note that a version of this was sung by Nelson Muntz in a Simpsons episode, but not every Simpsons joke needs an article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Redirect to
    WP:N (it's a one-line reference to the relevant Simpsons episode). [13] is a one-line reference in a semi-fictionalised prose-poetry piece by author Nikki Gemmell and is neither significant nor reliable. Plenty of other hits on Google but I can't find any that constitute reliable significant coverage. The lack of consensus on the lyrics of the alleged song, plus the fact that the most widely used version was popularised by the Simpsons, is good evidence that encyclopaedic coverage of this topic in a stand-alone article isn't possible and it would be more appropriately dealt with in the article on the original version. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge and Redirect per the above analyses. --PinkBull 02:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect A merge may not be necessary ( nothing of value to add of the main article ) As an aside, the entire [[Category:Playground songs]]> seems to have
    WP:OR issues. PirateArgh!!1! 03:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • No merge, no redirect Merging this is about as good an idea as making
    God Save the Queen. It's not the old days where Wikipedia articles had to have a "fun" reference to The Simpsons, Family Guy or Monty Python. It's not a good idea to make this part of an article about the 18th century Christian hymn and popular Christmas carol Joy to the World. I'd rather have an idiotic article called "Joy to the World in popular culture" than an idiotic section in a what should remain a serious article. Mandsford (talk) 12:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • weak Keep Sufficient material for a separate article, though not referenced as well as it should be. DGG ( talk ) 19:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I won't bold a !vote since right now I don't have time to examine any sources but this song does bring back memories. I remember it being sung when I was in grade school. (early 70s) Though it was more popular on the bus then on the playground. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Mandsford - there seems enough content to call for a separate article. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:41, 26 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 no consensus. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. The issue of merging can continue on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doom Trooper

Doom Trooper (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. There was a recent AfD debate about Doom Troopers, a console title, which wound up redirected to this article, which is about a card game. The problem is that I'm unable to determine notability of this actual card game either-- the 3 mentions I found on Google Books search were trivial/passing mentions, part of a long list of other card games. JBsupreme (talk) 08:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Mutant Chronicles, which itself is in horrible shape. There needs to be a top-level article that discusses the world of Mutant Chronicles and describes each game in that world (with the notable ones, if any, having their own page linked from the top-level one) and other media (books, etc.). The movie is a part of this setting and is plainly notable [14] and I suspect the books (as a whole at least) and board game are also notable. Hobit (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:26, 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 keep. JohnCD (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fast Track (British TV series)

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)

Notability and requirement for this to have its own article are in doubt.

(talk) 00:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

talk) 16:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:21, 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 no consensus. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

76 Club

76 Club (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)

Notability of the venue is not discussed. Article consists largely of a list of performers who have appeared there. No significant coverage of the venue is shown in the references.  Frank  |  talk  22:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's hard to judge the notability of a defunct venue from decades ago, but this link from the references seems significant; it's from the BBC, or a local subsidiary, and it reviews a book which goes into great depth about the club. Also, a notable live album by the Sex Pistols,
    Anarchy in the UK: Live at the 76 Club, was recorded there. The article's English was halting but I have cleaned it up. --MelanieN (talk) 01:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Assuming you mean this link...really? ...the visit of the Sex Pistols to a shell shocked, mainly hippy, 76 Club audience in September 1976... constitutes great depth about the club? or implies an album (notable or not) was recorded there?  Frank  |  talk  03:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a book review. It's the book (the one being reviewed) that apparently goes into great depth about the "small, but mighty" 76 Club. Since we don't have the book, we have to rely on the review to tell us what it was about. Here's more, from the author himself, about what impelled him to write the book (namely, he read an article that was "singing the praises of the 76 club"). I'll let you and others judge for yourselves whether this second-hand stuff is enough corrobboration of notability, or not. I have no dog in this fight. --MelanieN (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And here's what that page says: Though some of the town's most notorious live music events are covered in some detail, for example the visit of the Sex Pistols to a shell shocked, mainly Hippy, 76 Club audience in September 1976, and the town's first encounter with Beatles style 'fan mania' with the visit of the chart topping Kinks in 1964, the emphasis is very much on local groups. 76.182.66.233 (talk) 01:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, the book is
self-published. That makes it questionable as a source, even if it does cover the 76 Club in some detail. Dunncon13 (talk) 13:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:18, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lafayette club

