Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 April 28

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Ward

Alice Ward (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 (not merge or redirect): This is a vanity page for someone completely non-notable. I realize she just died and I don't mean to sound unsympathetic because I know she had a large family that loved her, but this doesn't change that fact that the entire article consists of her being the mother of boxer Micky Ward, who was played by Mark Wahlberg on film. Her death can be included in her sons' articles. (I originally requested a speedy deletion but rather amazingly this was denied so I am going this route.) [email protected] (talk) 23:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I disagree, as it seems do several other editors who have helped with the article and the one who denied your speedy deletion request. She was a real life person that someone won an

• Actors get nominated for awards for portraying non-notable characters. In itself, it is not argument for keeping an article about a subject portrayed – a person whose
  WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, this article seems to be in violation of, as it stands. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, give it time: It was only created roughly 23 hours ago, so there's still time for information to flow in. She is a pretty notable person, considering she was portrayed in an Oscar-winning film. If she was only the inspiration, fine, not that notable, but since she does have a credible background, i feel she meets notability. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 22:42 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• She died recently, at the ripe old age of 79. If she was genuinely notable, it is likely she would have had an article long ago, and not upon her death. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rharrington112 - Your logic is seriously flawed. I don't know much about Leigh Anne Tuohy, but the movie was about her (Tuohy's) philanthropy. If you want to AFD the Tuohy page go ahead -- it has nothing to do with this page, aside from Academy Award winning actresses. As far as Alice Ward, with all due respect and with serious curiosity, may I ask how she "meets notability" other than being the mother of Micky Ward and Dickie Ecklund? [email protected] (talk) 00:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't she the manager for them at a time IIRC? Connormah (talk) 06:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think my previous statements are not flawed and are valid. If someone writes an Academy Award winning role that is solely about this person, I would say that is notable enough. The news of her death is on every major news site and people are obviously interested in her and her life. (Rharrington 01:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC))

Rharrington112 - Your logic is seriously flawed. No one "deserves" an article, btw. I don't know much about Leigh Anne Tuohy, but the movie was about Tuohy's own philanthropy and actions, not her sister or her husband or her son, etc. If you want to AFD the Tuohy page go ahead -- it has nothing to do with this page, aside from Academy Award winning actresses.

You keep saying "I think" or "I would say". Try "I can show because..." Other than being the mother of Micky Ward and Dickie Ecklund, Alice Ward is non-notable. Most people have mothers and fathers; parents do not accrue notability by dint of their children's accomplishments, even if their characters are played on celluloid. In short, she doesn't merit her own article just because Melissa Leo was nominated for an Oscar and happened to win. I haven't seen such a threadbare blatantly sentimental vanity article in quite a while. [email protected] (talk) 01:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually people do 'deserve' articles. That's the point of notability and deciding who has it and who doesn't. They did something that warrants public interest and acknowledgment. It's been clearly stated that her son's wouldn't have had a career without her help, she was their manager. I can guarantee you that Leigh Ann Tuoghy wouldn't have her own page (much less be known to the public) if Sandra Bullock wouldn't have won an Oscar for portraying her in a film. Very few performances are nominated for or win an Academy Award that are based directly on real people and considering all that has to take place for that to happen it's quite an honor. I'm sure the article will grow in time, more information will be released when they make funeral plans, and I will try to add to it myself. (Rharrington 01:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC))

I suppose it is remotely possible that a valid article can be made about Alice Ward that will show her objective notability. The current article, which contains less information that an average New York Times paid obit, should be deleted, and a new better article created when/if one ever comes into being.

No one "deserves" an article, just as no one is entitled to a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame or an Emmy or Tony or Academy Award. Many deserving folks have not gotten the stars or awards I would say they deserve, but life is a witch (with a capital "B") sometimes, ain't it? [email protected] (talk) 12:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete:
  WP:NOTINHERITED -- neither from her sons nor from the actress who happened to win an Oscar playing her (an Oscar confers merit on the performance, not the role). No independent notability is even articulated, let alone established. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete as per Hrafn above. Nymf _hideliho! 11:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The coverage of her death has been reported in numerous journals internationally such as The Guardian and so the topic is certainly notable. If there is not much to say about her then we might merge into another article but, as we have at least three related articles -
  The Fighter (2010 film) and Melissa Leo, it seems best to keep this short article here as a link between them. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The Fighter (2010 film) and Melissa Leo to the appropriate section. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 22:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I repeat: this is a vanity page, whether it originated in "Southie" or not. I am sorry she passed away, but if she were notable why was the article only created after her death? It is an insult to everyone's intelligence to pretend otherwise! [email protected] (talk) 22:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Vanity pages are written by the subject but this person is dead and did not write the article. The claim that this is a vanity page is therefore false. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be flippant. It is an obvious vanity page, written by someone close to her despite her clear non-notability. An article doesn't have to be written by its subject to be a vanity page. [email protected] (talk) 10:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created by an editor who has created other articles related to the cinema and theatre such as Estelle Hemsley and De'Adre Aziza. Your claim of a personal connection seems absurd and you present no evidence. Accusing an editor of vanity without any evidence is a personal attack contrary to our civility policy. Please apologise and withdraw. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Obituaries are quite satisfactory for our purpose as we write
  summaries rather than exhaustively detailed biographies. Such sources are very suitable for establishing notability as they demonstrate a good level of general interest in the topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I agree, what point here is in dispute? I am not disputing this but an obituary by itself does not ipso fact confer notability, especially a "paid obit", which is what I made reference to earlier in this colloquy. [email protected] (talk) 10:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The Guadian article which I cited was not a paid obituary. The interest in this case seems to derive from the connection with the Oscar award not payment or vanity. The resulting obituaries are therefore satisfactory as evidence of notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, "an obituary by itself does not ipso fact confer notability", as I said. I am not going to apologize for anything. The editor who created this article may have created other articles, but that doesn't mean this one is valid. He or she exercised very poor judgment in creating what amounts to a vanity page. [email protected] (talk) 11:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as cited above by Hrafn: "Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, obituaries, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion." [email protected] (talk) 11:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I will not go so far as to call this a vanity page, but if all the obituaries have is that she was the mother of two famous boxers,
  James William Middleton; the same applies. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

In a clear case of

James William Middleton Bob House 884 (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Created by Colonel Warden, I see. [email protected] (talk) 18:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Although I see that it has already been nominated for

speedy at least once and may end up here within a couple days. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete No long term notability, whilst her death is sad there only appears to be fleeting coverage which, with respect, seems to be of the 'and in other news..'/cat stuck up a tree variety. The arguments that she inherits notability from either having been played in a notable film or having reared successful children don't have much grounding as has been noted. Bob House 884 (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If they are notable enough to be listed in the obituaries of major newspapers, that makes them a notable person. Dream Focus 14:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Where do you keep making up these rules? If anything, Wikipedia guidelines say the exact opposite.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't just a passing mention in the obituaries, or a paid announcement, but a full article on someone a major newspaper has decided notable enough to do an article on. [1] Dream Focus 19:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Only claim to notability is her son, if she didn't have the son she wouldn't have had the obituary in a major paper and there would have been no film. Agree that
  WP:NOTINHERITED fits perfectly. J04n(talk page) 16:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, notability is not inherited and has no long term notability. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are you serious? No long term notability. People 60 years from now will look back and watch

