Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 January 4

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 3 January 5 January >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. no objections to something meaninful being written in its place per Ungle G or a redirect if anyone can be bothered,

Spartaz Humbug! 02:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Etherealization

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

This is just a dicdef. It is two dicdefs but isn't anything that is going to grow into an encyclopedia article. It was deleted as a PROD, asked for userfication (out of curiousity, not out of intent to improve it) but restored to main. I am assuming the requesters curiousity has been settled. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 23:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unsourced and, worse, remarkably uninformative. Claims to notability are limited to a statement that Buckminster Fuller first used the word. This one dates from the days when an IP could create an article. Mandsford 00:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now now! Not having an account is not an automatic indicator of either bad faith or incompetence. (Although getting the wrong name for Fuller's concept is an indicator of not knowing what the Heck one is writing about.) Uncle G (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Buckminster Fuller's concept is properly named
    ISBN 9781564597762 pp. 40).

    Since our dematerialization article covers at least Fuller, that seems to be the appropriate place to redirect to right now. Yes, it's confusing and imperfect, since the target doesn't (yet) explain Mumford and Toynbee and it isn't the right place at all to cover the spiritualists' concept. But perfection is not required and at least it doesn't tell the reader the downright wrong information that this is Fuller's concept. Of course, this is no prejudice against writing about the spiritualist's concept here (albeit that that seems better discussed in some larger context), or making some kind of disambiguation article distinguishing amongst this lot, in the future. Uncle G (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

    ]

  • Delete per nom.
    Wikipedia is not a dictionary and I don't see the article going beyond a definition. If the problems being discussed can be fixed, transwiki first. --Pnm (talk) 04:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The original correct meaning of
    CORBA. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:43, 11 January 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 precedent that villages are inherently notable — especially if Hitler of all people was born in one of them. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Braunau am Inn

Braunau am Inn (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 only reason we have an article is because

talk) 22:47, 4 January 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 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John McCormack (American boxer)

AfDs for this article:
John McCormack (American boxer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD  • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The only "evidence" that this person existed is a unsubstantiated story in Lenny McLean's autobiography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gallicrow (talk • contribs)
  • Delete - based on the sketchy available information, McCormack was a bare knuckle fighter and unlikely to have been in any significant sanctioned boxing events. BoxRec has entries for an Australian Jack McCormack, a Scottish John McCormack, and an Irish John Young McCormack but not for an American John McCormack boxing during the time period claimed in the article. The only mention appears to be in Lenny McLean's autobiography which is referenced in the article with no page number. Google Books doesn't provide a preview but I did find this which indicates that Lenny McLean likely did make mention of McCormack in his book, but that does not establish notability and there is no other coverage that I can find. -- Whpq (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - could not find any sources for this boxer. KVIKountry (talk) 00:12, 10 January 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.

Spartaz Humbug! 02:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Rock 'n' Roll Ralphs

AfDs for this article:
Rock 'n' Roll Ralphs (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 changed it from prod to AFD after finding some local news sources on the subject, but discounting passing mentions and such I could only, there's very little in

reliable sourcing that talks directly about the subject. Delete Secret account 22:20, 4 January 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, nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James F. Allen

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

Nomination withdrawn Sources are not always apparent and I saw little evidence this was notable but this has now been proved to meet requirements.

Non notable BLP. No hits in google books. Few other if any at all from his website that I can find.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles also need to pass Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Verifiability and have multiple reliable publications discussing this individual aside from papers they may have published. It is still an unsourced BLP.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added some sources to the article. It was not difficult. Did you even try? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do a google book search generally which didn't reveal a single source. Maybe I should try google scholar for academics in future.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not a single source?
Phil Bridger (talk) 10:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, barely any credible fruckin hits actually about James F. Allen. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, it's difficult with that search to find sources about Allen, because they're obscured by all the publications that are by him rather than about him. In cases like this it works better to include in the query some of the other specifics from the article that one is trying to source (and also of course to look for scholar, web, and news sources rather than assuming that everything can be found in books). But the nominator's "no hits in Google books" opening statement remains mystifying, because the problem here isn't no hits, it's too many hits. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:17, 6 January 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. 6:50, 11 January 2011 Anthony Appleyard (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Paragon (guild)" ‎ (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paragon (guild) (2nd nomination)) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paragon (guild)

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

Recreation of a recently deleted page, less than 24 hours after its previous AfD was resolved. Denied CSD G4 due to the fact that there are indeed more sources present. None Few of the included sources can be

WP:COI as well. RoninBK T C 22:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep I still can't read the sources, but if there is coverage from two serious news agencies and the coverage consists of a 2-minute video clip and a 6 minute audio clip, I'd say we've got multiple reliable sources with non-trivial coverage. If the 3rd identified good source is actually reliable we're in solid shape. Hobit (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And given the non-promotional language and general stubby nature of the article, I really don't see a promotion problem here. Hobit (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I can read a lot of the sources. I'd say the English sources pretty much get us there. We have a number of RSes (though not all indpendent) saying that this is the best at what they do in the world. The sources meet WP:N and the group is clearly notable in the English sense of the word. I mean companies are paying to bring them to the US so people can meet and watch them. That's pretty impressive really. Hobit (talk) 04:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. World of Warcraft is so big game that best wow teams also should be included. --Zache (talk) 08:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately "is so big game" does not address Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, and so is irrelevant.
    talk) 12:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • No one is arguing World of Warcraft's notability here. The point being made is that
    notability is not inherited. Just because WoW is notable does not mean everything associated with it is notable. -- RoninBK T C 15:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. Raiding guilds, while apparently a mentionable part of the game, are not notable for me. The fact that these raiding guilds have been ranked is notable maybe, and if there happened to be such a thing as official rading guild rankings or something like that, the fact could be mentioned in the main WoW article. Individual winners, however, don't count as notable for me, no matter how much the Finnish media likes to mention anything and everything Finnish that has gained even a little fame. Pitke (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "no matter how much the Finnish media likes to mention anything and everything Finnish that has gained even a little fame.", you probably don't realize how hard it is to actually be a number #1 World of Warcraft guild in the world. I wouldn't say that being number #1 guild (35 players from 12 million) is a little fame. --Pek (talk) 14:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would imagine it's about as hard as being the number one plumber in New York City. But even though NYC is a very notable city of over 8 million, the plumber probably wouldn't merit a Wikipedia page. -- RoninBK T C 04:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Except that world rank #1 is more valuable then state rank #1 and the plumber will never have a sources, these guys do have them. --Pek (talk) 09:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also to add that being plumber is not same thing as being extremely competitive World of Warcraft player. --Pek (talk) 09:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One more addition that not all of the 8 million population are plumbers, but we are talking here about 12 million actual players in-game, so that is very bad example of yours. --Pek (talk) 09:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure if you're following his comparison. Regardless, attempting to find international information on this subject is extremely limited, apart from their official website. Electronic sports teams that constitute several divisions of well-renowned and public, (not anonymous), players have few pages as it is, due to the fact that multiple sources, magazines, news broadcasts, multi-million dollar websites, etc. cover their existence and are easy to find. Besides Blizzard giving out achievements for successful World of Warcraft players, supportive evidence of this subject's notoriety is in high question. Look, if you had re-created this page after it was deleted and made it seem legitimate and neatly done, your peers would certainly be more lenient in their judgment. However, this page is a few short questions that state that it is popular because of World of Warcraft, nothing more. You have had time to look for sources, but you rather have been disregarding the common consensus of everyone else. There's not much more to be said, considering this page was already deleted.
talk•cont 05:10, 07 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Pek said, being plumber is not same thing as being extremely competitive World of Warcraft player. He is correct. In a typical 40-hour-a-week year, a plumber would spend 2000 hours on his craft. To be among the top plumbers in the city, nation or world, one imagines he'd need 10-15 years of experience. In some places, plumbers are required to pass examinations to prove their knowledge in order to be certified, so there may well be more than the 20-30 thousand hours required. Additionally, plumbers are actually paid for plumbing - some in the US charge almost what (inexpensive) lawyers charge. So, Pek is correct. Being an extremely competitive WoW player is not the same as being a plumber. Being a plumber is harder, more profitable and more useful. I mean, has anyone ever had to call a WoW player to stop their home from being destroyed? --Habap (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I would say keep it if it weren't for the fact he made it -so- quickly after the last deletion. Although there are more sources I still do not believe that the guild is notable enough in English terms. Perhaps on the Finnish Wikipedia but right now it has no notability to be on the English one. User:Dobat Dobat the Hobbat 13:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • See the comment on top of this page: "I didn't make the second vote because it would increase articles chances for staying, I did it because we had conversation going on with user Hobit, who didn't answer important question before article was deleted.". --Pek (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion I'm afraid we're having something lost in translation, I don't quite understand fully what you mean by 'second vote'. And even if Hobit did not answer your question and even if you had waited to create the article to find more sources. I still do not believe it fits properly in what a article should be. The guild is clearly notable but to have it's own page for it seems a bit far in anybodies mind. User:Dobat Dobat the Hobbat 15:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry if I made myself unclear, I meant second nomination by second vote. --Pek (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on current English article sources -- OnRPG is currently under consideration as a reliable source, but general consensus is thus far is that it's unreliable. The Republic of Gamers link is a site run by the company Asus, and so may be seen as a
    WP:SPS to promote their hardware as their about us page (and pretty much every article on the site) seems to imply Joystiq is a situational source and thus reliability of the author should be demonstrated. Normally I wouldn't question this, but Matt Low seems to have some of experience. I wouldn't necessarily call him reliable, but I don't know that I'd say he's unreliable either - so it could go either way depending on the thoughts of those who know about establishing author reliability. The assembly.org link is extremely short, and so could only be used after notability has been established. I have no further opinion on the matter - I'm just commenting on the sources. --Teancum (talk) 13:45, 10 January 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 and redirect Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leroy Pletten

Leroy Pletten (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 was the Vice Presidential candidate for the

WP:BLP, unsourced since June 2008, should be deleted or perhaps redirected to Prohibition Party. — Scientizzle 21:32, 4 January 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) 23:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

REMLOX

REMLOX (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 piece of software. E. Fokker (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the author of this article, I feel compelled to respond. The argument that this article references a "non-notable piece of software" viloates the guidlines established by Wikipedia for deletion, as no evidence is given to prove that it is non-notable. Just because Ms. Fokker has not heard of the software, does not make it not-notable. As the sources in the article demonstrate, the software has gained recognition within the industry. While some of the data referenced in the article comes directly from the company's website, the references to news coverage and literary material comes from sites independent of the developer. Much of the lack of coverage in "mainstream" news is due to the reletive youth of the technology utilized in this software. While Ms. Fokker has much experience as a Wikipedian, her opinion that the software is non-notable should not be considered the consensus view.

Additionally, item 10 under "Before nominating an article for deletion" on the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion page states:

"10.If the article was recently created, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, an associated WikiProject, or on the article's talk page, and/or adding a cleanup tag, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD."

