Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 May 2

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 1 May 3 May >

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 keep. -- Cirt (talk) 06:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yemenia Flight 448

Yemenia Flight 448 (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 hijack. Plane didn't leave the ground. Hijacker stopped easily. The flight had notable passengers on board, which BTW the unreferenced article, but I think this is not noteworthy for an article

WP:NOTNEWS—Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamJE (talk • contribs
) 23:32, 2 May 2011

  • Comment - The US Ambassador is not notable? See paywalled news article. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 03:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, according to the FAA's Criminal Acts Against Civil Aviation, 2001, p. 28, the US ambassador to Yemen, the Yemeni ambassador to the US, and the US Deputy Chief of Mission to Yemen were all aboard. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 05:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • How could a plane that was hijacked while in the air "didn't leave the ground"? --Oakshade (talk) 04:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment - according to the Aviation Safety Network entry ([1]), the plane was actually hijacked in midair about 15 minutes into the flight. Unless this is another separate incident, on another Yemenia Flight 448 (which I seriously doubt), the Yemenia 448 page itself is wrong. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 05:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC) the nominator's rationale is wrong. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 05:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the nominator's rationale is wrong" - except for the unreferenced part, which has yet to be addressed in the article itself. - BilCat (talk) 12:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes it has. Nominator claims plane never left the ground and the hijacker was "stopped easily." The article claims that the plane was in the air when the hijacking occurred, and that the flight crew managed to subdue the hijacker. The article's only wrong on the number of injuries. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 17:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, the article does not have sources.- BilCat (talk) 18:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Now it does. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 18:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Good. - BilCat (talk) 19:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Not so good.
                WP:AIRCRASH
                lists three criteria for whether an incident should have an article. They are-

The accident was fatal to humans; The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport; The accident or incident resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry


Yemenia Flight 448 doesn't fit any of the three. That the plane had noteworthy passengers on board(BTW I found an article that said General Tommy Franks was on board.)) isn't grounds for an article.- William 19:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for now As written, the article has no sources, and asserts no real claims of notability. Mukkakukaku has shown that there are sources and claims of lasting notability, but we won't know if these will be able to meet the AIRCRASH, GNG, and EVENT guidelines until they are actually added into the article - adding them to the AFD page doesn't countIf these issues are properlay addressed in the article, I'll review my stand at that time. - BilCat (talk) 12:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Yemenia article. The hijacking is verified by ASN, but not the claims made in the article. Mjroots (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Switching to Keep following improvements to the article via references which show that there were changes as a result of the incident. Mjroots (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Looks like this could be sourced into a full fleshed out article. Found 29 news articles: [2], this one is particularly good for details: [3], additional 16 news articles here: [4]. Denaar (talk) 05:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of news coverage doesn't make the incident noteworthy. Take for instance WP:Articles_for_deletion/Air_France_Flight_7 where planes collided on the ground at JFK. On the other hand, a crash like Viasa Flight 742 where it is hard info about is noteworthy enough for a Wikipedia article. It was the worst aviation accident in history at the time and had a very large amount of on the ground casualties.- William 13:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've reviewed
WP:NOTNEWS and still feel this is a keep. It meets the general notability guideline and has significant, in depth coverage, not routine reports. It was reported Internationally so it has a wide geographical scope. It sparked a review of safety procedures for US Ambassadors [5]. It's been analyzed in a pre-9/11 context [6].Denaar (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Diamond and The Legend of the Sparks

Lucas Diamond and The Legend of the Sparks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence this film exists or will exist: see "Lucas Diamond and the Legend of the Sparks". Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 23:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Kinu t/c 02:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NuEnglish

NuEnglish (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-promotional page about a non-notable spelling-reform system; almost entirely written by the system's creators, no legitimate sources for the system, only "source" is a book published by the author by the American Book Publishing company, a vanity press known for its scams (see numerous articles on the web) Benwing (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Agree with OP, self-promotional page. Denaar (talk) 05:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I couldn't find any sources independent from the creators. Dingo1729 (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree, no validity. Wickedjacob (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Close since this is a second, less active nomination. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sohaib Athar

AfDs for this article:
Sohaib Athar (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 don't usually nominate articles so early in their development but I feel this subject's notability may hinge entirely on