Lafayette club (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)

Notability of the venue is not discussed; this article largely consists of a list of appearances by touring acts.  Frank  |  talk  18:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lafayette club:Notability

It is in detail described in this book Farley, Keith (2001). An Oral History of the Wolverhampton Group Scene of the 1960's. K. Farley.

ISBN 0-9541583-0-X.--Andrey! 19:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Lafayette club:Article rework

I, the author of article. On my talk page it is written:--Andrey! 19:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not good enough to write articles on the English wikipedia, in my view. --User:Tagishsimon|Tagishsimon User_talk:Tagishsimon|(talk) 10:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

But I am ready to help the facts and links.--Andrey! 19:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:15, 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 no consensus. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MXW Pro Wrestling

MXW Pro Wrestling (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)

Doesn't meet

WP:CORP. Nikki♥311 05:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Weak Keep Barely passes
    talk) 17:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • How? "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, third party secondary sources." Which sources satisfy this? Nikki♥311 19:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The two articles in the Times Union? The MXW sections on Indy Wrestling News and The Internet Wrestling Database? There's also a sizable amount of coverage on the Declaration of Independents website, but I didn't even bother citing any of it because the entire site has been blacklisted for some reason. Demanufactured (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The first Times Union article reads like a "what is happening this weekend" deal, which doesn't assert notability. The second one, I'll give you because it gives a little more info, but barely because it is along the same lines as the other and it can hardly be considered "significant". Indy Wrestling News, the Internet Wrestling Database, and the Declaration of the Independents are not considered reliable, which is probably why the latter is blacklisted. Nikki♥311 20:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I can understand why DOI would be blacklisted (even though I'm fairly certain it's due to the content of their message board and not the content of the main site itself) but why aren't Indy Wrestling News or the Internet Wrestling Database regarded as credible? What makes them any different from Obsessed With Wrestling / Online World of Wrestling which has been cited countless times in articles regarding independent wrestling? Demanufactured (talk) 07:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Online World of Wrestling/Obsessed with Wrestling aren't reliable sources either. They cannot be uses to assert notability, but it isn't a big deal if they are sourcing non-contentious information like who won a match (although a reliable source is obviously preferable). A source is considered reliable if it is scholarly, not self-published, there is a proven fact-checking system, and/or a proven reliable source gives it a good review (like a positive book review). See
              WP:RS for more info. Nikki♥311 23:17, 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. JohnCD (talk) 19:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrannis

Tyrannis (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 as per

WP:BAND. A few links to Facebook/ Blogspot etc. Wintonian (talk) 01:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]


Artist is a songwriter as per

WP:COMPOSER. Links refer to compositions of note. mikesterpa 11:41, 19 March 2010 (PST) —Preceding undated comment added 18:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC).[reply
]

It's great that you wish contribute to the discussion particularly as the author of the article, but please be aware of
WP:COMPOSER? --Wintonian (talk) 05:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Also please have a look at
WP:NUH. Thank you again for contributing :-). --Wintonian (talk) 06:09, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SM Supercenter Commonwealth

SM Supercenter Commonwealth (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)

Blatant advertising. I tagged it for speedy deletion under G11, but the admin who reviewed it disagreed and suggested that I bring the article here or PROD it. I decided to bring it here. If kept, it needs a total rewrite. The "See Also" section is entirely about the supercenter itself, and makes my argument that this article is blatant advertising that much stronger. DustiSPEAK!! 01:38, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Airavata Das

AfDs for this article:
Airavata Das (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)