I'm not sure you fully understand wikipedias policy on

notability. For better or worse, we don't like to keep articles solely because they contain potentially useful trivia. Perhaps in a year or two, some journalist will publish a well researched piece on the life and times of Ms. Ward or some details of interviews between her and Leo will be published and then we'll be able to create an article - heck, if your right about the public interest in real life film characters, this is virtually certain to happen - but at the moment all we have is a few rather short tertiary sources which only really tell us three facts (i.e. that she was the mother of Micky Ward and Dicky Eklund, that she was played by Melissa Leo and that she died in 2011), this doesnt make for 'significant coverage' Bob House 884 (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Strong Delete - notability is not inherited. Yaksar (let's chat) 01:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not notable per Bob House, and per my comments above. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - being played by someone notable in a film doesn't necessarily make a person notable. In this case, there doesn't seem to be enough coverage of her, outside of the reports of her death, to suggest that she's notable enough to deserve an article. Robofish (talk) 23:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable in my opinion. The news coverage of her death cited is mostly about the movie and who played her, and even then isn't in-depth or significant. Thparkth (talk) 00:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MultiGulper

MultiGulper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested PROD. Article about a piece of software lacking evidence the subject satisfies the

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Sources don't meet notability threshold, and SPA origin suggests probable spam. Dialectric (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources. According to their own news, the software is still in beta. -- Whpq (talk) 13:40, 3 May 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 01:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Quinn (pornographic actor)

Jeff Quinn (pornographic actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO, no indication the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other specialized guideline. Subject appeared in eight pornographic films in the 1980s. While the article claims the films are "consider among the best" for their era, the cited sources don't support that claim; while they mention one or two of the films, the article subject is noted only in passing. The original AFD was quite contentious and closed as no consenus; it took place during the Ash/Benjiboi fracas over gay porn. Much of the sourcing for the article, added during the initial AFD, has proved questionable or phony; what remains does little more than show existence and confirm the subject's participation in the porn industry. Two of the three book sources are effectively identical, as one reprints the relevant chapter from the other. The article subject simply lacks the coverage required to establish notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Reluctant delete - coverage of gay erotica and pornography is woefully underdone on Wikipedia so it disturbs me to see any aspect of that coverage removed, but an examination of available sources doesn't support a separate article for this performer. I see in the last AFD that his apparent status as a Playgirl Man of the Month was deemed equivalent to being a Playgirl Playmate, and in the interest of gender parity I agree. That automatic notability for Playmates has been deprecated so in fairness the same standard should apply to Playgirl Men of the Month. Harley Hudson (talk) 19:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Inclined to keep. I have no bias either way regarding PotM, but there appear to be numerous other awards given to this individual such that I am inclined to keep this article, even in basic stub form. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails
  WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 00:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: - Does not meet standard of notability for porno actors.--Burkina Faso (talk) 07:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Radcliffe

Jack Radcliffe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Porn performer who appears not to meet

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO and the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saeed Modarres

Saeed Modarres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No source support that this individual meets

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete: obviously fails
  WP:Music, no secondary reliable sources could be found. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 09:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. Keb25 (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iowa Flood of 2010

Iowa Flood of 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. While the flood may be worth mentioning at
  Iowa Flood of 2008 were. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 02:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Eskow

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

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

Eskow does not appear to have received any coverage in reliable sources outside of his own various blogs and websites. This entry reads as self-promotion trying to pass for encyclopedic. Gotophilk (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - most bloggers are not notable, and a search of news items does not reveal many
  reliable sources about this person. Since there are some sources starting in 2010, perhaps he's more likely a one-note celebrity. Bearian (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential blame

Presidential blame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Made up term. delete - UtherSRG (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC) UtherSRG (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Made up and with suspicions of PoV too. Peridon (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The president himself could write a better article. This doesn't even talk about presidential blame, it talks about Hooverville, shantytowns, and the PPACA. Speedy delete should be revisited. CycloneGU (talk) 22:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per CycloneGU. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 14:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No special meaning to this term as a stand-alone concept separate from the plain-sense meaning of the words. Agricolae (talk) 00:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per
  WP:SYN --Reference Desker (talk) 04:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: per all above comments Jnorton7558 (talk) 07:39, 3 May 2011 (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. Serpent's Choice (talk · contribs) makes a good point in the discussion about the reliability of the sources provided; the column used for the entirety of this article's referencing has no real intention to be reliable journalism. As such, the article is clearly lacking in any kind of reliable sourcing. No convincing argument is made for any particular redirect - though if someone takes it upon themselves to incorporate a sourced mention of this phenomenon into another related article, a redirect would at that time be appropriate. ~ mazca ^talk 12:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wenticko

Wenticko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

notability of wenticko in question Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 20:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Weak sourcing, at best. I'm curious to know if this "Wenticko" is related to the more notable Wendigo phenomenon. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 21:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The Jamaica Gleaner is a publication with a pretty long history. However, the Roving with Lalah column is a collection of local color stories and that sort of thing, and isn't really held to a traditional journalistic standard. If someone felt generous about this material, duppy could probably find room for a mention -- no more than a sentence, though, really. If that happens, then clearly a redirect would be appropriate. Otherwise, delete; there isn't really anything more substantive out there. Serpent's Choice (talk) 21:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Wendigo as a possible alternative spelling. -- œ^™ 10:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the redirect. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 18:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually disagree with the redirect. There is certainly not enough material for an article on this topic, and arguably not for inclusion in another article, but Wenticko is -- according to everything that does exist on the topic -- a named Jamaican duppy which has no relation to the similarly-named Wendigo. Serpent's Choice (talk) 16:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete and Oppose Redirect. There is coverage in the Gleaner, however, the coverage is only from a single reporter, and I can find no other sources that write about this duppy. The redirect is completely inappropriate. Is there any evidence that Wenticko, a particular manifestation of a Jamaican ghost is also Wendigo, an Algonquian mythical creature? Is there any evidence that "Wenticko" is used as alternate spelling for "Wendigo". If you have such evidence, please put it forward aas I have looked and there is absolutely none that I can find. -- Whpq (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Completely" inappropriate eh? Is it so hard to imagine that people searching for "Wendigo", never having seen the word as written, may misspell it "Wenticko" because of the phonetic similarity? -- œ^™ 14:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Reply - Many misspellings are possible. We do not need to anticipate all these different misspellings. Do you have any evidence this is a common occurrence? -- Whpq (talk) 14:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None. -- œ^™ 17:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Project Xenocide

Project Xenocide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Could not locate satisfactory sources for verification (

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Marasmusine (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - Lacks significant coverage in relaible sources to establish notability. It wasn't notable back at the first AFD, and over the years, has not garnered any coverage, and development has now officialy been abandoned. -- Whpq (talk) 14:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bomcard Trilogy

The Bomcard Trilogy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

non-notable book series - disputed prod. also, the creator left a comment on the talk page that makes it seem likely that the article is intended as advertising.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete' per nom, fiction like this should be referenced with reviews, Sadads (talk) 23:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with no prejudice to recreation if it becomes notable in the future. It is way too early to have an article about a trilogy when only the first book of the trilogy has been released, and in April 2011 at that. The first book, Destiny, hasn't received enough coverage (yet?) to establish it as notable, but it, and its author haven't been ignored either. The Melbourbne Weekly, a community paper has devoted some coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 14:10, 3 May 2011 (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. Has reliable sources. Meets inclusion criteria. SilkTork *^YES! 20:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tor Air