While Ms. Fokker may believe that this article appears to sound like a press release, I would argue that any encyclopedic article on a product could be interpreted as seemign like a press release. Sufficient opportunity to develop this article has not been provided, as it was made AfD within minutes of being posted. Dustin.sachs (talk) 03:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not notable, apparent conflict of interest judging from a Google search of the creator's username. The burden of proof is for notabilty, (through substantial coverage in reliable sources), there is no need to prove that it's not notable. Hairhorn (talk) 04:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This page was modeled after other pages that have had success within Wikipedia (see
    Encase or Microsoft). Nobody here has been able to demonstrate how the article about this software is any more promotional than the sites I have listed. Both pieces of software were new at some point in time, and the lack of media coverage should not be considered in removal from this site. There are many things in the encyclopedia that lacked widestream coverage, but are included because they existed and were cutting edge or revolutionary. It would seem to me that in article about aspects of specialized industries, someone familiar with the industry should judge the notability of the article prior to removal from Wikipedia. How many people on Wikipedia know te intricate details of what a Coronary artery bypass surgery producedure is? Yet, this has been allowed to remain on Wikipedia with simply a request for citations for verification. It is my contention that deletion of this article is premature as other alternatives have not been been given sufficient time to be exhausted.38.110.205.163 (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]

— 38.110.205.163 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • What other articles exist is of limited relevance: see
    talk) 17:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
There are specific notability criteria that this page does not meet (and in its current version it may qualify for speedy deletion as spam). If you think there are sources out there, please add them to the entry. Hairhorn (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; this is a problem I am facing daily as I work on the broad Digital forensics topic. Most of these tools are lightly used, have little or no critical commentary and no academic coverage. Currently only the really mainstream tools (EnCase, for example) get enough coverage to pass notability guidelines. This is a pretty lesser known tool (I don't know anyone mainstream that uses it, though have heard of it) so I do not think it is possible to establish critical coverage at this time. --Errant (chat!) 23:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 6 January 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. Courcelles 00:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whispering to Witches

Whispering to Witches (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 by non notable author. No awards, no references, no statistics - no nothing. Myosotis Scorpioides 21:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - The BBC has covered it here. Google News also shows some reviews behind pay walls. The bulk of the article looks like a copy-paste of a book review especially with the recommendation at the end. That will need some serious copyediting. -- Whpq (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added several references. The book has been reviewed by the BBC, reprinted multiple times, and distributed in at least 12 countries [6]. You were right, Whpq, the bulk of the article was a cut-and-paste from the book's front flap; I deleted it. It's now a stub - but a referenced, notable stub. --MelanieN (talk) 02:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it needs expansion and plot, but it's notable. Glimmer721 talk 23:47, 11 January 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. Courcelles 00:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dilu

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

Notability is unproven. Is a horse in a semi-fictional historical epic really deserving of its own article? Verifiability is dubious. I do not see relevant hits in Google Scholar for "Hex Mark". Clearly a non-RS Wiki about a computer game is no use as a reference yet this is where the article has been cut and pasted pretty much verbatim. I did try to redirect this a couple of times but the author clearly objects and now I am not even sure the title is right. Is the horse called "Dilu", "Dílú mǎ" or "Hex Mark"? Hex Mark is used throughout the article. If the article name is wrong we don't even need a redirect. I now think we should just delete this mess. DanielRigal (talk) 20:53, 4 January 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

Spartaz Humbug! 02:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Starfleet International

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

In ~two years since previous AfD, no appreciable expansion to include substantiation of

notability through citations to significant coverage in third-party sources. Web search (and perusal of suggests books at previous AfD) don't bring up any such significant coverage. --EEMIV (talk) 20:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Merge to Trekkie. I would have assumed the world's largest Star Trek fan club would be notable, but I'm not seeing much either. Seems a much better merge candidate than a deletion candiate though, as the Trekkie article barely mentions organised clubs, and should cover them in more detail. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since this is the 2nd nomination, it should be fixed to include the link to the first one. I'd do it myself, but I am not experienced enough in working with the code in AFD's.  :(   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 22:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge along with Starfleet International Conference to Trekkie. The activities section there is a more appropriate place for fan sites and projects. Jørdan 03:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The following
    Starfleet Command (fan group) articles would be similarly comfortable here. Jørdan 03:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep - User:Admhawk errantly posted the following at the previous AfD page: >>I am just wondering where this warning was last week? It 1-7-2011 and never seen this 'nomination for deletion'. If the reasons for deletion were take seriously here then half the articles, no 2/3rds of the article on Wikipedia should be deleted. I had recently edited and replaced the entire narrative (as the person in charge by the Office of the STARFLEET Historian) and did not see this deletion nomination. --Admhawk (talk) 7:48 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5)<<
  • The content replacement was not an improvement over the previous state insofar as Wikipedia content and sourcing guidelines are concerned. Thinking about an article as a "narrative" is in itself oddball, and Admhawk's responsibilities within the club make his contributions iffy under
    WP:COI (but perhaps explain why the article so firmly reads like an ad). --EEMIV (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge or Delete. "The office of the Starfleet historian"? Come on, this is a grown up encyclopedia not MySpace. Chrisieboy (talk) 13:37, 10 January 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. Courcelles 00:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Camden County College Lindback Award Recipients

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

List of recipients for a non-

speak 17:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*poke* 20:27, 4 January 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) 00:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tanbo

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

Prod and prod2 "declined" by an admin placing a hangon. I'm stunned.

In any event, there are little to no sources to be found anywhere. Someone added a book source, but a thorough search of Google Books and plain Google for "tanbo -weapon" turns up almost nothing beyond the single source already in the article — in fact, the hits are so few that Google autocorrects to "tambo". The declining admin said that he found sources, but this (no author credits), this (an open wiki) and this (a site that allows playing Tanbo online) are in no way reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"There are no sources to be found anywhere" and "the single source already in the article" would appear to be contradictory phrases. The search arguments that I used were Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, finding the couple of book pages referenced in the article and a passing mention in another book. I haven't examined the general web search results in detail because I have no idea whether any of the sites found are reliable sources.
Phil Bridger (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Clarified argument. Also, among the first pages of your Google search, I still find nothing resembling a reliable source. A couple pages in one book and a one-sentence mention in another certainly do not constitute non-trivial third-party coverage. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The first book hit is merely game instruction (the whole book is just rules of various games). There's no meaningful coverage of the topic. The second book hit is even less. Google search returns the site of the creator, forums, wikis, and a site whose domain registration has expired. None of the sites are reliable, nor do they have anything more than "It's a game created by Mark Steere, and this is how you play it." Absent reliable sources that demonstrate notability, it must go. » scoops “5x5„ 21:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 6 January 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. Courcelles 00:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SWR Mo'bass

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

soliloquize 17:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*poke* 20:20, 4 January 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. Courcelles 00:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Techready

Techready (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; topic has a very limited audience (Microsoft Employees). Safety Cap (talk) 20:13, 4 January 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) 23:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Senkyōshigo

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

Has been tagged as Not notable and needing references that appear in reliable third-party publications since June 2009. Every Mormon missionaries who has to learn a foreign language end up mixing his own language and that language for a while. That doesn’t make it a new language or notable. --ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 20:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-How would you do this? I'm all for the idea, but I'm not sure how to go about it. I can't see how to include the info into the new article. Once I get a clear idea, I would be willing to change the delete tag to a merge tag.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 13:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since there are only two sentences plus an example on the current page, this could either become a subsection or simply cited as one example. However if, as 208.81.184.4 implies below, this is more like a pidgin than typical learner interlanguage, my merger target might not be entirely appropriate. I'll have to think more about it. Cnilep (talk) 05:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: One big difference between other "missionary languages" & Senkyōshigo is that Senkyōshigo has been described in detail in a linguistics academic journal. Senkyōshigo isn't something that "happens for a while" on LDS missions to Japan; it's a self-consistent lingua franca that has existed for decades, and has defied changes in the numbers & organization structures of the LDS missions in Japan, as well as various attempts to discourage its use &/or kill it by mission presidents & other priesthood authorities. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have additional third-party sources that document its history and extent of use? There is one source cited now, but those are big claims to make on the basis of a single article plus primary sources. Cnilep (talk) 05:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*poke* 20:06, 4 January 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 no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

115 AH

115 AH (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 contains essentially no useful information, and is one of a series of such that (for the most part) appear to have been generated for no useful purpose other than to provide a calendar year conversion and a set of section headers. it has been in existance since 2006 but has had no useful additions. I attempted to PROD it, but the PROD was removed by an anonymous editor with the statement, "rm PROD - this might better go through AfD instead". In checking similar articles for PRODs, I find those were de-PROD'd with the suggestion to take it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years, which I did here.

This may fall into speedy delete under criteria A1 A3, but I'm following the de-PROD recommendation for this page to gather a broader consensus before attempting a speedy delete of the others. RJH (talk) 18:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also:

Wikipedia:Most wanted articles#Calendars
.

  • Disambiguate. I think the Islamic years ought to be disambiguation pages, with one line of text that explains they mean periods within the Islamic calendar, and then lead to the corresponding years CE, in this case presumably 733 or 734. I don't think it's a good idea to delete them entirely because someone who reads "Event X took place in 115 AH" might well want to look up what "115 AH" means in an encyclopaedia; Wikipedia should give them a bit more help than just a redlink.—S Marshall T/C 18:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure you can create a disambiguation page consisting of a single item.—RJH (talk)
      • No, you'd need several. In this case, three: 733, 734 and a mention of Islamic calendar.—S Marshall T/C 22:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, well there are already red links for the decades and existing pages for each of the centuries. I'm not clear how adding another multi-year page (or pages) would be of benefit.—RJH (talk) 16:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have, as yet, nothing to say about the substantive issue of keeping or deleting, must must point out that this is about as far as you can get from being a candidate for speedy deletion under
    Phil Bridger (talk) 22:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*poke* 20:05, 4 January 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 Objections made at the time of the nomination noted a dearth of sourcing, and User:Roscelese worked on fixing that problem. There has been only one !delete since then, with an opinion that the additions were not "significant independent sourcing", although even that suggested an alternative course as a merge. Mandsford 03:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Family Fellowship

Family Fellowship (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

primary source.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 15:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment- Biker Biker need to
WP:PROMOTION since this club is so un-Notable the best anyone can come up with is one line and a link to the website of the group.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 14:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment noted, but we'll have to agree to disagree and I stand by my comments. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, here are a few other sources I found from a cursory look [9] [10] [11] And Deseret News periodically covers their forums. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added more third-party references to the article. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Spartaz Humbug! 03:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
  • If you didn't check out the sources then how do you know that this group has attracted enough attention to be notable?
    Phil Bridger (talk) 21:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*poke* 19:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Yep. I got distracted by something shiny, saw the relist notice, and assumed I knew what I was talking about. tedder (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge/Redirect to
    Homosexuality and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Doesn't really have the significant independent sourcing needed for an article. There are many references found at Google News but they are in passing - as in "so and so, a leader of the group Family Fellowship, said..." --MelanieN (talk) 02:48, 10 January 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 Redirect to Busch Memorial Stadium#History. In that the other two outcomes (Yankee Stadium, Tiger Stadium) referred to "Final game at...", this will be renamed "Final game at old Busch Stadium" for redirect purposes. Mandsford 04:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last game at old Busch Stadium

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Final game at Yankee Stadium and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Final Detroit Tigers game at Tiger Stadium, there is consensus not to have stand alone articles for the final game at a stadium. In this case, I'd say there is no content for a merge and that there is no need for a special section merged onto Busch Stadium. Muboshgu (talk) 04:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*poke* 19:53, 4 January 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.