Qwertyus 22:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Already nominated, deleted, and recreated. Delete and SALT.
11 23:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Delete and salt - FCTS 142 (talk) 23:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: It has not been deleted yet, there are just two separate nominations running at the same time, and could probably be closed per
WP:SNOW. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Redirect to
I'm chanting as we speak 23:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Good point. Changing my recommendation to Redirect. - Drlight11 - 72.192.216.20 (talk) 23:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP until one can see just how extensive the subject's reputation is becoming. In the meantime, someone needs to shut down one of the deletion templates. We don't need two of them. Are we supposed to vote twice?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard David Ramsey (talk • contribs) 23:27, 2 May 2011
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This is an early

WP:BLP1E, and there are only a very small handful of editors suggesting that the article is kept, with reasons being either that he has been mentioned in numerous news articles, that he satisfies WP:GNG, that he witnessed an important event or that he has a lot of Twitter followers. None of these arguments are fatal to a finding of "one event" (in fact, very many "one event" articles have the same characteristics) and they do not seem to have a chance of changing the "one event" consensus in this case. I'm happy to discuss this further on my talk page, or for anybody to go ahead and reopen it, but it seems to me that keeping this open is not productive. TigerShark (talk) 21:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Sohaib Athar

Sohaib Athar (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. He's getting his fifteen minutes of fame for unwittingly tweeting the raid on Osama bin Laden's hideout in Pakistan, and is not deserving of an article on Wikipedia. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete/Userfy/Merge - (
Qwertyus 22:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
  • The fact that the one news item about him is still reaching people and piquing their curiosity a mere 24 hours later, is hardly evidence of lasting notablity. (I was famous for a day once, too.) Anyone notable enough to create an article for will still be notable enough for that to happen a week or a month from now. The creation of this article jumped the gun, presuming notability when it does not exist, and may never exist. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, but the reports of the tweet are reliable sources.
    Location (talk) 00:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Not everyone who shows up in news articles is noteworthy; most are 24-hour "celebrities" never heard of again. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment - the guy makes his own case for delete with "I am JUST a tweeter, awake at the time of the crash. Not many twitter users in Abbottabad, these guys are more into facebook. That's all."[7] --Marc Kupper|talk 07:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I changed from Delete to Keep based on
WP:N qualifying news coverage of this individual. CNN, WTOP, NY Daily News, Times of India, Times of India (another article), and Newswise (coverage is not of Sohaib Athar himself but uses him in an analysis of the role of the individual voice and "eye on the ground"). Google News has 1,978 hits for Sohaib-Athar at the moment. Many of those are blogs but there's additional news media coverage beyond what I just noted. --Marc Kupper|talk 18:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
You should really check all the attention he's getting in the press. His name is all over Google, not to mention the thousands of twitter views he's got. Lyk4 (talk) 08:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. He's a meme now, especially on the issue of people assuming that Abbottabad is "remote" (relative to the observer) and backwards, and here is a work-from-home IT consultant tweeting this raid in real time, which puts the town squarely in the 21st century. In this context, his meme-hood and details of his life illustrate and undermine cultural assumptions, and so he deserves to be documented for the convenience of people interested in this subject. Erxnmedia (talk) 12:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thats very Template:Globalize/West from you. -- 21:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
The value of their contribution is debatable, but it appears that he together with Mohsin Shah were the first to provide coverage. Nonetheless, the individual themselves are now subject to coverage.Smallman12q (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He's also received coverage for having his website hacked with the black hole exploit kit.Smallman12q (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Notable enough to be mentioned on
    Death of Osama bin Laden, but not notable enough for a redirect. Denaar (talk) 06:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Redirect→
    Death of Osama bin Laden - redirects are cheap and notbility isn't as much of an issue for a redirect. pablo 09:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep or Redirect. Subject of article already passed
    spun out at a future date. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Per nom. Pymouss Let's talk 11:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Every yahoo who ever appeared in a movie or strummed a guitar or spouted nonsense on a TV news program has a wikipedia entry. Why not a guy who witnessed -- and was the first to report a historic event?
    Herbert Morrison (announcer), the journalist who witnessed the crash of the Hindenberg, has a long Wikipedia article. The whole basis of his fame is his two minutes of reporting on the crash. The killing of Osama bin Laden is obviously much more important than the crash of a blimp. So, why arent people up in arms that Morrison is the subject of a wikipedia article? Smallchief (talk) 16:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

Spartaz Humbug! 19:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

List of Discworld characters by region

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

Most of the characters here seem pretty trivial to the

notable. While there is some leniency with lists, there still needs to be some indication that it passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, notable characters should get their own articles and minor characters should be mentioned in a "Characters" section of the book(s) they appear in. This is an unsupportable list with no indication that the individual characters are notable. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Minor characters in Discworld, remove any who overlap the other lists, and organize alphabetically instead of by region. Matchups 02:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is an unneeded
    a directory. Jfgslo (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete - plot only. --Anthem of joy (talk) 09:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Riccardo de Pra