Tor Air (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article about a minor charter airline that does not yet seem to be doing anything much has no reliable indpeendent sources about the subject, what sources there are seem to be about someone who is rumoured to be chartering this carrier rather than being associated with it (as thew article erroneously says he is). Zero evidence of actual notability, only four planes and three of those are operated by someone else. Guy (Help!) 20:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article was already been discussed for deletion. The result was keep --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadh^{talk | contribs} 03:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Fairly recent Keep AFD. Nothing changed that would make it a deletion worthy article.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per my entry on the first AfD discussion. Also the fleet info was added in mid-March by an IP editor and is completely unreferenced (the ref for the fleet details is from 2010). The articles about the other two airlines don't shed any light on the situation, but I wouldn't mind betting that Tor Air is operating aircraft for those two airlines - as that is what it does - rather than the other two airlines operating aircraft for Tor Air. The article has become messy, but that means it needs cleanup, not deletion. YSSYguy (talk) 01:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep article needs more work but for ICAO to issue a code and callsign they must think it is of note. MilborneOne (talk) 12:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep  According to the home web page, this airline offers public scheduled passenger air service, such as four flights in May from London to Stockholm.  Public passenger air carriers are
  institutions and come with a presumption of notability because people with governmental authority have a bias for safe airplanes, and editors can expect to find governmental records for public passenger airlines.  I don't know why the nominator thinks that the Daily Mirror, which has been publishing since 1903 and with distribution over 1,000,000 daily, is not independent or why it is not reliable.  The Daily Mirror and The Swedish Wire reports of a Tor Air plane starting air service from Baghdad to London after 20 years without such, fits in my book as worthy of notice=satisfies WP:N.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Frey (winemaker)

James Frey (winemaker) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails

• delete: Fails notability per
  WP:BIO since all of the sources are (probably) shallow mentions. Even the external links barely mention him (zero or one instances of "Frey"), and are mostly about the winery. —EncMstr (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails
  WP:NOTE, etc. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Can only find trivial mentions of him in reliable sources.
  talk) 18:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge to Trisaetum Winery - there are sources, but most talk about the winery. SilkTork *^YES! 20:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Trisaetum Winery per SilkTork - the sources provided mostly mention him in that context, and at this time this article is actually better sourced than the parent. Hence, leaving history intact to allow a merge and cleanup of the winery article is probably the best way forward. ~ mazca ^talk 12:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Just a heads up to those !voting merge/redirect, I'll likely take the Trisaetum article to Afd as well. It's nothing personal, but although the article is sourced, that doesn't mean that the winery is notable. I did do some checking before prodding, and I'll do my due diligence before taking further action. Valfontis (talk) 14:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. Although it doesn't affect notability, I should note that both articles/adverts were created by
    SPAs. Valfontis (talk) 14:23, 6 May 2011 (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. The achievement of the subject is sufficient for mention in List of International Mathematical Olympiad participants but not for a standalone article per our inclusion criteria, which requires that independent and reliable sources indicate notability by writing in depth on a subject. SilkTork *^YES! 20:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iurie Boreico

Iurie Boreico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The subject's only claim to fame is winning the IMO three times. There has been consensus in the past that this is not on its own considered to make the subject notable. The basic criterion for inclusion of a mathematician is

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Winning five medals at IMOs is at least equivalent to being named All-American in basketball or football, which has been enough notability in the past (see thousands of biographies of college and high school athletes, e.g. Michael Gilchrist, Andre Drummond). --bender235 (talk) 22:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. From
  WP:ATHLETE: "High school and pre-high school athletes are notable only if they have received, as individuals, substantial and prolonged coverage that is (1) independent of the subject and (2) clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage. Note that the first clause would exclude all school papers and school websites that cover their sports teams and other teams they compete against. The second clause excludes the majority of local coverage in both news sources and sports specific publications. It especially excludes using game play summaries, statistical results, or routine interviews as sources to establish notability." That doesn't seem to be the case [2], although you're welcome to try to find something suitable. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

To be honest I don't care much about the notability guidelines here, at least not by chapter and verse. Being one of the all-time best participants in the IMO might not be mentioned as a notability criterion anywhere, but I consider that person notable nonetheless. As I do consider say athletes who broke youth or junior world records, or won some major competition (e.g. Darrel Brown, Yohan Blake, Jacko Gill). --bender235 (talk) 23:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or I start creating biographies for my
  WP:GNG via coverage in their national press(es). Tijfo098 (talk) 02:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Also, a reminder for those not in the know, "Medals are awarded to the highest ranked participants, such that slightly less than half of them receive a medal. Subsequently the cutoffs (minimum score required to receive a gold, silver or bronze medal) are chosen such that the ratio of medals awarded approximates 1:2:3." Gold winner doesn't mean the top dog (in IMO or IOI). Tijfo098 (talk) 02:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But winning three gold medals, with two perfect scores, means something. There's a reason Bureico is No. 4 in the IMO "Hall of Fame". --bender235 (talk) 10:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We do have an article for #1 & #2 there

Reid Barton, (or guys further down below Ciprian Manolescu or László Lovász) but they are notable for other achievements as well. There is no consensus or guideline in Wikipedia that placement in that chart alone entitles one to a biography here. Wolfgang Burmeister (#3)? Tijfo098 (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Hmm, the fact that two USA IMO gold winners have pages here,
  Reid Barton while their Chinese counterparts (who you can be sure have coverage in the Chinese press) do not, surely indicates systemic bias. This Moldavian guy (Boreico) has coverage on the official site of the Moldavian government, [3], and I'm pretty sure there's more of that in their press. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete need more than the Harvard Crimson coverage for GNG. Racepacket (talk) 02:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Unless your name is Perelman or Tao, mathematicians do not receive plenty of press coverage for their achievements. Try to find me press coverage on

Ben J. Green, or plenty of other mathematicians whose biographies we keep because of their achievements, not their press coverage. --bender235 (talk) 11:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

That's fine, except that we aren't evaluating the subject as a mathematician, but as a competitor in a student event. He firmly fails

WP:PROF. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, we're a evaluating him as a competitor in a student event. As one of the all-time best competitors in that particular event. How in the world does that not meet notability criteria? If we were talking about an athlete with the fourth-strongest record at say the

WP:ATHLETE, why wouldn't Reiher, Barton, Kane, and Boreico? --bender235 (talk) 13:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

At some point,

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS seems to be relevant. In the past, there was consensus that even really good IMO records do not translate into notability. That is directly relevant to how previous consensus comes to bear on assessing the notability of this particular subject. That there are lower standards for other student competitions (lower than seem to be supported by our own guidelines) is regrettable, but there is very little to do about it. We obviously can't discuss here the individual merits of every high school athlete we happen to have an article on. But it's very likely that some of these should be deleted per our guideline as well. In this case, the bottom line is whether multiple independent secondary sources have substantial coverage of the subject. That just doesn't seem to be true. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Why do you harp on about press coverage? To me, this is not the main criterion here. Question is, whether say the top 10 all-time IMO participants are as notable as the top 10 World Junior Athletics Championship participants, or All-Tournament selections at FIBA World U19 Championships, or All-USA high school football selections? In my opinion they are. And this is not WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, so stop throwing such instructions at regulars, or read