Spartaz Humbug! 02:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Green ink

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

WP is not a dictionary. This is a very minor jargon expression. Jaque Hammer (talk) 05:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*poke* 19:53, 4 January 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. we don't seem to have picked up any sources at all for this so policy is clear

Spartaz Humbug! 02:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Lifeboat Foundation

Lifeboat Foundation (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 concern is Notability when evaluating against the standards at

notability of Non-commercial organizations which are international in scope, still it is required that "Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources", which do not exist. L.tak (talk) 14:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete. Its is damned hard to find anything from any 3P mainstream press about them. What does that tell us??? BobbieCharlton (talk) 06:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider this quote, 20th July 2010:

"Plenty of people agree with Mr. Klien [chairman of the Lifeboat Foundation] or at least consider efforts to tame technology and confront catastrophes worth exploring. Google gave $450, and Hewlett-Packard is on the donor list too, handing over $1,081. Sun Microsystems gave $1,000. Professors, technology executives and people tied to various industries are also among the contributors."

86.184.247.59 (talk) 12:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)Anonymous[reply]
Let me give a point by point reaction to the sources you gave. I was aware of them all, but thought they would not count as wp:reliable sources. As:
  • The New York Times "article" is actually a blog (posted on blogs.nytimes.com) and thus show the individual opinion of an (not well-known writer). Blogs are generally excluded as reliable sources, even if they are blogging websites linked to a very notable newspaper
  • The article on Kurzweiliai is a copy of the website-text of the lifeboat foundation itself and therefore merely constitutes copy-pasting of a press release. (which is explicitly excluded under
    WP:notability (organizations)
    .
  • As for the wired article, that is under blogs, (and then Dangerroom), so a blog again of a non-well-known person. (furthermore, it seems that it is placed under the tag bizarro; which makes it also a bit questionable looking at the entries of that tag.
  • Furthermore you quote the lifeboat foundation stating that many people give money. Although that might be a good and true thing. The missing problem here is nobability established by external sources. The foundation itself surely is not such an external source, so we can not judge if this is a notable thing (and besides, the large multinational Sun giving only 1000 dollar?). And the 2 nobel prize winners: if they were to give interviews in which the Lifeboat foundation is the main subject, such things might constitute reliable sources, not the foundation stating it has 2 winners in its listings. L.tak (talk) 14:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*poke* 19:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
are you refering to the literal copy of the press release on Kurzweil's site ([this one?)? and the blog on New York Times "NYT"? Or did you find other sources? L.tak (talk) 07:20, 10 January 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.

Spartaz Humbug! 03:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Bernadette Griffith

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

While Ms Griffith appears to write often on the topic of digital embroidery, there does not seem to be any source material written about her, which would be required to meet the

criteria for inclusion. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:42, 4 January 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. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 21:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Terence "Tramp Baby" Abney

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

Unsourced BLP about a record producer. He appears to have worked with some notable artists, but no significant coverage found. Another editor thought discussion at AFD was in order so bringing it here. Michig (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete;This appears to be a case of Notable by Association - but the subject itself is not notablable. There are no secondary sources - no musical press coverage, no commentry - this article would appear to seek to establish notability thru Wikipedia. MarkDask 12:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, still has to meet either
    WP:GNG. GregorB (talk) 11:11, 9 January 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. Courcelles 00:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Varykino

Varykino (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 unsourced article about a fictional country estate makes no claim of notability. Hairyns (talk) 19:12, 4 January 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

WP:GHITS does not constitute either. Ironholds (talk) 04:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Gravure idol

Gravure idol (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 article consists of

reasons for deletion. Jfgslo (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Merge and redirect to
    Pin-up girl. --DAJF (talk) 00:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The citation added, www.oneinchpunch.net, describes itself as a personal website: not a [[WP:RS|reliable source]. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The award exists, which is the point, and a search turned up a better reference. Francis Bond (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It has survived in the Japanese Wikipedia, even though someone tagged it as OR, precisely because it is notable. The Japanese page lists over 20 magazines that carry Gravure Idols (including extremely well read publications like Friday and Shonen Jump) and around 10 competitions involving them. I would say that that is enough evidence for general notability. Francis Bond (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it is still there doesn't imply that it's a good article or that it should be kept. On the contrary, it just means that it is non-relevant article that is mostly ignored. And that still doesn't mean that the original research information is in any way usable by the English Wikipedia. The English article must fulfill the criteria of the English Wikipedia, which requires verifiability and notability, regardless of its status in other language versions of Wikipedia. As it is, almost nothing in the Japanese article is usable because it's original research. And
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Merely existing or being popular does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable. That there are Japanese magazines that carry contests with models and call them Gravure Idol, does not imply that Gravure Idol is a topic that has received coverage by itself, it only means that there are contests with models that are called Gravure Idols instead of models, not that there it is topic that has received significant coverage. So far, there is no evidence that Gravure Idol has "Significant coverage" (sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content.) Jfgslo (talk) 18:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 19:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
  • The fundamental function of a model is to sell clothes or another item the model is wearing or using. By contrast, a gravure idol is essentially selling themselves by way of their own image, and hope people buy their DVDs and so on. In other words, a model sells a brand while a gravure idol essentially IS a brand. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, according to whom? All that is original research. And a model (person) is not limited to that definition. In fact, Wikipedia's article about "model" includes "Gravure Idol". There is nothing in the "Gravure Idol" article that justifies its stand-alone existence since almost nothing is referenced and does not meet general notability guideline. Jfgslo (talk) 14:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perfection is not required.
    WP:IMPERFECT. No one disagrees that more reliable citations would be better. Francis Bond (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge (or perhaps move back) to
    bikini model, not a pin up girl. As it turns out there already is a section header on Model (person) for Gravure idols. Perhaps we should graft this article back into the Model article, until there is sufficient reliable sourcing to support a standalone article. -- RoninBK T C 06:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I've gone ahead and
      BOLDly copied the substance of the article over to the Model (person) page. I have no problem if you want to include the information into Japanese idol as well, (it just seemed easier to me to copy it over to the Model article because there was already a spot set aside for it.) -- RoninBK T C 09:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
      ]
It's good to be bold, but I think there is no consensus to merge or delete, so please be careful not to duplicate too much information. Francis Bond (talk) 11:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge to Japanese idol which itself is a mess, but the generic term Idol has much more coverage in this context. Hobit (talk) 08:17, 6 January 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 think we need actual sources but this can come back as soon as someone finds some.

Spartaz Humbug! 03:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Dr Paul Knapman

Dr Paul Knapman (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-

WP:BLP1E would come into effect. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

I am copying below a note that was placed on the article's talk page by its creator. The user is new to Wikipedia and probably didn't know where to put his comments. --MelanieN (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment from talk page: Dear All

If anyone can help me with this article it is my first time. It would appear I am not correctly following the guidelines, as the editors are saying that Dr Paul Knapman is not notable.

Dr Knapman is an expert, published author,that is another notable fact. The articles relating to inquests are highly significant, as Dr. Knapman is presiding over them and is responsible for the process that decides on the cause of death - in his case, over 85,000 deaths have been overseen and ruled upon. As a Coroner, Dr. Knapman also makes significant recommendations, such as the ones made to the Home secretary, Theresa May regarding the shooting of the barrister, Mark Saundrs by members of the Metroploitan Police - BBC News. As a Deputy Lord Lieutenent of Greater London he fulfills duties relating to the monarchy and is entitled to display the letters DL after his name. wiki ino on [Lord Lieutenants] here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deputy_Lieutenant

He also has an entry in Debrett's, which has been a noted source of recognising 'people of significance' for over two centuries. His notable status is very similar to that of judges that preside over signiicant cases (Many judges are featured on Wikipedia)

Any help getting this prominant individual on wikipedia would be most appreciated.

WebManAtTheNetShop (talk) 12:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)WebManAtTheNetShopWebManAtTheNetShop (talk) 12:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Probable delete but I'm torn on this one. As noted by Nominator, there are a lot of news hits that are simply quoting him about a case; that does not amount to "significant coverage". Then there are his publications at Google Scholar, probably not enough or heavily enough cited to qualify him under
    WP:Reliable Source in the usual sense. --MelanieN (talk) 23:37, 9 January 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 delete - Indonesian vandalism. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bukit Jahiliyah

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

This is in Indonesian, but it translates to just vulgar stuff. Check out the google translation. I think it is better to delete it. TheMike •Wassup doc? 18:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agreed with Nom. Google Translate of current revision as well as initially posted revision reveals this to be pure attack page stuff, and somewhat vulgar at that. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per
    Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 18:49, 4 January 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. Courcelles 00:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Woods

AfDs for this article:
Ian Woods (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

WP:BIO. — Scientizzle 17:29, 4 January 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. Davewild (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matty Amendola

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

Self-promotion for unknown "artist". Damiens.rf 17:22, 4 January 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. Davewild (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coimbatore cultural academy

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

soliloquize 17:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete non notable training class. Article is written as pure advertisement.--Sodabottle (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No reliable sources, fails
    WP:ORG. Salih (talk) 15:26, 11 January 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 delete - copyvio and nn-bio. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coen van Oostrom

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

Copyright Violation Yutsi Talk/ Contributions 16:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Copyright violations can be speedied. I tagged it. Erpert
    Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 18:59, 4 January 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. Courcelles 00:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

15 Songs For You

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

While the article calls this an "official" album, it is not listed at the official Christina Aguilera website (see here). A search for information finds that the "album" is available at download sites of questionable validity. I can find no third-party coverage of the album except at minor blogs, which is suspicious for an artist of such fame. I suspect that this is a fan-created package that only looks valid because it has spread around the download-o-sphere. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:01, 4 January 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. Courcelles 00:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paranormal Activity 3

Paranormal Activity 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of the information in this article is sourced, and after some intense searching, all the info I can find is that the movie has been greenlit. I suggest mirroring the scant information available to Paranormal Activity 2, as is custom for sequels with little info until much more information comes to light. Angryapathy (talk) 15:48, 4 January 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. Davewild (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are yaaroo!