Riccardo de Pra (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

resume of an unknown chef, probably Laviolachetiama (talk · contribs) himself. bender235 (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 17:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Debs and grads

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! is complete nonsense; no refs, no links, no anything. Sarah777 (talk) 19:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 20:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really see a valid reason for deletion in this nomination. Yes, it's unreferenced, but references can be added, if they are available. It's not "complete nonsense" at all.--BelovedFreak 20:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It makes sense to me, and I rather think that the phrase is well-known in Ireland: here are four news items [12], [13], [14] and [15]. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 20:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Incompleteness is not a reason for deletion — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 23:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article is incomplete, and it does not have any reference to sustain its notability (the verifiability factor), however a preliminary research gives a good background to be either added or sourced to the article, thus it is notable and should be kept. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 23:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No references is at least one reference too short in my book, but the content is not that badly written, and my only concern is whether it is
    talk) 22:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to

Bug river. — Scientizzle 14:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Bug river (disambiguation)

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

Disambiguation page is not needed for only two items. Hat note is at the top of both pages already Ajh1492 (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is intertwined with a discussion on Western Bug vs Bug River page movement at the talk page - see there for details. If a user searches on Bug they will get redirected to the Bug (disambiguation) page which has a Geography section pointing them to either river-related article. In addition there are hatnotes on both river pages in keeping with WP policy on hatnotes vs. disambiguation pages.
My point is that there doesn't need to be a separate disambiguation page just for two entries. I'm just asking that this page is deleted. Ajh1492 (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


In reality the names of the rivers in question are Bug River and Southern Buh River, so the disambiguation itself is questionable. Ajh1492 (talk) 11:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Kinu t/c 02:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michal Lojewski

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

Poorly sourced

conflict of interest. bender235 (talk) 20:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Baseball Watcher 02:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bug river

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

Disambiguation page is not needed for only two items. Hat note is at the top of both pages already. Ajh1492 (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is intertwined with a discussion on Western Bug vs Bug River page movement at the talk page - see there for details. If a user searches on Bug they will get redirected to the Bug (disambiguation) page which has a Geography section pointing them to either river-related article. In addition there are hatnotes on both river pages in keeping with WP policy on hatnotes vs. disambiguation pages.
My point is that there doesn't need to be a separate disambiguation page just for two entries. I'm just asking that this page NOT be a disambiguation page, but just a redirect page. Ajh1492 (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


In reality the names of the rivers in question are Bug River and Southern Buh River, so the disambiguation itself is questionable. Ajh1492 (talk) 11:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Two viable topics, neither primary. It probably should be moved to Bug River for caps, but that's not necessary for this discussion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Bug River. Shannontalk contribs 03:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Kinu t/c 02:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Reynolds

Kenneth Reynolds (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 biography of someone who appears to be a marketing executive, publicist and business man. I can't see anything in the article that indicates any particular

notability. I can't find any significant coverage of him in reliable sources either. I found a couple of tiny press release-type paragraphs - in Black Enterprise from 1980 and Jet from 1979. He obviously has worked with many notable individuals, but notability is not inherited. I realise that he has quite a common name so I may be missing something in search results and am quite happy to be proved wrong. BelovedFreak 19:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 19:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 19:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted.

Non-admin closure. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

How the American society is reflected at "the Simpson" TV Series

How the American society is reflected at "the Simpson" TV Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. 19:11, 4 May 2011 Ponyo (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Atmananda Swamiji" ‎ (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.swamiatmanand.com/Atmanand.htm) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Atmananda Swamiji

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

{{Tone}} and source issues are fundamental. If someone wants to make this article, it should be userfied--it's unacceptable in its present form. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Kinu t/c 02:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EJ Topping, Author

EJ Topping, Author (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 author lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails

WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete. I authored this article and attempted to provide proper references. I appreciate all of the above comments and I understand the concerns. Although I may have been a spec premature in entering this article, since his press release went out this past Monday, EJ has been invited on several radio shows and is in discussion with several TV talk shows including a potential religious debate with Bill Maher.
Notability is a complex subject which explains the difficulty in setting hardfast guidelines and obviously requires a series of agreeing judgements in some cases in order to make a delete, don't delete decision.
This is not a self-serving article as I stand to gain nothing from it. It is not
vanispamcruftisement
. However, I first met this person as a child in Mensa and I have interviewed him several times over the decades because I want to be his biographer if he passes away before I do.
He is an introvert and very much has lead a dual life of "acting like an extrovert" and leading a relatively secret life as a philosopher and intellectual introvert. Witness his website www.universallightchurch.org where he remains absolutely anonomous.
What makes EJ Topping notable, is the content of his words. There have been many authors, philosophers and religious leaders who were not "notable" until long after their death.
I will be glad to send a copy of his book to you and let you be the judge... since in this instance, you truly are the judge.Mr Grease (talk) 22:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC) — Mr Grease (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Kinu t/c 03:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Coppinger

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

Non notable local councillor in Ireland. Article appears to have been created on speculation that subject could have been a substitute Member of the European Parliament. This speculation was incorrect. She has not received national coverage, but only mentions in passing and mentions in local media. Subject fails

talk) 17:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 17:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deletion as a non-notable band

DiamondShotgun

DiamondShotgun (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

T 15:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Keep Sumsum2010·T·C 03:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Mamatas

Nick Mamatas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Comment Putting your comment at the top is a poor substitute for making an argument with substance, Zonebridge. Also, WP:NPA. IceCreamEmpress (talk) 03:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC) 03:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Absolutely delete. This page is nothing more than an ego massage for a no talent hack. Nomination for most awards is a popularity contest (as Mr. Mamatas is so wont to point out at every turn). Mr. Mamatas is also very quick to point out that awards mean nothing in the overall scheme of things. That being said; why should criteria that he, himself, does not believe in be used as a basis for this page. There are more deserving authors, those that have won actual awards and whose talents exceed Mr. Mamatas's. These authors also do not feel the need to have a Wiki page, letting their work speak for them. It does seem suspect to this user that his reviews appear in venues where he has either worked or has friends who work(ed) there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zonebridge (talk contribs) 17:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC) — Zonebridge (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