WP:NOTPOLICY. --bender235 (talk) 15:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't know about high school athletics per se. I do know that prior consensus on student mathematics competitions is very much against you. The guidelines are also against you, and I know what our guideline says. It seems pretty cut-and-dry. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You brought up the

WP:ATHLETE guideline for this in your nom, and per WP:ATHLETE some college/high school/junior/youth athletes are notable, particularly if they "have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level", which the IMO clearly is. By the way, there's a difference between the IMO and your local spelling bee competition. Just because they're both "student competition" doesn't mean we should treat them equally, just like we distinguish the Alabama High School Track Meet from the IAAF World Junior Championships, althought technically, they're both "student competitions", too. --bender235 (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Nowhere in WP:ATHLETE does it say that high school competitions of any kind confer notability. The "major international amateur" competitions are of the Olympic Games and world championship variety, not the "international high school spelling bee" variety. There is no real parallel. For context, you need to read past the nutshell. The circumstances for notability of a high school athlete are very clearly explained. These standards are not met in this case. The basic requirement is, and always has been, that the subject of the article must be the subject of substantial coverage in multiple independent sources. That is non-negotiable. Simply appearing in a list doesn't seem to be adequate. It certainly isn't enough to build an encyclopedia article on. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting tired of this. Could you finally please explain to me why the International Math Olympiad is supposed to be a "high school competition" (and therefore applying the HS athlete section of WP:ATHLETE), instead of a "major international amateur competition"? --bender235 (talk) 17:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The difference, of course, is that there are no high level "adult" competitions in mathematics. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know there aren't. But does that mean just because the IMO has an age limit it qualifies as "non-adult competition"? What about the Fields Medal? Is that a junior prize as well? Seriously, I can only repeat my point: exceptionally succesful IMO participants are notable (per whatever guideline you want). That doesn't include people who just participated or won a medal, but certainly people you won gold at the age of 14, or wrote multiple perfect papers. That is, in my mind, just as notable as someone breaking a youth or junior world record, or winning a gold medal at world championships in any sport. --bender235 (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exceptionally successful spelling bee participants are generally not considered to be notable either. Exceptional performance in student competitions is not prima facie evidence of notability. As I've already said, the guidelines bear out my point of view: sources are the thing. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Even grad students are almost never notable. More so for undergrads. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Emma Watson is an undergrad as well, but of course she meets notability guidelines because her notability draws from her acting career. Boreico isn't listed for the fact that he's a math Ph.D. student, but for the fact that he's one of the all-time best in IMO history. --bender235 (talk) 13:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a specious and irrelevant comparison. Emma Watson isn't notable for her academic achievements. She's a Hollywood star, with press coverage all over the place. If you can find even a fraction of that kind of coverage for the subject of this article, you are welcome to present it. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was merely to say that "undergrad = irrelevant" is a non-argument, because Boreico is not notable for his academic status, but for his IMO results. --bender235 (talk) 15:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable as an academic per
  WP:GNG. Nsk92 (talk) 22:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

And how do you evaluate the fact that he's No. 4 on the International Mathematical Olympiad all-time list? --bender235 (talk) 23:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROF addresses this concern already: "Victories in academic student competitions at the high school and university level as well as other awards and honors for academic student achievements (at either high school, undergraduate or graduate level) do not qualify under Criterion 2 and do not count towards partially satisfying Criterion 1." Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Question: nom says "The subject's only claim to fame is winning the IMO three times. There has been consensus in the past that this is not on its own considered to make the subject notable." Where and when has this consensus been established? --bender235 (talk) 23:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See deletion discussions for

WP:PROF. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Rubin is notable beyond his IMO results, that leaves Barton and Grinberg. Barton is one of the most successful participants ever, Grinberg not. Barton's article is still there, Grinberg's is not. Where exactly does this contradict my point? --bender235 (talk) 10:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read the arguments made at those AfD's to understand why some were kept and others not. The bottom line is that Barton was discussed in multiple independent sources (books, magazine articles), not (just) because he had an exceptional IMO record. Likewise, Rubin was reckoned to pass

WP:PROF#C1 based on a highly cited paper. Being "one of the most successful participants" in either case was not considered a strong reason to keep. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete At conferences, it often feels like one can't cross the room without bumping into several IMO/IPhO whatever medallists. I think our precedent on this one is essentially correct. Ray^Talk 01:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If five IMO medals were dime a dozen, this list would have been stuffed full of people, but it isn't. Are their hundreds of mathematicians with IMO medals? Yes. Are their hundreds of mathematicians with five medals, three of them gold, and two with perfect papers? No. So let's keep the exceptional participants. --bender235 (talk) 10:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly a dime a dozen, but not so rare as to be exceptional in the academic world, is my point. Certainly not so exceptional as to merit automatic notability under

WP:GNG: has an independent source reported on the subject, at length? I see no such press coverage. Ray^Talk 22:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

"not so rare as to be exceptional" Boreico is fourth on the all-time list. How much rarer does it get? If the notability guidelines don't recognized top-10 all-time achievements at the IMO as notable, then they are erroneous or at least incomplete and should rightfully be

ignored. --bender235 (talk) 22:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Rarity alone is not a measure of notability. As the silly old saw goes, we're all unique and special, and above average in our own way. These guys are just a bit smarter than the rest of us, is all. Notability requires, well, that people care, specifically, to the extent of citing them, or writing about them in published sources. Consensus seems to be running against you in this regard. Ray^Talk 22:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I invite you and everyone else to discuss this more generally here. --bender235 (talk) 22:50, 30 April 2011 (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 - I'm

Levels on Lego Star Wars

Levels on Lego Star Wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 22:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 22:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - All it needs now is a specific guide to how to complete each level to achieve the highest level of uselessness. CycloneGU (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Shows no
  WP:GAMEGUIDE. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 13:56, 1 May 2011 (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. SilkTork *^YES! 20:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity in heavy metal

Christianity in heavy metal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

• Strong keep. Valid subject, just needs to be cleaned-up. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Further the nominator started by moving the article and then nominating it. That makes it harder to find for people who only have links to the old article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no

  original research as it's full of references. It's just essay format and needs to be cleaned-up. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Nominee has now changed primary reason for deletion. Time to dismiss the nomination. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  What do you mean by "time to dismiss the nomination"?

  Dragquennom (talk) 20:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep. Is different from Christian metal, though related to it. Needs serious cleanup though.--3family6 (talk) 20:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indifferent: In light of the points brought up by editors, I do not care if the article is deleted or not, and I will support if decision is to delete it.--3family6 (talk) 01:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it may be full of references, but there's nothing new here that couldn't be included in Christian metal. As it stands, this article is half personal essay and half list of trivia, neither of which belong in WP. eldamorie (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Provisional keep (is that allowed?) Delete. The subject is separate from Christian metal, as it deals with the treatment of Christianity in secular metal, not metal which is distinctly Christian. The article in general, especially the lead, does read like an essay, though, and it doesn't seem to be a matter of simple cleanup. I think the subject could support its own article, but not in its current form. It would need to be rewritten - maybe approached from a different perspective? --Fru1tbat (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I think what you're saying in short is: "keep the title but rewrite the article". IMO your rationale is better suited to a "delete" vote.