Are yaaroo! (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 can find no evidence at all of notability. No sources are cited, and web searches produce mostly Wikipedia, pages reflecting Wikipedia, blogs, Facebook, etc. In addition the article does seem to have somewhat promotional aspects.

talk) 15:45, 4 January 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. AfD is not a vote. The strength of arguments dictates the weight given to them, and simply saying

WP:GNG. Ironholds (talk) 04:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Setlist TV

Setlist TV (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 community-access television program. No significant coverage available to indicate notability. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

This program is of note. The program broadcasts on two major cable networks in a major metropolitan city. It is a music performance program which featurs musical acts of note. Acts who already have wiki pages, etc. This program received thousands of television and web viewers each week. The page is still being edited to include citat--Atomicsherbert0 (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)ions, references, links, etc.--Atomicsherbert0 (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC) — Atomicsherbert0 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please note, as you search for sources, that Facebook pages and Youtube videos are generally not considered
reliable sources. Evidence of significant coverage from independent sources will be needed. I was unable to find any evidence of such coverage. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

We are living in a digital age. Hence the existence of Wikipedia. You may not view youtube & facebook as reliable sources but these links represent the artists, creatos, crew, and producers involved with the production of a cable television & web program. The point of the program that this wikipedia page represents is that it operates outside of normal conventions. It brings light to established, respected and accredited artists while operating in a manner that conforms to the DIY lifestyle the show represents. More citations will be added as they become available. The program and thus the page will continue to grow, so if the page is deleted now it can't grow. If you want to delete it go ahead. Or you can let it exist as it is and as things expand so to will the wiki-page. If you feel the need to delete this page for lack of substantial coverage elsewhere you are contributing to the lack of coverage and exposure. I'm done. --Atomicsherbert0 (talk) 18:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The program may become notable in the future, or it may not. As of today, it is not, as evidenced by the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources, and therefore, it does not meet the criteria for inclusion at Wikipedia. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Nobody said maybe it will in the future. You claim youtube isn't a viable source, well go look at the linked youtube page and see the THOUSANDS of views. --Atomicsherbert0 (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I agree that there is no significant coverage for this program. And Atomicsherbert0, I question if you actually read
    Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 19:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Yes. I have read it. I'm not saying that uploading something onto youtube deems it notable. I'm just referencing the fact that there is viewership.--Atomicsherbert0 (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good job guys! try taking a look at the thousands of wikipedia pages with even less citations, less impact, less information, and less reason to have a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atomicsherbert0 (talk • contribs)

Comment Please refer to
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: the existence of other poor articles on Wikipedia has no bearing on the decision to keep or delete this article. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete per nom, per
    WP:RS etc. People may watch this stuff, but we've not got proof of it. (Viewer figures at online sites are notoriously liable to fixing. I am not accusing anyone here of that, but the practice of this across the internet damns everyone's statistics.) Peridon (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]

KEEP views haven't been fixed. views & comments available. television broadcasts happen. An online user contributed site shouldn't be damning a viable contribution based upon their views of other online user contributed site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atomicsherbert0 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say these figures had. I said figures like this can be. They are not reliable by Wikipedia's rules. If you don't like Wikipedia's rules, you can campaign to get them changed, comply with them, or go to AboutUs and LinkedIn where the question will not arise. Peridon (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEPits a valid program and has featured some bands I love. I know of dozens of folk who watch it weekly. Just because it isn't your cup of tea Ice-T fans doesn't mean you should delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.101.107 (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC) — 24.168.101.107 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Equally, 'I like it' isn't a valid reason for keeping. See
WP:ILIKEIT (for both ways round.) Peridon (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

seriously just keep the page. is it really that big of a deal? i looked at the page. i see citations, links, references, its a credible program, showcases worthwhile well known musical acts, broadcasts in a major city (NYC), and is a well made program. -JT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.101.107 (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this "wasn't a vote"?--Atomicsherbert0 (talk) 15:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't. I wrote "
Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 16:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

All citations given are valid & relevant. Verify your thoughts prior to challenging citations. Names & info are on sites that are cited and linked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atomicsherbert0 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • It was already explained to you that YouTube, Facebook and blogs are not reliable sources. This seems to be another example of someone
    Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 08:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment Recent citations added by
    notability of the people involved with this project, not the project itself. Even if such references did denote such notability (which they do not), that does not make this television series notable. This series can only be verified as notable if sources can be found to prove it, which they have not. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]

nice try epert--24.168.101.107 (talk) 08:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Erpert
Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 18:05, 9 January 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 Thomas Eagleton. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Poludniak

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

WP:BLP1E, no sources apart from that one event. Per related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Eagleton Weigand. JN466 15:24, 4 January 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 Deleted by RHaworth ((A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content). (non-admin closure) Dusti*poke* 20:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Riess

Eric Riess (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 autobiography. No significant sources to be found covering this individual. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:24, 4 January 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. no significiant coverage in reliable sources sounds reasonable. A redirect to a discography also seems something sensible but doesn't need an admin to do.

Spartaz Humbug! 12:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Underground (Analog Pussy album)

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

Another editor PROD'ded this article twice, claiming poor quality and lack of sources in the article, which are illegitimate reasons to propose deletion per

WP:BEFORE. Therefore I am taking it to AfD because there are a few reviews out there for this album, such as this but there has been no significant coverage in reliable sources. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - There are several album articles for this band, and they all have similar issues. One was redirected to the band article sometime in the past, and that might be a worthwhile solution for all of them, including this one, but we'll see what happens with this debate. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. The band is certainly notable, and with only a handful of albums, the relevant details of most if not all of the albums could be combined into the discography section of the band article.--Michig (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Notable artist, but article appears it will forever be a stub. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 19:03, 9 January 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Dusti*poke* 07:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 ASB Classic – Singles Qualifying

2011 ASB Classic – Singles Qualifying (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a multiple article listing for the five articles that have been created for the qualifying tournaments for the opening five competitions of the

Wikipedia is not news, as routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Furthermore, as events
, these qualifying tournaments do not generally have significant historical impact in and of themselves: rather, they are interesting only as moments in player biographies, or as a small part of the story of the tournament, which is itself notable. Qualifiers are already mentioned in tournament articles and whilst, potentially, a particularly eventful qualifying tournament could be notable, I do not feel that they are habitually notable.

I am also nominating the following related pages, also created on 2011 tour qualifying tournaments:

2011 Brisbane International – Women's Singles Qualifying (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
  • --Pretty Green (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All The qualifying tournaments are hardly stand-alone notable. A simple external link and mention of who actual qualified on the main page of the tournament is easily sufficient. Ravendrop (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The qualifying draws for ATP World Tour and WTA Tour tournaments are very important. This nomination is totally ridiculous. PL Alvarez (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the context of an encyclopaedia, they're not. They're tournaments which fail Wikipedia's notability guidelines as they garner no more than routine coverage, usually of the progress of any one player from a given country, rather than of the tournament as a whole. Thhe only significant outcome - the qualifiers - is adequately covered in tournament articles as is. Pretty Green (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect the articles to the appropriate singles pages (if wanted) or delete. I think qualifying draws are not important enough for a separate article, but could be included in the singles pages. Armbrust Talk Contribs 21:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Qualifying rounds are part of the tournament itself. They don't get less coverage than the first rounds of the main tournament actually. Plus, I don't see any reason that justifies the fact that Grand Slams can have qualifying articles when the other tournaments can't, their qualifying draws are just as notable as every other ATP/WTA tournaments. Qualis in general are very interesting as they provide lots of information about lesser known players or junior players. Of course we could just put a link to the draws on the WTA/ATP websites but they are usually taken down after a year and then become very difficult to find. So yes, Olivia Sanchez beating Liana Ungur in the first quali round of Auckland might not be the most exciting thing ever but I don't see how it could harm wikipedia either. (Sorry for my english, I tried my best but it's not my mother tongue.) PS: As for including tournament to the main tournament page, it's not a bad idea but it could make the page harder to read. Djezonfly (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep mostly as of Djezonfly. I think if we keep them you can follow a specific player throughout a career a bit more and see where he made "noise" for the first time and that stuff. I see no reason why they are less notable than the qualifying articles of the Grand Slams. Kante4 (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course qualifying rounds are part of the tournament. What else could they be ? Another tournament ? No, every ATP/WTA tournaments has its qualifying rounds and qualifiers. Djezonfly (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The qualifying is often referred to as "the qualifying tournament" while "the tournament" or a specific name like "the ASB Classic" often only refers to the main draw. That's why the front page of all the nominated tournaments give a start date which is the start of the main draw without saying it's the start of the main draw. http://www.asbclassic.co.nz/news/day-one-schedule.html says "Day One of the ASB Classic" (without mentioning the main draw or the qualifying) about day one of the main draw. And http://www.qatartennis.org/news/more/2/162 says "day one" and "The first day of Qatar ExxonMobil [O]pen" without specifying the main draw. Sources generally don't say somebody played in a tournament if they failed to advance from the qualifying. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the draws the starting date for the Qualifying and the Main Draw is the same e.g. here and here. So it is one tournament. Kante4 (talk) 12:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I got your point the first time you explained it. All I'm saying is that you'll never see a qualifying tournament without a main tournament, and the reverse is true. As a result, they're part of the same event. Djezonfly (talk) 14:12, 5 January 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 delete. A7  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fairy Godbrothers

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

significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Like always, please prove this AfD wrong! Shirt58 (talk) 13:59, 4 January 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. Davewild (talk) 18:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Banarsi Prasad Saxena

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

AND

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

This article has been tagged for sources and notability for over three years, but in that time nothing has been done to show notability. My searches have failed to produce much that could be considered as establishing notability. For example, the first twenty Google hits were all Wikipedia, Wikipedia mirrors, blog posts, Appearances of the name in lists, passing mentions in pages about other subjects, and an acknowledgement (saying "My thanks are due to Dr. Banarsi Prasad Saxena for preparing the index and making improvements in the manuscript"). A PROD was disputed, the reason given being "probably notable per Gbooks results that cite it and discuss it". However, "probably" notable is not good enough, and none of the Google books hits I checked "discussed" him: every one of them merely mentioned him once.