Vanity BLP Wikidas© 01:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete seems to me as per nom, but there might be some foreign language sources that could support this article. Article needs some cleaning up, but without sources it appears like a vanity piece DRosin (talk) 01:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 05:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is an advertisement. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:14, 24 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 no consensus. -- Cirt (talk) 04:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ChessV

ChessV (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)

Unverified for over two years. I haven't been able to find any reliable, independent sources. Marasmusine (talk) 14:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete due to lack of reliable secondary sources. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 21:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to Weak Delete. Could be kept if there were some independent sources. I wish the software was better known and in a later version (not yet 1.0). Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 03:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is notable, though I agree that it requires some secondary sources. GrandMattster 16:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Possible secondary sources (correct me if I'm wrong): [16] | [17] | [18] GrandMattster 16:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)][reply]
The first is a wikipedia mirror I believe, so no love there. The second seems to be in a (specialized)
WP:RS. One more reliable source and I'd !vote to keep. Hobit (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:04, 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 keep. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Bushell

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

A credited writer he may be, but I have been unable to find any

talk) 01:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Weak keep - a quick google search brings up lots of pages about the things he has written. The big thing keeping me from voting delete is that he has won two notable awards, which makes him notable under
    WP:BIO. However, these two awards are unsourced, and I cannot find anything that shows he won the award, only that The Bernie Mac Show won the awards. I think this article just needs proper sourcing, not deleting. ~ Baron Von Yiffington . talk . contribs 01:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
If we can verify his share in a Peabody, I'll gladly withdraw.
talk) 01:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep I added a few (rather weak) references to the article, so at least it is no longer unreferenced. I think he makes it as notable because he created the story and co-wrote the screenplay for Beverly Hills Chihuahua. --MelanieN (talk) 14:09, 25 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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cologne Classical Ensemble

Cologne Classical Ensemble (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)

Lack of notability. Has been marked with {{notability}} for quite some time. The only third-party mentions I was able to find on the internet are articles in local German newspapers, which do not suffice to constitute notability. Carabinieri (talk) 02:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • According to
    WP:BAND, "Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories" don't prove notability. All newspaper mentionings I was able to find merely announce the ensemble's concert dates, so that definately falls under "trivial coverage". As far as I'm able to tell, they have only released one album with Sony. That only leaves the album review in Neue Musikzeitung, which surely isn't enough to establish notability.--Carabinieri (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Would you mind telling us why this topic is notable?--Carabinieri (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I originally voted keep per this
    WP:MUSIC. My apologies, Carabinieri. avs5221 (talk) 19:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:01, 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 no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

O Outro Lado Da Porta

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)

as a musical DVD compilation,

WP:NALBUMS apply. clearly fails this. gets passing mentions in third party coverage [19]. LibStar (talk) 00:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:01, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Chi Psi

Delta Chi Psi (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 local fraternity with no evidence of anything that might be notable, lacking the sources to meet WP:ORG P98dez (talk) 00:38, 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Khan (pathan)

Khan (pathan) (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 seems to be defining a word/ term in a way that would be better suited to a dictionary. Wintonian (talk) 00:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we also delete this page: Khan (Pathan) created by the same user who is currently blocked User talk:Ihsanss86 --Wintonian (talk) 06:19, 24 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sketch Reality

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

No indication of notability, no references to support any kind of notability Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google only turns up it's website, and it basically fails the
WP:GNG Buggie111 (talk
)
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) 00:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Actors

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

No indication of notability, no references to support any kind of notability Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:24, 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 keep, withdrawal of nomination. Deletion of user pages generally needs to go through WP:Miscellany for deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 00:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rolling Hills Prep

User:Rolling Hills Prep (edit | [[Talk:User:Rolling Hills Prep|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 unless Wiki does allow articals about schools generally, also seems to be a bit like an advert. The artical was writtern by the school it's self. Wintonian (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just relised this is in the users own space, my appoligies for listing the artical and I withdraw the request. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wintonian (talk • contribs) 00:12, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_March_19&oldid=1142640742"