  Dragquennom (talk) 20:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I think what Fru1tbat is saying is that the material is good but the writing style is not appropriate. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Well I don't think you understood him right... quoting what Fru1tbat said: "The article in general...doesn't seem to be a matter of simple cleanup. I think the subject could support its own article, but not in its current form. It would need to be rewritten - maybe approached from a different perspective?" - i.e. he says the subject's good but not the material. Anyway let's just wait until he replies to our "thoughts".

  Dragquennom (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Dragquennom, I think you're probably right. I think the problems are inherent in the current material, not just the writing style. Also, per Azure Shrieker below. Vote amended to delete. --Fru1tbat (talk) 13:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I regret starting this 'article' in the first place. It was originally a sub-article of a section in the Christian metal article that got out of hand and was moved to cut size down. I already once tagged this to be deleted but the request was quickly rejected. As someone commented in the edit field, this just lacks any 'point' - or we just are not able to make it clear what ever it was and I doubt we will. This is more of a tabloid gossip material than an encyclopedia-worthy, credible article. Even the scholar Moberg commented that sections like these (that emphasize the use of Christianity by certain secular bands) imply fan mentality (typical for "fan-scholarly" writings as he put it), thus unprofessionalism. Christian metal forums are full of these discussions. I think those should stay there for privacy's sake. --Azure Shrieker (talk) 21:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I understand the whole "fan-mentality" thing, but there are bands like Trouble that are definitely associated with Christian metal (the band's label coined the term "white metal"), but are not actually Christian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 3family6 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I think such cases should be discussed in the individual band or musician articles if necessary. Many already are, like Trouble, Santolla, Araya... Now this article just attracts anonymous editors to add more and more obscure bands here with supposed Christian references and members that are debatable at best. Truth is, there are lots of those bands out there, lots of them, so it does not make sense to keep this article just to collect them all in one place. It might make sense to rewrite this and approach from different angle, such as discussing metal's relationship to Christianity, anti-Christian sentiment etc. but even that is already mentioned in the Christian metal article and some other ones.--Azure Shrieker (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you are right.--3family6 (talk) 01:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The creator of the article has voted to delete. IMO it could've been be deleted as
  Dragquennom (talk) 11:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This isn't a cohesive article, more like a collection of loosely-related thoughts on a topic. The most that this topic should be is a small section in the Christian metal article. Royalbroil 01:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There actually exists "a small section in the Christian metal article", see

Dragquennom (talk) 05:55, 3 May 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 01:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SIR Stage37

SIR Stage37 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

It has trivial mentions in Google news results, and I made good faith efforts to find non-trivial, significiant coverage, as per

Comment: article creator has a conflict of interest (

WP:COI), as indicated by his/her username. Mephistophelian (talk) 18:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete per nom. Few ghits and apparent conflict of interest. Feels like spam. noq (talk) 23:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fundamentally promotional throughout, complete with pre-arranged shout-out to "preferred vender" (sic) (usually for discounts on equipment). 4 of 6 references are BizBash, a site of unknown relationship to its article subjects, split by major city, and likely to be churnalism. Other two are self-published. No evidence this is any more notable than any of the other of probably hundreds of open indoor spaces used for parties and small concerts in New York City. --Closeapple (talk) 03:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No significant reliable source coverage.
  talk) 18:58, 5 May 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 01:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Idiot's Guide to Ballroom Dancing

Idiot's Guide to Ballroom Dancing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Beyond

• Delete - What makes this book
  notable for inclusion? CycloneGU (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - I'm not even sure this is a book review - it just looks like some random facts. Some of this information, if sourced could be added to the
  ballroom dancing article, but as is, this is not an encyclopedia article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - not enough context, but seems to be a
  WP:NOT#HOWTO violation. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. The talk page for the article makes it seem like the article creator was attempting to create an article about a book, but this book just isn't notable enough for its own article. Rnb (talk) 19:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, in addition to above, this pretty much comes across as blatant nonsense. Daniel Case (talk) 07:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Probably a book in "
  chatter) 10:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - No indication of notability . -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 14:27, 29 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 01:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Chadbourne

Mark Chadbourne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unreferenced biography. The article weakly claims significance, so I declined an A7 speedy. However, I'm not finding any reliable sources to verify the information in the article, and notability is weak at best. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 18:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. This is an autobiography that doesn't include any reliable third party sources that can assert the subject's notability.
  Dragquennom (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Keb25 (talk) 23:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep User:PeteMcGinity I disagreewith the assessment that the article is 'weak at best'. And I've noticed there has been significant deletions to this article recently including the discographies of the artist, and for which I do not see any editors' reasoning for doing so listed in the history of this article. A considerable amount of verifiable information is available in published newspapers, magazines, books and other artist websites referencing Mr. Chadbourne's works and contributions as a musician, writer and discographer (Rome Daily Sentinel, the Houghton Mileau, Scene Magazine, Cleveland Magazine, the book "Bubblegum is the Naked Truth", and other books) which editors could add in instances where needed to improve the article. However, Wikipedia's definition of "verifiable" clearly states that "The word "source" also includes "the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times)". The main hub of the entry has been verified with the proper licensing; I see nothing that "might damage the reputation of living people" (in this case, Mr. Chadbourne) and most of the sources listed are third party, including commercial online media sources such as Soundclick, the MyTV network, LastFM, Sizzle Radio) etc. One must consider that independent artists often use alternative media and will not grant license to mainstream media - whether it is hard copy or internet sourced precisely to remain "alternative and independent". That should not disqualify any article for inclusion simply because a google search doesn't produce immediate results. The article could use some up-dating, but is not in my opinion, irrelevant or insignificant. I noticed that Mr Chadbourne has a best selling single and album on Soundclick just doing a quick search on the site's main page which includes world wide sales. There is an independent article on Soundclick which demonstrates that this is a valid source for information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pete McGinty (talk • contribs) 08:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC) — Pete McGinty (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment: If "a considerable amount" of verifiable information is available in reliable sources such as those, why not add them to the article? Furthermore, although self-published sources can be used to verify information, they cannot be used to establish notability. I'm glad they exist to verify, but what is there to show that Mark Chadbourne is notable? You've added three links to the article: one
    WP:MUSIC. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 15:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Delete - Lacks coverage in independent
  Soundclick which isn't a recognized chart. And other claims like "His fixed harpsichord sonata "Area Sets" was lauded as a breakthrough composition by critics around the country." cannot be verfied as I cannot find any actual critical reception for it. -- Whpq (talk) 14:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - this guy is clearly not notable, based on the lack of reliable sources about him, but there is a offtrack biker with the same name who might be notable. Bearian (talk) 19:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Football in Tuvalu. (non-admin closure) Baseball Watcher 01:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of football clubs in Tuvalu

List of football clubs in Tuvalu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

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

Contested PROD. An unreferenced list of non-notable clubs. These lists are accepted for other countries because they contain notable clubs. Two of the blue links are places and the other is about an eating club in the United States.