talk) 13:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete - No indication that this meets
    WP:PROF.Griswaldo (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Weak keep Keep per
    WP:PROF criteria #1: # The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.. Banarsi Prasad Saxena seems to be a widely quoted scholar: [19], [20], [21], [22]; I personally would give it the benefit of the doubt therefore. --Cyclopiatalk 15:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Changed to full keep after Msrasnw sourcing that seems to consolidate
    WP:PROF criteria #1 as being met. --Cyclopiatalk 01:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —--Misarxist 15:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —--Misarxist 15:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —--Misarxist 15:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My research comes up the same as JamesBWatson: Several things written or stated by this person, about something else; a couple of namechecks in lists of historians; and nothing at all about this person, documenting xyr life and works. I note that everything that Cyclopia points to above falls into the first of those categories. There's nothing — provided in the article or locatable — to build a biography with. This person may well be a "known authority". But that knowledge does not appear to have been written down and published, and is thus unverifiable. Uncle G (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I think an alternative transliteration may help: Banarsi Prasad Saksena noted as one of the Historians of the 'Allahabad School' (the others being R.P. Tripathi and Beni Prasad). (Farhat Hasan in Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 29, No. 2 (May, 1995), Reviewing The New Cambridge History of India, 1.5- The Mughal Empire ) His magnum opus is B. P. Saksena, History of Shahjahan of Dihli (rev. ed. 1958, repr. 1962) is refered to in three cited sources as the key text. Seems sufficient other evidence under this name. - Domesticity and power in the early Mughal world by Ruby Lal p54 fn13 - mentions another work and a change to Saxena. (Msrasnw (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
    • … but it doesn't tell us one single verifiable piece of information about this person, and doesn't actually state anything about "a change to Saxena", merely about a convention that the author is going to use in citing a source by this person (about something else) further on in the book. Even the Hasan and other sources don't tell us something about this person, other than that xe is part of the "Allahabad school". Where's a source that gives basic biographical facts about this person? Where's an independent and reliable source that documents — say — this person's birthdate, place of residence, job, and lifetime accomplishments? None of the footnotes, unadorned book citations, and incidental mentions so far mentioned (all of which are in the first two classes that I mentioned above) give any basic biographical facts that can be put into an encyclopaedia biography. Uncle G (talk) 01:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I think rather than not one single verifiable piece of information we have the following:
        1. Names: Banarsi Prasad Saxena or'Banarsi Prasad Saksena
        2. was a historian associated with Allahabad University
        3. was part of the "Allahabad school"
        4. awarded a PhD. by University of London, School of Oriental Studies in 1931
        5. wrote important book Shah Jahan of Dilli run to several editions.
        6. head of the department of history in University of Jodhpur
        7. head of the department of history in University of Allahabad (retired pre 1967)
        8. productive period (judged by publications - 1930s-1970s
      • not included in the article
        • we have him staying in Streatham till the end of the war (with Dr Streda)
        • his son being Radhey Shyam
      • This is not a lot it is true but it seems to me more than sufficient to establish verifiable notability. Professor Heramb Chaturvedi's ‘The Evolution of the Allahabad School of History (1912-1955 AD) (Revised to Emergence of Nationalist Historiography and the historians of Allahabad) sounds useful but sadly my library does not include it. (Msrasnw (talk) 10:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
        • You exemplify my point. You don't present, and don't have, a single source supporting items 5, 6, 7, and 8; and don't address any of the questions that I asked. Indeed, you state explicitly that 8 is your own conclusion, not based upon sources but guessed by you yourself. That's not writing based upon what is already documented by the world. That's making biographical facts up. Uncle G (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
* Oh dear - I think I have added sources to the article for evertyhing except no.8. Which was on the basis of his having published work in the 30s 50s 60s 70s and it seems 80s even though one of the sources cited indicates he retired before 67 from Allahabad. (Msrasnw (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
* On his magnum opus we have three sources citing it as the "The best biography of Shah Jahan is Banarsi Prasad Saksena" "The Standard history in English is B.P.Saksena" "The best secondary source remains Banarsi Prasad Saksena, History of Shahjahan"
^ http://www.answers.com/topic/shah-jahan Gale Encyclopedia of Biography: Shah Jahan
^ Kalādarśana: American studies in the art of India By Joanna Gottfried Williams (p5"The Standard history in English is B.P.Saksena")
^ Architecture of Mughal India, Part 1, Volume 4‎ - Page 346Catherine Ella Blanshard Asher - 1992 - 368 pages "The best secondary source remains Banarsi Prasad Saksena, History of Shahjahan"
* On head of history at Jodphur http://books.google.com/books?id=6VNXAAAAMAAJ&q=%22Banarsi+Prasad+Saksena%22+-inpublisher:icon&dq=%22Banarsi+Prasad+Saksena%22+-inpublisher:icon&lr=&as_brr=0&cd=66 is referenced to National Council of Educational Research and Training., 1964
* On head of history at Allahabad http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks%3A1&tbo=1&q=%22Banarsi+Prasad+Saksena%22+-inpublisher%3Aicon+%22Hindu+Society%22&btnG=Search+Books#hl=en&tbo=1&tbs=bks:1&sa=X&ei=4ZEkTcmFBoOzhAfC3vzkAQ&ved=0CCcQBSgA&q=%22Banarsi+Prasad+Saxena%22+-inpublisher%3Aicon+%22Hindu+Society%22&spell=1&fp=fc8aae4abccfd483 Hindu society in the sixteenth century:with special reference to northern India Ashok Kumar Srivastava Milind, 1981
Is there a problem with these refs or is it that you want links to google books putting in? (Msrasnw (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  • delete I can't see anything here that raises him above the level of a standard academic career.--Scott Mac 13:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Distinguished contributions as shown above, some time ago so not much web impact. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep clearly meets wp:prof. People in "standard academic careers" do not become heads of department at two universities, or write what becomes definitive books in their subject. That sort of bio = an authority ion their field. DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think the article as it stands is sufficient both to provide some basic academic-biography detail about its subject and to show that he made an impact on the field as one of the principals of a major school of thought in Indian history. It would be unreasonable to expect him to satisfy 21st-century standards for academic citation counts etc in order to keep the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I expect that research would reveal that he wrote a variety of articles in his active life. It is however unreasonable to expect an article on a man active c1930-c1970 to have as detailed a biography as we would for a living and active historian. The article has a reasonable list of footnotes. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:07, 10 January 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 redirect to

Spartaz Humbug! 12:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Malik Mumtaz Qadri

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

WP:ONEEVENT. I appreciate details are scant but don't believe topic is notable outside the assassination event, and that can be covered more relevantly in the parent article. On a side note I cannot believe that image is PD or the tag is suitable. S.G.(GH) ping! 14:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC) S.G.(GH) ping! 14:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge There is currently a merge discussion going on which, so far, has attained a consensus of support for a merge. Even the author of the Malik Mumtaz Qadri article has voiced support for a merge. As it is, there is little independent notability to this person, and a large degree of the article's text (and, as a node to the nominator, the image as well, which I've now removed) was a copyright violation in anycase. Franklinville (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per
    WP:BLP1E. Agree with merge in principle, but the article has only one cite, so there is not really much to merge. --FormerIP (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Redirect to Salman_Taseer#Death, as this is the only reason they are notable. SmartSE (talk) 23:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to
    talk) 23:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge per
    Talk:Salmaan Taseer#merge. --Joshua Issac (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Redirect to the Salman Taseer page. Person has not been notable aside from one event and it is still unlikely we will find a lot about him, apart from the fact that he was just an assassinator who was destined to assassinate a politician. 58.169.184.178 (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I think this page should remain intact as this will a hot topic and people will come looking for more information about Malik Mumtaz Qadri. Besides people will be interested in knowing about the trail and investigation progress with Malik Mumtaz Qadri.
    • Comment That may all indeed be true about what people are interested in, but I suspect that they should find that information in the Taseer article, as Qadri has no independent notability. Taseer's assassination is certainly a hot topic, agreed, but I'm not convinced that Qadri is, or not yet anyway. DBaK (talk) 12:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per comments above. Any useful text which is not already in the Taseer article should be copied across but I fear there is little or none. DBaK (talk) 12:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please note that the article is alive and well at its new name
    Malik Mumtaz Qadri is already redirected, so this is a job half done. The history is a little obscure but it appears that someone objected to, and undid, the redirect on MMQ, feeling there was no consensus, and then it was later moved to MMHQ and MMQ only was redirected. One result is that the AfD tag on MMHQ is now out of date and does not point to this discussion, so it's all a bit of a mess. I would try to help with that last point but there are fearsome warnings about messing around with the tag, so I will leave it to an admin to ponder. For what it's worth my feeling is it's been done once and the MMHQ article - which is not even linked from the Taseer one! - should go the same way. Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 12:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Update: - fixed. That's better! DBaK (talk) 13:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC) It's back again, and it's obviously pointless to update this further. DBaK (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Update again: I've undone the redirect from MMQ to the Taseer article, and redirected it to MMHQ instead. Otherwise it just confused the situation, masking the fact that MMHQ still exists and has not been merged or redirected. Since MMQ was moved to MMHQ it would seem to follow that they should be debated together and share a common fate, not be dealt with by halves; MMQ should simply be a redirect to MMHQ until the outcome for both is known. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 11:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clean up:It requires a major clean up.

CoercorashTalkContr. 10:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • merge consensus was alredy gained on the talk page merger proposal, i twas then opened by an editor without any reason and against the grain of consensus.(Lihaas (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC));[reply]
    • Comment - yes, exactly. But unfortunately this has been a real mess, partly because the debate has been split between this discussion and the Taseer talk page discussion about the merge, with people obviously not knowing what's been said where or referring to differing processes and consensuses (if that's a word). The move, half way through all this, from MMQ to MMHQ has not exactly led to greater clarity either, indeed I would say it has perhaps helped stifle the debate. I hope that this can be resolved, one way or another but with some clarity and finality, soon. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems unanimous here too though ;)talk) 00:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed but I could bet you a Cadbury Creme Egg we haven't heard the last of it ... DBaK (talk) 12:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
at this point the onus is on them for consensus,Lihaas (talk) 00:25, 11 January 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.

Spartaz Humbug! 12:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Per sources provided here I am voiding this AFD close as the evidence of notability now seems strong enough to overcome to delete arguments.
    Spartaz Humbug! 18:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Nicholas Hagger

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

Prolific yet otherwise unremarkable author. Fails

WP:GNG. A Google news search turned up a few mentions as owner of restored hall in Sussex, but certainly no mention of their "grand unified theory" of history. Almost all sources used are the author's own works. From the history of the article, and related articles on author's poems, a number of "single purpose accounts" seem to be associated with this BLP. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete per nom. Vanity article, no evidence of independent notability. --JN466 13:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete can't find coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominator’s facts are shaky: the restored hall was in Suffolk, not Sussex and “no mention of their (i.e. his) grand unified theory” is contradicted by the 63,400 results for the book that has Grand Unified Theory as a subtitle. “Unremarkable” is a subjective judgement. The editor of any author needs to source comments in author’s works. Author’s many books are all published by reputable publishers, all material is verifiable. There are several hundred thousand references to the books on internet. Sample on 5.1.2011 showed a total of 833,600 results for author/book search for nine of them: in literature, Selected Poems 133,000 results; Collected Poems 120,000 results; Classical Odes 66,200 results; Overlord 43,900 results; Armageddon 45,700 results; in history, The Fire and the Stones, which is subtitled A Grand Unified Theory of World History and Religion, 63,400 results; The Syndicate 52,400 results; The Secret Founding of America 157,000 results; and in philosophy, The Universe and the Light 152,000 results. Entries for author in International Who’s Who in Poetry, International Who’s Who of Authors and Writers, Dictionary of International Biography, The Cambridge Blue Book, Writers Directory and other similar publications for many years. David Gascoyne, Kathleen Raine and Asa Briggs spoke at launch of Selected Poems/The Fire and the Stones (pictorial evidence in A Mystic Way). Ted Hughes wrote author a six-page letter about the grand unified history theory/other works, see Letters of Ted Hughes, ed. by Christopher Reid. Author made 25 live radio broadcasts to US about The Secret Founding of America in May-June 2007 (verifiable from contact list supplied by publisher), indicative of his US profile. Similar radio broadcasts anticipated when its sequel The Secret American Dream comes out in US in April 2011. Many endorsements on books’ back covers (e.g. by Laurens van der Post), not included in article. Submit there is enough notability to keep. --Sanrac1959 (talk) 11:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The conflict of interest relates to the posting of a picture by the author’s PA on 2-3 Jan 2011. The picture could not be uploaded because the name Hagger had a long-term, unjustified vandalism tag attached to it. Wikipedia administrator looked into this and removed the vandalism tag after realising the uploader was not a vandal. The picture is now uploaded and in the public domain. The conflict of interest relates to the uploading of the picture in relation to the vandalism tag. --Sanrac1959 (talk) 13:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That has nothing to do with the fact that there don't appear to be any secondary sources discussing Hagger. I just don't see any evidence of notability. --JN466 15:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Certainly meets
    WP:BK, and possibly many other guidelines for inclusion. Qworty (talk) 08:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Speedy Keep. References overhauled, secondary sources now in, author-referencing reduced. Author's works have been translated into several languages - Russian, Portuguese, Spanish, etc. - and are sold in bookshops worldwide, see book search results. Author has international/global theme and profile.Sanrac1959 (talk) 14:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Agree it meets
    WP:BK, and sources more detailed. Google search also throws up plenty of results. Notability satisfied for inclusion.Pink dog with cigar (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)— Pink dog with cigar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
    ]
  • Speedy Keep. Minor tidying up now completed. All issues now addressed, meets
    WP:BK criteria. Seven days have now passed, can deletion/multiple issues tags now be lifted? Sanrac1959 (talk) 12:01, 11 January 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 all. Courcelles 00:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diversity Players of Harlem

Diversity Players of Harlem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Also nominated
Shawn Luckey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dwight Ali Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ciera Payton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Marq Overton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Part of a large walled garden of dubious articles surrounding this theatre company that also includes this AfD. The company itself may be notable but the article's sources seem to be concentrating on actors that have appeared in their productions, not the company itself. There are sources out there although they tend to be listings. However, the articles on the founders and minor actors are definitely, I think, non-notable. Articles originally created by User:Shawnluckey, the name of one of the founders. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:25, 4 January 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. Davewild (talk) 17:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Le Secret des Vikings

AfDs for this article:
Le Secret des Vikings (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 entry fails

WP:BK are met. Griswaldo (talk) 11:42, 4 January 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 redirect to Kneeling chair. Davewild (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Balans

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

Specific product, not different enough from other chairs (outside of its marketing literature) to warrant its own article. Should exist as a note about chair variations in another article if mentioned at all. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 10:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uggg: Just REDIR it, sheesh. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your tone makes it sound as if I've done something terribly wrong by listing the article on AfD. If I should have done something else please let me know, otherwise I'm left here guessing (or maybe I'm just misinterpreting you). Thanks! Wenttomowameadow (talk) 12:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, just be bold! Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:45, 4 January 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. Davewild (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Philippines Representatives

Miss Philippines Representatives (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 concept of a "Big Four" or "Grand Slam" series of pageants has already been deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GRAND SLAM BEAUTIES, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Four Pageants + Miss TQI and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angola at the Big Four pageants. This article should really have been included in the last AFD, but was not noticed due to its unorthodox page name. O Fenian (talk) 09:48, 4 January 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. Davewild (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo Padovani

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

Does not seem to assert notability. He could have been anything in that group - the janitor...

Even if he did contribute importantly to the discovery - that does not seem to mean that he passes

WP:ACADEMIC. ·Maunus·ƛ· 09:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Thank you for your commitment to improve the article. I will do my best to be diplomatic, but when articles about academics are nominated for deletion without regard for long established policy, it tries the patience of other editors. I add that this particular AfD is not a clear-cut case and is worthy of discussion here, but its nominator seems to have been unaware of
WP:Prof#C1 when he proposed it for speedy deletion. If an article is "shitty", policy requires it to be improved (where there are sources, as there are in this case) rather than be deleted speedily. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC).[reply
]
The subject is not a professor. And as the article was it wasn't even clear that he was an academic - much less what kind of an impact his reserach might have had if he were.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was not too pleased with your comments implying that I'm "incompetent" at James F. Allen. I use google books and James F. Allen turned up nothing. And I couldn't see anything solid in a google search. Notability is not always that obvious. Maunus nominated this for deletion based on the same premise.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See the comments about your search there. It's best to roll with the punches. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:59, 6 January 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. Like is often said, merging is not an exercise of the deletion tool, and there's no consensus here to do so. That discussion can of course continue on the article's talk page. Courcelles 00:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Beatriz (2005)

Tropical Storm Beatriz (2005) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tropical Cyclone 05:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:08, 4 January 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 withdrawn by nom. (non-admin closure) Dusti*poke* 20:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Bredbury

Tim Bredbury (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 is about a notable footballer from Hong Kong. The article however, contains absolutely no references, and a recently placed BLP Prod tag was removed from the article. I added {{

unreferencedBLP
}} to it, but was reliably informed it's no benefit.

Since the article is composed entirely of unsourced material, the BLP rules state that unreferenced or unsourced material be removed immediately. The whole article being so, it's filed here for deletion. Barking Fish 04:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

***WITHDRAWN - Passing admin, please close.*** BarkingFish 17:20, 4 January 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 no consensus. I've read this discussion twice over the last 24 hours, and I can't find any consensus here. Could very well eb worth discussing again in a year's time, but for now, there's no consensus here. Courcelles 00:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Honors

Owen Honors (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 is the commander of an American aircraft carrier who recently received media attention when some "inappropriate" videos he made a couple of years ago became public. News coverage today says he has been relieved of command and will likely face some disciplinary measures, effectively ending his naval career. Prior to this event he was quoted briefly in the news in his capacity as a task force commander during some naval operations, but there hadn't been any significant coverage otherwise. The subject does not meet

one event" bio. FYI, the article was prodded immediately after creation, but that was removed by the creator.   Will Beback  talk  04:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

What rumored content are you referring to? The videos are posted online - nothing rumored about them. Rillian (talk) 14:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep nominator continues to talk about news coverage...then says article does not meet notability guidelines.

    Wikipedia:Other stuff exists" essay argument, as this is the EXAMPLE used in the notability guideline. Surely this case is more important than the Steve Bartman incident (a baseball scandal), because this incident, on the advent of gays being allowed to openly serve, shows the bias of some of those highest in the military and the issues the bias they still have to overcome. Adamtheclown (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep As typical of the
    WP:ONEVENT Deleters, they don't have much of a leg to stand on. Perhaps we should also delete Salvatore Giunta? Seriously though, I do think that a number of military personnel that reach this level in their career do deserve at least some mention in an article. It's just a matter of finding proper documentation to reference and some soul that would at least get the ball rollings. --Hourick (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep for now. While I concur with Jarkeld's reasoning above, the momentary attention warrants having the article. A year from now this question warrants revisiting. -- ke4roh (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • PLEASE KEEP. Notable in relation to recent repeal of DADT as mentioned in several articles about the controversy. Issue made front page of today's Wall Street Journal. (talk) 13:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.201.187.90 (talk)
  • Delete, as the scandal is more important then the individual. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No idea. Being relieved as the commander of the world's longest navy ship over a rather dramatic and timely (in the wake of DADT repeal) issue is kind of a big deal; OTOH, I get the sense that he just misses if Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide is the guide. My guess is, when the history of DADT is written, historians will think of this as a significant tie-in, but of course no one has enough distance yet to write a real history. What may happen here is that the article is deleted for now, but resurfaces in some form as DADT gets more scholarly treatment. So ... thanks for your work, and be sure to keep a copy in case this gets deleted. - Dank (push to talk) 20:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this falls squarely under
    one event. The debate taking place is is over the policy, not the page in question. If you don't like the policy then there are other avenues for making your views heard but keeping an article in violation is not the right course. 207.216.253.134 (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep but move to XO movie night controversy. The notability of the XO movie night was not limited Captain Honors' tenure as XO on the ship. See the 2007 Stars and Stripes article about XO movie night when Cmdr. J.R. Dixon was exec on the Enterprise. Add more about the XO movie night controversy, and less about Honor's bio. Edison (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with above entry; even if you question the necessity of Capt. Honors' bio (and frankly I think a case could be made for keeping it as well), this event was a bona-fide military scandal which does deserve coverage in Wikipedia. For those of you wondering about the actual content of the videos,
      Huffington Post has it here. Please note that I am not commenting about my own opinion of what happened here, only that it deserves coverage. --Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 22:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Keep - Why should this Wiki entry be any different than the Tailhook scandal ? Or for that matter the Exxon Valdez? The Honor entry seems rather well written and researched to me, and certainly is noteworthy. We also have no way of knowing what long ranging effects this will have on the US Navy and their command structure vis a vis his Captain and other higher-ups knowing of the video yet not taking action sooner. Sector001 (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. But this means there may be a need for an article on the videos not on Owen Honors. Thats why we have a tailhook article, but no Cpt. Rick Ludwig article. 207.216.253.134 (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete
    Mkativerata (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Also have to ask: what the heck does this guy have to do with DADT? The videos made were long before the repeal of DADT got traction, and the relief seems to stem from the unprofessional nature of the horsing around, rather than anything about homosexuality (media speculation and hyperbole to the contrary). bahamut0013wordsdeeds 16:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
85.1.192.213 has made no other post ever. I forget the template that automatically says that. Dream Focus 23:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean {{
spa}}?? bahamut0013wordsdeeds 14:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
  • It's gotten over 30 thousand hits in its first few days of existence! [29] This is what people come to Wikipedia to see. To seek out information that interest them. Dream Focus 07:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Essentially a "google hit" argument, which is discounted out of hand. Tarc (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Over 13,000 people a day are turning to Wikipedia for this article. I would not dismiss that out of hand as a "Google hits: big number" argument as you do. Likely many of the "Keep" arguments are coming from these readers of the article. When a few months have gone by, only the Wiki regulars will participate if there is a second AFD. Edison (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Forgive my poor editing skills :) Not only does the ever-increasing coverage make Captain Honors noteworthy, but the level of support shown by former shipmates has been almost unwaveringly positive. That, along with the growing questioning of the timing of this punishment, years after the videos were made and addressed by superiors but immediately after they were made public in the same news cycle as DADT, and considering that the admirals who presided over the original complaint judged it not worthy of official sanction at the time and later gave him command [1], is adding to the growing perception that this is entirely political in nature (ya think?). When you combine this event with the firing of Gen. Stanley McCrystal for similarly indiscreet/embarrassing speech it connects into the whole cultural phenomenon of political correctness and its pervasiveness even in places it might arguably not belong like the military during war ( Honors really should be linked to [2] ), which then connects into the Ground Zero Mosque, Islam and the whole discussion of imbalance when again, it comes to political correctness and tolerance... this all makes the Captain more than just a one-trick-pony, even if he is one tiny gear in a very big clock. And, in the larger sense of Wikipedia as a whole, I came here looking for info on Captain Honors. I wanted his career info to cite for a comment on another site, and I automatically Googled "owen honors wiki" in order to get his Wikipedia page as the first hit. I always add "wiki" to my search terms to get here, for the (mostly) reliably comprehensive compilation of information and the links to outside sources. Isn't that what we want, what the ideal is, for Wikipedia to get as close as it can to being the mythical Storehouse Of All Human Knowledge, to be the go-to guy for information? Our policies should default to a position of inclusion of articles by definition. If the noteworthiness policy disqualifies Captain Honors but not Puck from The Real World, then that policy needs some tweaking. Thanks! Cowcharge (talk) 12:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the
    list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Move and rename - Per WP:EVENT. The scandal is notable, not the person involved. That is what the article should be about. Blueboar (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article has become a dumping ground for
    ORN [30]. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 21:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. Meets the spirit of WP:SOLDIER. An important command involved in an important event. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG ? Tarc (talk) 14:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep. I get annoyed and discouraged people wanting to delete pages. If thousands of people want to read some basic encyclopedic information about a person, why not have a short article.