• Note: This discussion has been included in
  ^talk 17:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong Keep per concerns of
  matt91486 (talk) 18:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge to the feeble sub-stub Football in Tuvalu. Clearly the topic of football in Tuvalu merits coverage, but I see little point in a separate list which is completely unsourced and composed entirely of redlinks -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - to Football in Tuvalu; no need for a seperate article. GiantSnowman 12:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep (Look at Category:Lists of association football clubs); this is a seperate article. Add external links. Bogic (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. BigDom 07:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep, no merge, no redirect  Nominator has a burden that is not met to show that the claims that this is not notable are not caused by poor research.  Is there a newspaper on Tuvalu?  Does it really not talk about what a reliable source says is the most popular sport in the nation?  This site reliably states that there are nine teams in a Premier league in a country of 12,000 for whom gaining recognition in soccer comes 2nd after joining the United Nations. 
  WP:N states, "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate."  There is no requirement that individual items on a list be notable, although it may be that as a content issue some of the teams on this list can be removed.–again, this needs research, not an AfD nomination.  Nominator might also look at this Russian to English translation.  It is clear based on a Google search that there is interest worldwide in Tuvalu soccer and individual teams there.  As per Category:Lists of association football clubs, merging or redirecting to another article disorganizes/disrupts the encyclopedia without a purpose (Wikipedia is paperless) by creating holes in a logical structure.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge to Football in Tuvalu. This is not a useful list. BigDom 07:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - as above. Especially given that Football in Tuvalu has almost no content, I think it would be useful to merge it there. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to
  talk 13:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge to
  List of football clubs in Tuvalu will continue to exist as a redirect (thus, editors who search for the list will be taken to the appropriate page). More importantly, for me, merging this short list devoid of almost any supplemental content into the sub-stub that is Football in Tuvalu would consolidate and better organize Wikipedia's limited content about the topic of association football in Tuvalu. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:48, 5 May 2011 (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 Close Wasn't aware of the turnaround. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1/0 (web comic)

1/0 (web comic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Renominating since last AFD closed as no consensus. As I pointed out in the last AFD, the Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards do not convey notability per

• Comment - Why are you renominating within hours of the closing of the prior AfD? CycloneGU (talk) 18:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural close. The
  deletion review is for, not an instantaneous AFD relist. Serpent's Choice (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 01:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Permisivism

Permisivism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Dic def. Transwiki and tag for appropriate deletion/redirect. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC) UtherSRG (talk) 17:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Dictionary definition at best. I am not even sure if this is a real word, although in English it is possible to create almost any word by adding "...ism" to the end of an existing word. For instance "wikipediaism." Jaque Hammer (talk) 17:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and don't transwiki. The word is unverified and sounds like
  something someone made up one day. Possibly based on a word from some other language? "Permisivism derived from England language, permissive which means permissive, such as permission. In line with the meaning he said, permisivisme is attitude and the view that allows and permits everything." --MelanieN (talk) 02:06, 5 May 2011 (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. Per

Pearl and the Puppets

Pearl and the Puppets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I am completing a nomination started by 92.24.111.250. This is not a personal endorsement of his/her view that this article should be deleted. Anthem of joy (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This band have not made any progress in the UK market. Their last EP flopped miserably. The album was due to be released last year, but it has not appeared yet and as far as it can be seen will not appear. The band are now only playing to small crowds. There was a small media interest (heavily stoked by record company PR) but this has now faded away in light of the band's lack of commercial success. They have a very small fanbase. PandP2go (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC) — PandP2go (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. --  pablo 15:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The references include non-trivial coverage in The Times and The Guardian: the
  talk) 17:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I'd like to point out that no other guidelines in

WP:GNG states that "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity." The articles in The Guardian and The Times were the result of a short term PR push by a record company. I also think it could be argued that one mention in two British national newspapers isn't "significant independent coverage." The entry in the Guardian's "new band of the day" section is particularly irrelevant, hundreds of bands have been covered in that section and few of them have wikipedia articles. PandP2go (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

You only need to meet one of the listed criteria. The two articles mentioned were from May 2009 and Mar 2010 so that was not especially short-term interest. If you want more, try this in-depth interview in The Scottish Herald, or search the BBC to see they have been and still are being played extensively and regularly across the network. They clearly meet notability requirements.

talk) 19:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep. Hmm...it seems something of a coincidence that the (original) nominator is 'PandP2go' and their only edits are this attempt to delete this article (on 'PandP'). Lack of commercial success is irrelevent, as is the claimed size of their fanbase. Most of the cited coverage spans several months, and in addition to those already in the article there's The List ([4] [5]), The Herald ([6], [7]), MusicNews.com ([8]), Daily Record ([9], [10], [11], [12]), Evening Times ([13]), Daily Star ([14]), and this from The Scottish Sun stating that the band won the 'Best New Scottish Band or Solo Artist' award at the Scottish Variety Awards in 2010. An obvious keep.--Michig (talk) 19:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a coincidence. My name is Peter Andrew Pargo, i.e. P. And. P2go (the 2 standing for an R) Anyway my username is irrelevant to this debate. How can you claim it's an "obvious keep" when only one condition under

WP:MUSIC is (very shakily) met? PandP2go (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Wow, that is a coincidence. There's nothing remotely shaky about satisfying

WP:GNG. --Michig (talk) 19:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep There are a lot of sources like Pearl and the Puppets: I performed barefoot before Diana Vickers - stv.tv, [15], [16]. Also, it seems they performed in mainstage in
  talk) 19:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

You people are pathetic. You see the picture of a good looking girl and you think "oh we need to keep that". If it was an ugly girl you'd be desperate to delete it. I don't want to be part of an encyclopaedia where the editors only condition for notability is their own disgusting and shallow sexuality. You attempt to rationalise this by citing WP guidelines, but I know the truth. You've a consensus based on your shared shallow and base desires. You are animals! PandP2go (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As well as the various media articles cited above, they have a biographical article on Allmusic. AllyD (talk) 20:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - subject seems adequately notable. --Anthem of joy (talk) 22:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: User:PandP2go has been blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing. I think this can safely be closed as a snow keep.--Michig (talk) 10:15, 30 April 2011 (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 blatant hoax. Moondyne (talk) 08:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Duchy of Canberra

Grand Duchy of Canberra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Google search turns up nothing remotely related to a "Grand Duchy of Canberra".

• Speedy/strong delete. I'm still leaning toward
  CSD G3, hoax on this one. Too much doesn't check out—no hits on the duchy, the alleged current grand duke, the book cited as a source, or the book's publisher. Even if it's not a hoax, it's unclear what constitutes the current Grand Duchy, other than an apparently unrecognized title. —C.Fred (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as hoax. At the relevant period what is now Canberra was part of the British crown colony of New South Wales- see History of Canberra. Grand Duchies do not exist in Britain or under the British crown (dukedoms are different) and there was certainly never one created in Australia, least of all Canberra. --AJHingston (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoax. Cannot find any information if this person even existed. (including the supposed current 'Grand Duchy of Canberra). Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 20:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 04:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Blatant hoax. Don't wait, delete now. The-Pope (talk) 07:53, 29 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 01:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ithaca Shakespeare Company

Ithaca Shakespeare Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

non notable local theater company WuhWuzDat 07:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. All I could find was trival mentions, including fundraising drives. Nothing to establish notablity outside of the local community. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 06:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This nomination was not entered onto the AFD log, nor was the article tagged. I have done this now, and will relist below - accordingly, this is now scheduled to close on or after May 5. On the merits, I have no opinion. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - I can't find any assertion of notability beyond the local community. Kansan (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Local theatre company, with no significant coverage (barely even any local coverage). --MelanieN (talk) 02:12, 5 May 2011 (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 Result was Speedy delete as

Graj + Gustavsen

Graj + Gustavsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Marketing / branding company with no particular indications of

• Delete per nom. –BuickCenturyDriver 13:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions.

• Speedy delete:
  patent nonsense
  :

• specializing in brand positioning, developing strategic brand platforms, licensing and brand management
• provides strategic solutions in building brands
• founded ... after years of experience in the retail industry.
• The Strategic Alignment Process involves taking research and the company's understanding of the brand essence and defining practical steps to align creative strategies and business objectives for effective brand management.
• G+G's StageSetting℠ process brings a brand's vision for the future to life. Stakeholders experience and evaluate all consumer facing brand elements before resources are invested in roll out.
• The Simon Graj Blogosphere provides insights into the branding industry and thought provoking interviews with top executives....

Like you'd expect an article written by PR pros to be, it is superficially "referenced" to one line quotations from business personnel on unrelated subjects. None of those stories have this business as even a minor subject, though. Obvious snow jobs like this would appear to indicate clearly that the editors had one eye out on Wikipedia notability guidelines when putting together the article. Because they aren't really notable, they had to find one line quotes from business personnel in real sources. It seems safe to assume that's the best they can do. But when the article is as blatantly promotional and obviously

slanted as this one is, notability isn't even an issue. So tagging. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Scholze

Peter Scholze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The subject fails

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. As the article creator recently noted on
  WP:PROF. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Not to be confused with the Clay Research Award. See [18].--RDBury (talk) 16:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Close (essentially keep, but without any prejudice toward relisting): the article is only 4 days old, and deserves a chance to make it case better. Especially in light of the recent information that has come to light I strongly oppose deleting at this time. CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I don't get a lot of Google Scholar hits for the subject (with very few citations each), although I don't want to claim great accuracy in my GS search, since the name "Scholze" is very common. In light of the difficulty in sifting through the results, I refined the search to the past six years (and given that the subject's area is the Langland's program and Shimura varieties, I searched for related terms). A typical result was this search [19]. I was only able to turn up three papers, only one of which seems to have any citations. MathSciNet doesn't list any publications of the subject (he does have an MR number though: 890936). It seems to me that, although the Clay Institute seems to feel that the subject shows promise as a potential young researcher, he does not yet have enough of a research record to meet the requirements set forth at
  WP:PROF. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, only a PhD student, not even close to passing
  WP:PROF from indicating academic notability. The Clay fellowships are meant to support finishing graduate students, based on the promise of future accomplishments, not on being notable already. Nsk92 (talk) 01:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak delete. That means I can't create biographies for my IOI winning friends... Tijfo098 (talk) 02:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, a reminder for those not in the know, "Medals are awarded to the highest ranked participants, such that slightly less than half of them receive a medal. Subsequently the cutoffs (minimum score required to receive a gold, silver or bronze medal) are chosen such that the ratio of medals awarded approximates 1:2:3." Gold winner doesn't mean the top dog (in IMO or IOI). Tijfo098 (talk) 02:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I added a source but I don't think it's enough for
  WP:PROF seems far out of reach), and I couldn't find much more. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. I guess I think that the Clay Research Fellowship is a significant award by a notable foundation. Also, as someone in the subject, I can say that his work is quite well-regarded (though still in the publishing process, which is usually a couple years behind the times) and that he is presumably graduating some time soon. If anything, it is a bit soon to confirm under wikipedia regulations that the article should exist because his results are so recent that searching for citations is a bit premature. Also, note that he has been on the Wikipedia:Requested articles/Mathematics since April 2008 [20]. RobHar (talk) 07:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are actually making a "delete" argument: the fact that his results are too new to have been cited (or even published) is exactly what makes him non-notable under Wikipedia notability standards and the creation of a WP article about him rather premature. When there is significant published coverage of his work, then there will be something to talk about. As it is, he is a PhD student with no publications and no citability of his work - the very opposite of what
    WP:PROF requires evidence that someone has already made significant impact in a his/her academic field and has become a leader there. Nsk92 (talk) 22:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I realize that my "If anything" clause is a delete argument. My keep argument is stated in the first sentence of my comment.
      WP:PROF does not require someone to have already made significant impact (as far as I understand it), it requires any one of 9 criteria, of which I am saying I believe the Clay Research Fellowship satisfies number 2. Also, being that the Clay Research Fellowship is one person chosen in the entire world, every fellow has indeed made significant contributions already (which may not be verifiable via citations in papers, but can be verified by the reception of the Fellowship). This is just my argument, so I could be wrong. RobHar (talk) 23:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
      ]

P.S.: I guess I also think it's a bit silly to delete a well-sourced article of someone who is very likely to be manifestly deserving of his own article sometime soon. This may not be in a guideline, but it's how I feel. RobHar (talk) 23:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Weak Delete Weak, because the Clay, due to its exclusivity, blurs the line between early career fellowships like the Sloan and other, more general prizes. But it is a prize given very very early. Ray^Talk 22:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - Too early. If he's going to be notable, he'll do something more and we'll want to wriate an article on him then. For now, he's not notable. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:13, 5 May 2011 (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. Consensus is that sources exist that are not currently in the article which establish notability. (non-admin closure) Monty₈₄₅ 00:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doodle.com

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

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

Does not appear to meet inclusion criteria. Free web program/website... Even if RS could be found, there would not be enough content to write a worthwhile article. Declined speedy; apparently it is popular in Germany. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 10:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you just look? [22]

Qwertyus 16:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, did you? A dead link and a link to the URL. The third devotes two short sentences to the website on a full-page article. It's not even the full quote, the second half of the quote is about another website. There is nothing that comes close to "significant coverage". ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 16:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead links count toward notability.

Qwertyus 23:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete per WP:ADVERT. CycloneGU (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  What a superb lack of assuming good faith.