I wanted to read about Owen Honors, a navy commander who was in the news for controversial comedic videos. His page also is up for deletion.

I certainly see no harm in including people of minor note or short lived fame in the wiki. As far as I can tell it's a boon to human knowledge.

Imagine someone doing a report on gays in the military 20 years from now. Wouldn't it be nice if they could find the contemporaneous issues like Honors? Or Willams and the power of memes in the early internet?

Let's mellow wiki editors. Work instead on expanding and improving.

Overzealous deletion might keep people from contributing, and wiki already suffers with problems of elitism. (I am certainly not saying let poor submitters or poor articles go though, only emphasis should be on improvements not deletion.)

Lastly, if you are self righteous about any deletion, you are probably not the one who should be instigating or arguing for it. You are too personally involved. I would extend that to people who think of themselves as deleters of wiki. I recon any deleter should spend five time writing or improving articles as they do deleting. (If an article really ought not to be included, someone will come along and take care of it later.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.93.220.9 (talk) 06:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC) — 66.93.220.9 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Your entry, once we get past the slander and personal attacks against other editors, can be best summed up as a delving into
WP:NOHARM, which are not a valid reason to retain an article. Tarc (talk) 14:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Move to
    WP:BLP1E; relevant details about Honors can be covered there. RJaguar3 | u | t 19:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Aside from the international attention (all sourced and in the article) regarding the naval investigation currently, he has been mentioned in the LA Daily News (previous jet crash) and quoted by Newsweek for an article about Russia being unhappy with an American humanitarian action in Georgia. I am neither a fan nor detractor of the subject, I simply wanted to know more about him. How many separate incidents of sourced media does he require to be notable? --71.110.65.2 (talk) 17:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you're not saying that page views are an acceptable measure of notability, or that page views constitute a good argument for or against deletion. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The page views have dropped by half again in the last 24 hours. No, page views do not have anything to do with enduring notability - I'm just rebutting those who've said it does.   Will Beback  talk 
  • Delete per
    WP:ONEEVENT. No one outside of the Navy ever heard of him before he made his video and no one will remember him a year from now. TomCat4680 (talk) 13:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Weak Delete - I think this is probably a case of
    WP:BLP1E, but it's a borderline case, as he did have a fairly distinguished career before the recent video controversy. However, I accept the argument that his military career wouldn't be enough to make him notable by itself; as significant a post as captain of an aircraft carrier is, we don't have articles on the rest of them unless they went on to a higher post beyond that. If we wouldn't have had an article on him before, we shouldn't have an article on him due to one event, therefore delete. Robofish (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Your argument here strikes me as rather
WP:OSE, similar to the example they give: "* Delete We do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this. –GetRidOfIt! 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)" Just because there aren't yet articles about some other aircraft carrier captains doesn't mean that there shouldn't be - as long as there are enough reliable sources to document their career - it just means they haven't been written yet. -Helvetica (talk) 02:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Actually, you're wrong, there is an article on Y, and even a why, if you wanna get picky about it.

He meets the criteria of

WP:MILPEOPLE
, and this has been discussed long enough. Can someone hurry up and make their mind up already?

  • Keep - enough coverage to qualify
    WP:MILPEOPLE. KVIKountry (talk) 00:35, 10 January 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. John Keats is notable. John Keats in Popular Culture is only notable if there are sources that discuss John Keats in popular culture. The only offered source to this effect has been rebutted and the keep votes are mostly assertions and opinions rather then evidence based opinions founded on specific policies. Obvious if there are specific sources this can be revisited on my talk page

Spartaz Humbug! 12:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

John Keats in Popular Culture

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

A random grouping of references to (or maybe to) Keats in others' works ranging from the famous to various high school poetry reads. C'mon we're an encyclopedia not a concordance nor a citation index. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete random list of indiscriminate trivia. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—Such lists are a clear demonstration of the individual's impact on our culture, and hence are notable sub-topics when sufficient citations are provided and the link between the separately notable item and the individual are clearly demonstrated. I view it like a listing series of awards won or reporting honorary doctorates granted.—RJH (talk)
  • Delete per nom. A random cluttering of tidbits and factoids without a central topic. A well-written summary of this material may be written in prose on the main article, but an indiscriminate listing of every time Keats has appeared in a work of media is unencyclopedic. ThemFromSpace 18:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - disregarding the
    reliable sources pointing out that X has appeared or been used by popular culture? and (2) Do those sources mention that connection in a significant way? I think the answer is in the affirmative for both questions here. Bearian (talk) 19:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep and cleanup Needs improving but useful.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keeping this is an invitation to everything in popular culture. a list of what cites or alludes to what is not encyclopedic - like a list of every article that mentions Keats....etc. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it only includes those presentations that are in works sufficiently notable for Wikipedia articles. That's a very small subset of "everything". Objecting to an article because inappropriate content might be added is reason to delete the entire encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the table of contents of the book you cited, DGG, I see the words "popular culture" in the title of an article that appears to be about Keats's drawing on popular tradition in his "Eve of St. Mark" fragment, not about appearances of Keats himself in subsequent popular culture. None of the other studies gathered therein seem relevant to this discussion, either. What exactly did you intend to convey by linking to that book? Deor (talk) 15:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
deletion policy: whatever can be solved by editing is never a reason to delete. --Cyclopiatalk 22:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Yawn - Please don't ever bother yourself linking me to worthless essays. If the content isn't soon cited there will only be a couple of lines left. Supporting uncited content is detrimental to the project.
Off2riorob (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Our
deletion policy is not a "worthless essay"; read it and read it well, please. --Cyclopiatalk 00:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
No its not, thats policy and nothing there supports the keeping of any uncited trivia.
Off2riorob (talk) 02:32, 4 January 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, Logan Talk Contributions 04:23, 4 January 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. Again, we have the problem of weak and policy-free arguments. AfD is not a vote; users commenting must provide a cogent argument with policy cites if they expect their statement to have any weight. The "keep" comments in one case agree that "it's against all policy and the AfD nomination is entirely correct" and in the other, as commented, provide no real argument. The "delete" comments follow a similar pattern, but despite a lack of links, at least make comments along the lines of

WP:NOT#STATS. The single "redirect" comment again provides no detailed rationale. I implore all users at this AfD to, in the future, provide some semblance of a policy-based, cogent rationale with their comment. Ironholds (talk) 05:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

List of Identity Parade guests on Never Mind the Buzzcocks

List of Identity Parade guests on Never Mind the Buzzcocks (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 list is complete

excessive listing of statistics. —Half Price 22:50, 1 January 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, Logan Talk Contributions 04:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
I was serious, but I was in a very light hearted mood that night (having just watched Eric and Ernie). That's why I bracketed my !vote with the admission that it was quite against process. I genuinely do think it should stay but I quite understand why it can't and won't. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 10:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is interesting, useful information about a show which is well known and respected in the UK. The article is quite complete, well put together and easy to read.86.144.190.110 (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First and (so far) only edit from this IP. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 20:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is that relevant? When I visited (and enjoyed) the article, there was a banner at the top saying "Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page", so I did.
I've actually made a few rare edits in the past, but I'm not technical enough to know why my IP address shows up differently on different occasions. As I said, though, I'm not sure why that would be relevant.86.144.190.110 (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's sometimes the case that edits to AfD as first-time edits or those from very new accounts are simply people who have been recruited to come and 'vote', thinking that AfD is decided on a majority basis. You're obviously not a new editor (it took me ages to get the formatting of talk page replies with :: etc!) so I'm sure this doesn't apply here. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 21:46, 4 January 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. With no prejudice to discussion elsewhere agreeing to organise the content differently. Davewild (talk) 08:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of abbeys and priories in England – Counties M to W

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

This partially duplicates the scope of

List of abbeys and priories in England – Counties H-W cymru.lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 03:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep. Clearly there has been some confusion somewhere, but this is something which looks better solved by a content discussion. If, after agreeing what information should go where, there are redundant articles duplicating information, we can probably speedy delete those as a G6 and/or G7 assuming it's uncontroversial. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I did suggest at User talk:JohnArmagh#List of abbeys and priories in England that these lists would be better organised by county, similar to the List of windmills in England. Mjroots (talk) 07:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply They are mostly organized by county if you check the wikicode. It just transcludes a bunch of separate templates and pages. One of the problems is that by transcluding them all on one page, the entire thing loads very slowly. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is clearly a duplicate so the decision of how to split the lists should be done on a tlak page NOT at AFD. iN my view H-W would be far too bloated and M-W is reasonable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep per Dr. Blofeld. The issue of how the various lists of abbeys and priories is split should be discussed elsewhere, probably at WikiProject level. Mjroots (talk) 07:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep -- I would however suggest that the article should segregate medieval monasteries (all dissolved in 1537-9) from those founded in the 19th and 20th centuries. The question is thus about how they should be organised. With historical subjects it is common to use pre-1974 counties as the use of the current ones is anachronistic. It may be that the article needs to be split further. Note: those Cathedrals that were also monasteries were dissolved at the Dissolution, but almost immediately refounded as colleges of secular canons (which are not monasteries). Peterkingiron (talk) 22:41, 10 January 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. if its lacking decent independant sourcing then the deletion votes are indeed policy based and compelling

Spartaz Humbug! 12:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

575th Signal Company (United States)