  Qwertyus 23:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - 7 books right here.[23]. Please check before rampaging around destroying perfectly notable articles.
  Qwertyus 23:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Willing to keep an open mind here (use my talk page) but "website of the week" isn't really encyclopedic material. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Marcus. Clearly notable and verifiable. Steven Walling 00:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (the same reasons) --Mmh (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  There are also a lot of reviews in German (e.g. [24], [25], [26] etc.) and other languages. --Mmh (talk) 21:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Google books search turns up a decent amount of discussion of it in addition to the links provided by the previous !voters.
  talk) 18:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lyle Roebuck

Lyle Roebuck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

lack of sources confirming notability Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by nominator: PROD removed. Most Ghits are social media, others merely confirm he was an award finalist (which does not establish notability). Does not appear to pass either
  WP:AUTHOR. Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete Fails
  WP:ACADEMIC so it seems open and shut.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 23:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete I was unable to find
  reliable sources that discuss this person in depth. He doesn't meet our notability guidelines as either an author or an academic. Cullen328 (talk) 00:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• delete per Cullen. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Roebuck seems to have spent plenty of energy creating and maintaining this page, and the expectation that the page cite
  WP:RS to show that his works have "been the subject...of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" has been pointed out for plenty of time. Yet there has still been no convincing effort to bring those articles or reviews. If the article is recreated with those multiple indep. articles and reviews cited, I will support its retention against any opponents; meanwhile I !vote delete. Wareh (talk) 18:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. This article seems to be not much more than a recitation of awards that the subject didn't win (but claims he was a "finalist" for). Article claims he is a writer, but he seems to be a high-school teacher at
  WP:SPA Ltroebuck and several anons like this one, all of which Geolocate shows to be in the same locality as Roebuck. Consequently, it's likely that this is little more than a vanity or fan page. Uncontroversial delete. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 15:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC).[reply
  ]
• Delete: When I came upon this article, I was unsure if Mr. Roebuck was notable enough so I decided to completely research his career before I made up my mind. I have therefore sourced all the information I could find, deleted all unsourced assertions and adjusted any claims according to sources found (per
  WP:AUTHOR
  . One reason is that at least one of his works of fiction, The Crab, has been submitted multiple times to various contests:

1) Finalist in the 2007 H.E. Francis Award (University of Alabama/Huntsville),

2) Winning the 2010 James Knudsen Contest(University of New Orleans) and

3) Finalist in the William Van Dyke Short Story Prize (Ruminate Magazine).

I would like to add, however, that his version of Ovid's Heroides I is still being sold by the Classical Association of New England. Shearonink (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting, when I saw you adding references (thanks for the further research!) I figured perhaps you were going to argue to keep. But indeed, these are web pages that name him, no more - there is no actual discussion of him, so with all these web links we have still not found him the "subject of" (
  WP:AUTHOR) even one review in an unreliable source, not to mention the multiple reliable articles needed. P.S. On the status of CANE publications, see what I say at Talk:Lyle Roebuck; I am familiar with these publications (use them myself but would not confuse such student-aid pamphlets for an ordinary scholarly publication). Wareh (talk) 00:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Final (Php)

Final (Php) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Besides the fact that it's a bad title (should be "final (PHP)")I don't think that the final keyword has enough relevance for its own article. We don't have articles about other visibility keywords like "public", "protected" or "private", and furthermore, if at all, the article should include all finals of other programming languages, too, because they don't differ. However, there are more than enough articles, e.g. Class (computer programming), Information hiding or Inheritance (object-oriented programming) (and probably more that I missed), which may deal with this topic in a way that's more than satisfying for interested readers. The Evil IP address (talk) 09:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and merge into Inheritance (object-oriented programming). If we have to have an article on final, which I think is unnecessary, it needs to be broader in scope. PHP's implementation is nothing special. – anna 10:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. – anna 11:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I disagree with the nom in that I think we could justify articles on language keywords, and certainly Other Stuff Doesn't Exist would apply - the fact we haven't yet written articles that ought to be there means little. That said though, I'd delete this one. final can perhaps be justified, and it can justify a narrower and more specific article than
  WP:NOTAGUIDE. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. I seriously doubt there's enough scope to have language-agnostic articles on keywords like public, private, etc, let alone one article for every standard uninteresting implementation of each keyword (which is what this is). These should be covered in the OO articles -- most of them, I suspect, would rate note more than a sentence or two's mention. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 14:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alenka Hubacek

Alenka Hubacek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

fails WP:NTENNIS. no major tournaments and has not reached minimum 25K prizemoney standard. LibStar (talk) 08:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I don't think it fails

talk) 20:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment The criteria for

talk) 22:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If one main draw doubles appearance in her local major -- no doubt supported by a generous wildcard and in which she and her team-mate got hammered -- is the most that can be said for her notability, I don't think she warrants an article regardless of the technicalities of

Mkativerata (talk) 00:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Strong Keep as she passes tennis notablity as per Nimuaq 194.66.216.40 (talk) 14:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nimuaq said weak keep, why do you say strong? LibStar (talk) 00:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as she meets
  WP:HOTTIE. 202.124.88.24 (talk) 15:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

— 202.124.88.24 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. its a dynamic ip. you have no clue how many edits I've mad. Focus on the content, not the contributor. 203.171.196.186 (talk) 23:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC) — 203.171.196.186 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, while she meets the letter of
  WP:IAR. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC).[reply
  ]
• Delete. Non-notable tennis player. Keb25 (talk) 05:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or userfy, but ensure admins are on hand to undelete if required in the future (ie she gets better, wins something etc). The-Pope (talk) 14:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree with Lankiveil that this is a case to
  WP:NTENNIS is a guideline by which we use to gauge notability and should be used with discretion and consideration of the circumstances. Somebody qualified into the main draw either through ranking or winning their way in through the qualifiers has exhibited notability. Being granted a wild card isn't the same thing. -- Whpq (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Krnčević

Jesse Krnčević (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

fails WP:ATHLETE. has not played in the highest professional league in Australia

• Delete per above. –BuickCenturyDriver 13:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Yes it fails WP:ATH but it is a well-sourced article and arguments can be made from articles in major newspapers that he might pass the GNG. There's a lot of low-hanging fruit to hit with football biographies. I don't think this needs to be one of them. --
  Mkativerata (talk) 23:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. Keb25 (talk) 20:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 00:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails both
  WP:GNG (what limited coverage there is simply run-of-the-mill sports reports, nothing "significant"). GiantSnowman 00:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Week Delete - Fails the "not fit for purpose"
  Mtking (talk) 06:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Fails
  WP:GNG. Four sentences saying basically "son of famous father about to make debut in semi-pro league, manager says he has promise and has to start somewhere" can't by any stretch of the imagination be considered anything other than routine sports reporting. Recreate if the FourFourTwo gossip-column stuff comes to anything and he plays in the A-League. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Fails
  ^talk 12:34, 5 May 2011 (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sea Scouts (band)

Sea Scouts (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

fails WP:BAND. whilst in the last AfD Mess+Noise is an indepth article not sure how reliable a site it is. it describes itself as "alternative music community website" rather than a proper online magazine? this was previously quoted as an additional source but it is a mere less than 1 line mention. I fail to see significant coverage, awards or coverage in mainstream press. LibStar (talk) 06:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per outcome of initial AFD. Nominator cites various deficiencies which call for article improvement, but doesn't really make a case for deletion or refute the arguments from the prior AFD or cite any changed circumstances prompting deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

um my case for deletion is lack of significant indepth coverage. The first AfD did not demonstrate multiple indepth sources. At best 2 sources were found, and one is clearly a 1 line mention. LibStar (talk) 22:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 04:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep have managed to find numerous sources, some of which confirm that the band had a release in the US (in addition to their Australian releases). The references confirm that the band toured North America and Europe. All of which is sufficent to satisfy
  WP:BAND. Dan arndt (talk) 07:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

whilst not discounting your sources as per

WP:SOURCEACCESS, i can't see most of the sources you've added. could you provide a way of accessing them? LibStar (talk) 07:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

all references are properly linked, as I had to use Wayback Machine it may take some time for the references to be accessed - you just need to be patient. Dan arndt (talk) 08:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per original AfD and Dan's recent work. I had no trouble accessing links to the additional refs.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]