575th Signal Company (United States) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/101st Chemical Company (United States), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/722nd Ordnance Company (United States), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/105th Military Police Company (United States) separate, non-combat companies are not considered sufficent notable to merit their own articles. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: per the guidance at
    WP:UNDUE. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete - per nominator and AR. Anotherclown (talk) 06:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. First, it is somewhat peculiar that nom failed to respect my note that I was adding sources in a bit. He waited not even an hour an a half, which may be on the shy side of requisite
    WP:OTHERSTUFF
    , which clarifies that his pointing to other articles not existing is not a good argument for deletion. But rather one that we are urged to avoid making in an AfD discussion. We have to look at each article, and what he is pointing to is certainly not a wikipedia policy or guideline. But rather a few AfDs that are fact-specific, and have not gone through the proposal/discussion/review/consensus required to set wp policy and guidelines.
Furthermore, as nom likely is aware, other articles on other such companies do in fact exist on wikipedia (see, e.g., the articles with lesser RS coverage reflecting notability that we have for:
Number 1 Armoured Car Company RAF, and Rifle Company Butterworth). In any event, the article now reflects sufficient RS coverage of this company (though the prior commentators did not have a chance to see the refs) to satisfy wp's general notability requirements.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Upmerge: no independnat notability per
    WP:OTHERSTUFF by offering several precedents, then goes on to violate it blatently himself in his second paragraph. Apples to oranges in many of those links, especially the Force Recons and the 507th, which are quite clearly notable in and of themselves. The reference additions were not really substantive as I can tell; most of them seem to be about higher formations or lists of units, rather than the company itself, and mostly only go to establish that the company exists and its lineage, rather than proving it is independantly notable. The article also seems to contradict itself somewhat, first by detailing its combat history (with some officers that seem rather high-ranking to be serving in a signal company), then claims in the last paragraph that the unit was created on paper as a ghost unit for deception purposes! Was it a real unit formed in 1943 that fought in Europe, or what it a dummy unit concieved in 1944 and simply generated false radio traffic? bahamut0013wordsdeeds 13:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I think that you miss a couple of points. First, I wasn't hanging my hat on "other stuff" -- I was simply pointing out that (since the issue was raised by nom) other stuff does exist. Second, as the guideline points out, as a sole criterion "otherstuff" fails. That is what nom did. But when coupled with other reasons, it may well form part of a cogent rationale. I was certainly supplying other reasons. Third, unlike the real world, wikipedia does not work on precedents (though often I wish it did). Fourth, I gather I must revisit the article later today when I have a moment to address what no doubt was my poor drafting. The company both existed as a real 575th Signal Company (the ranks that you refer to were of people in the company), and as a notional 575th Signal Company (to mislead the Germans as to where the non-notional entity was--the hope was that the Germans would be deceived into moving its forces to the location that the notional force was ... with the notional 575th Signal Company sending messages that supported the belief that the US was massing its forces there). Fifth, a problem with an upmerge is that editors such as the first !voter above may well argue that it would be too much -- wp:undue. Sixth, this article has more RS support, IMHO, than each of the above-indicated articles about other companies.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you rather misinterpreted my rationale. I did not insinuate that OTHERSTUFF was the cruxt of your argument, simply expressed my anger that you could be so brazen in criticizing Buckshot and then trangress yourself. The nominator did not rely on OTHERSTUFF as a rationale, rather, he stated "separate, non-combat companies are not considered sufficent notable to merit their own articles" and pointed to precedent, which Wikipedia does recognize (perhaps not as a manner of policy, but as an argument in a centrallized discussion, yet, it has merit). An upmerge need not violate UNDUE if done carefully, which I think it can be easily.
I thank you for clarifying the point about the deception: that there was the real company and a deception company under the same name. Surely that can be made more clear in the article. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 14:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for not being clear. OTHERSTUFF only applies where it is the crux of the argument, not where it is only a part of the argument. "Precedent" is other stuff, and that is the crux of what he relied on. I have to disagree with you about how precedent is viewed on wp ... this has been discussed many times throughout the project (and believe me, I am not wholly in favor of the project view, though I respect it). And let me clarify again -- inasmuch as I clearly (I thought it was clear) did not rely on other stuff as the crux of my rationale, the very terms of the policy make quite clear that to point to other stuff in such circumstances may well be completely appropriate -- not at all a "transgression". For policy, we look to more centralized discussions that is afforded by three AfDs, all brought by the nom here, with very limited community input in toto. That why in AfD arguments to avoid it is made clear that, while precedents may have an impact on an AfD, the fact that some articles on a related topic have been rejected does not mean that this one is unsuitable. I would be interested in Australia's comments as to whether all of this material could be maintained in an upmerge ... I'm not sure he would agree with you. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Epeefleche's listing are almost exclusively separate combat companies, of which we have agreed on the notability. The others - including a sigs company, I see - are candidates for deletion themselves. This article needs to have its text split between the 75th Div article - where KOBLENZ could go - and, possibly other articles, but the company is not notable in of of itself. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - couldn't find material coverage. KVIKountry (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hypothetically, one could get one other person to agree to a vague deletion criteria on a project page, get one related article 'A' deleted on those grounds, and then get B deleted on the strength of A's deletion, C deleted on the strength of A & B...Not 'sufficient' good policy. Link to the original discussion, please. Anarchangel (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/722nd Ordnance Company (United States) is in the deletion explanation request is that it includes a perma-link to the original discussion. Please read the linked AfDs - that's why they're there. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:19, 11 January 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 an unsourced BLP per

WP:BLP. Will be glad to userfy/restore this if someone wants to source it. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Matúš Valent

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

Unsourced biography with vague assertions of notability. —Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:52, 4 January 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. Davewild (talk) 08:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nakamura Toranosuke

Nakamura Toranosuke (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:BIO. nothing in gnews and google indicates mainly mirror sites. simply being a kabuki actor doesn't guarantee an article. would reconsider if someone can find Japanese coverage. LibStar (talk) 07:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 4 January 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. Is someone can find better sources then feel free to recreate this. Will userfy/incubate upon request. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Shaikh

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

Article doesnot meet

WP:N) of Wikipedia! BurhanAhmed (talk • contribs) 09:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

@Lear's, 4th most influential Muslim in the world, 2009 Reuters poll, reference updated in the article. What needs to be re-written further? Please elaborate.ThanksMessengerOfPeace (talk) 12:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 4 January 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. Davewild (talk) 08:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daze (Eurodance band)

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 cites one source, which is a listing that includes the name only and is in any case a primary source. It has never had any other sources and it reads as a personal essay or opinion. Guy (Help!) 09:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More sources added and the worst of the opinion stuff removed. Please indicate if more is needed. --Harthacnut (talk) 14:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 4 January 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 with no prejudice against recreation if someone wishes to create a sourced article. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Petrick

Jack Petrick (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 was created by an IP in 2005 and hasn't grown over a sentence since. It remains unreferenced and after having tried a whole host of different google searches I couldn't find a source. The no reference tag has been on the page since June 2009 but to no avail. I submit that we will find it impossible to find a reference for the article, therefore it has no place on WP. Also, are presidents of cable TV channels even notable? —Half Price 13:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 4 January 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. Absolutely no sourcing to imply it passes

WP:GNG, and no rebuttal to or allaying of the nominator's argument and issue. Ironholds (talk) 05:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Gothic cowboy

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

Apparently non-notable fashion trend. Searches returns a few literal results - ie. people using "gothic cowboy" as a nickname &c - but no substantial discussion of "gothic cowboy" as a fashion trend. bobrayner (talk) 13:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per bobrayner Logical Cowboy (talk) 13:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Very niche and low impact scene, but it was real and a distinctive look. The Nephs are where to start looking for sourcing. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried that and found no sources which actually discussed the "gothic cowboy" subject in any more depth than just gluing together the words "gothic" and "cowboy" as part of a discussion of related concepts. If you can identify any sources, they would be welcome; but in the meantime The Nephs might not be cited, because it's a wikipedia article and it neither includes nor paraphrases "gothic cowboy". Whether or not it's real is not at stake; notability is the problem. bobrayner (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 4 January 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, NW (Talk) 02:28, 12 January 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. NW (Talk) 02:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandros-Ferdinandos Georgoudas

Alexandros-Ferdinandos Georgoudas (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:Notability (sports) for tennis players Mayumashu (talk) 01:22, 4 January 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. Courcelles 00:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Stolen Cartoons

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

Plot-only description of a non-notable TV episode. No significant, independent coverage in

gab 23:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 4 January 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. Courcelles 00:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarabelle's Big Secret

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

Plot-only description of a non-notable TV episode. No significant, independent coverage in

talk 23:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 4 January 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. The

WP:BIO guidelines interlink; simply passing one of them is sufficient for inclusion. In this case, the subject seems to pass WP:BIO, and the users' consensus reflects this. Ironholds (talk) 06:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Timo Pielmeier (3rd nomination)

AfDs for this article:
Timo Pielmeier (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, reason given that he is the starting goalie for an AHL team (which is not a valid reason for notability under

WP:ATH. Has not played professionally in the NHL, and, according to the links, his play in the DEL was actually in the junior leagues. Ravendrop (talk) 01:06, 4 January 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

List of recurring characters in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. Courcelles 00:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Winn Adami

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

Article is completely unreferenced. It is written in an entirely in-universe manner, and I can't find much real-world coverage of this character in secondary sources independent of the subject. These problems have existed for several years, and I don't see much hope that they can ever be resolved. The WordsmithCommunicate 00:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to
List of characters in Deep Space Nine the character does appear many times in the series and does play an important role in several episodes/story arcs, but there simply isn't enough outside coverage on her to merit an article. --- cymru.lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 05:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Merge to
List of characters in Deep Space Nine per above. An important character in the series. JIP | Talk 06:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

*Keep per the five pillars A Nobody Has Returned From The Sea (talk) 11:39, 5 January 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. No consensus to keep or merge, but the deletion tool is clearly not called for here. Further discussion on the article's talk page. Courcelles 00:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rom (Star Trek)

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

Article is completely unreferenced. It is written in an entirely in-universe manner, and I can't find much real-world coverage of this character in secondary sources independent of the subject. These problems have existed for several years, and I don't see much hope that they can ever be resolved. The WordsmithCommunicate 00:53, 4 January 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. No consensus regarding to keep as a seperate article or merge, but the deletion tool is clearly not called for here. Further discussion on the article's talk page. Courcelles 00:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nog

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

Article is completely unreferenced. It is written in an entirely in-universe manner, and I can't find much real-world coverage of this character in secondary sources independent of the subject. These problems have existed for several years, and I don't see much hope that they can ever be resolved. The WordsmithCommunicate 00:51, 4 January 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. Courcelles 00:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen (radio personality)

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

Previously deleted under PROD and recreated. Questionable notability with no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The-Pope (talk) 00:42, 4 January 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. Ironholds (talk) 06:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

APAtT

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

Music group that doesn't appear to meet the notability standards of

WP:MUSIC. Only independent source is a news listing showing that they played once at a local music festival. NawlinWiki (talk) 00:30, 4 January 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. Courcelles 00:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of ultra groups

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

List of mainly not notable groups. Most of these are only referenced by

WP:PRIMARY sources. Gnevin (talk) 00:02, 4 January 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.
  1. ^ http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/01/05/national/main7215425.shtml
  2. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness#Criticism
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2011_January_4&oldid=1142638183"