A lack of reliable third part sources necessary for

WP:BLP. Also, publications don't seem notable and awards are regional, not enough to distinguish person as notable. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete, lack of third party coverage confirming notability. Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but agree this needs tighter focus, more information on national and international nominations and awards (2011 Hugo nomination as editor, frex), more 3rdP sourcing. Confusing a less-than-optimal article with the actual RL notability of the subject seems like an error, though. (Disclaimer: I also work in the US publishing industry.) IceCreamEmpress (talk) 09:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep absolutely. The Stoker, the Hugo and World Fantasy are hardly regional awards and alone would indicate "notable" works. The article could use some reorganization, but should absolutely not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edonald (talk • contribs) 12:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as the awards are hardly regional or insignificant (and nominations for them makes the publications de facto notable). The article does need to be cleaned up. --Yendi (talk) 13:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The World Fantasy Award and the Hugo Award are hardly "regional" awards. They are the highest honors in the entire field of fantasy and science fiction, and even if you contend that they only apply to English works (which they don't by their own rules, although admittedly in practice mostly only English works get considered), that's still hardly "regional." Kevin Standlee (talk) 14:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The World Fantasy Award is not regional. It's right in the name! JoeNotCharles (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The awards may in fact be world-wide, but his work was nominated and did not win. Seep
    WP:BIO. In order to clear notability he would also need third party coverage to establish notability, as noted above. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 15:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment.
    WP:BIO—four certainly counts as "several," Incidentally, the fourth nomination is current—the Bram Stoker award winners for 2010 will be announced in June, so he may still win. Further, he now has, as of just over a week ago, a second Hugo nomination in a second category. Third party coverage already linked to in the entry includes a national NPR program ("On the Media") and a review essay by Laird Barron. This suggests that the call for deletion has little to do with notability guidelines and much to do with the occasional tendency by Wikipedia users to put up a lot of entries for deletion. There's really no debate to be had—the entry meets notability guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.93.88 (talk) 15:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC) — 67.164.93.88 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
    ]
  • Drop the matter completely, as entire debate serves only to inflate article subject's already-massive ego. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.238.143 (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC) — 76.125.238.143 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep The reasons for nominating this article are spurious, at best. What is with the ever-present cabal of Wikipedians who get all moist over deleting articles? Does Jim Wales send out an extra fruitcake at Christmas to people who nominate the most articles for a VfD? --Phrost (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In the
    WP:COI. The bottom line, as the editor who suggested a delete noted, is a lack of reliable thrid party sources and the lack of the subject clearning notability.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 19:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment. Meeting one or more
    WP:BIO criterion does not guarantee inclusion, but it's rather silly to first argue that the awards are regional, and then when that is refuted argue that mere nominations don't count, and when that is refuted change your argument a third time without changing your opinion. Clearly, the reasons you put up for deletion originally simply aren't true-the awards are not regional, the publications are notable, and there are reliable third-party notes, including NPR. (It's also worth noting that the NPR material does not show Mamatas in a good light, which suggests that COI isn't a major issue with this entry either.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.71.54.226 (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC) — 12.74.54.226 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
    ]
  • Comment.
    WP:AUTHOR explains that "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Mamatas's creative work has been widely reviewed in Publishers Weekly, the Los Angeles Times, The Believer, and other periodicals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.71.54.226 (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per usual with too enthusiastic deletists, the nominator confuses an imperfect with an unnecessary article. Nick Manatas is an internationally published author with some standing in horror and science fiction, both for his own writing as well as his editorial work, as a five minute google search would find out. Deleting an article on a perhaps minor writer/editor does not make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia; improving it does. --Martin Wisse (talk) 20:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Several of the "keep"ers are SPA's who have solely or largely edited this article. And, after all this discussion, no-one has yet come up with independent third party sources confirming notability--the article is still mainly sourced to blogs and Mamatas' own autobiographical writing. An NPR interview deals with his early experience writing other people's term papers for hire, which does not make him notable. Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Jonathanwallace, so your argument above boils down to "people who are knowledgeable about Mr. Mamatas' notability are suspect because they are knowledgeable." Well done there. As for independent third party sources of information, Locus magazine, the trade magazine of the science fiction and fantasy publishing industry, keeps an extensive list of award nominees for the major awards in the genre, and you may find an extensive list of Mr. Mamatas' nominations within the genre, including his Hugo and Stoker nods.Scalzi (talk) 01:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Note that Scalzi is arguably capable of showing that Mamatas is notable all by his lonesome. Perhaps we will see a repeat of the spurious NIcoll AfDs from a couple of years back, and have even more SFF professionals show up. Ergative rlt (talk) 13:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The NPR appearance is actually about Mamatas's personal essay on his experience writing term papers for hire; surely publishing an essay that leads to national media appearances to discuss the topic is a sign of notability. Further, which "keep"ers specifically have solely or largely edited the article? (And if the edits improve the article by adding sources from third-party publications, what of it?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.93.88 (talk) 01:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Despite Jonathanwallace's concern that despite "all this discussion" (one day of seven) is leading to nothing, the entry is easy to update. Reviews from the Village Voice, Los Angeles Times' online edition, Publishers Weekly, and the Internet Review of Science Fiction have all been added, and it didn't even take the five minutes of Googling Martin Wisse suggested the deleters try. More like two minutes. Given
    WP:AUTHOR
    above, Mamatas clears notability by having multiple publications that have been the subject of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."
    Comment. The intent of this AFD is to see if there is enough merit to keep this article or not. It really doesn't matter if more "keepers"--SPAs-- coincidentally create anon accounts and vote to keep it if they don't provide any merit to their arguments. So far, as Jonathan Wallace noted, no one has. The NPR as well as the first two sources deal directly with this guy writing term papers for others, not his fiction. And the LA times "review" is a dead link. So far there is one publisher's weekly review of a book that likely wouldn't make notability here on WP to begin with, a lot of links to his personal web site, blogs and other "references" such as the internet review of science fiction that are not what WP considers reliable. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 12:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The AfD nom stated that the subject was non-notable, not that the article did not sufficiently establish notability through third-party sources. As for the suggestion that there is inappropriate ownership on the "keep" side, that seems unsupported. IceCreamEmpress (talk) 15:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Wallace was already asked to list which "keepers" are SPAs who solely or largely edited this entry. Now I ask you the same question. From my eye, Phrost, KevinStandlee, Martin Wisse, Scalzi, Yendi, etc. all have multiple interests, and the others who popped in haven't ever edited the entry. (I've edited the entry. I also never registered a "keep"—I've only ever offered comments.) You're just engaging in well-poisoning. It's also rather bizarre to claim that the NPR/paper writing sourcing is somehow invalid because it's not about Mamatas's fiction. Mamatas writes non-fiction, including his widely linked to, reported on, and reprinted essay on his experiences as a so-called "term paper artist." One of the categories this entry is filed under is "American essayists." Writing an essay that leads to media scrutiny is almost a textbook definition of notability. The LA Times doesn't have an exhaustive archive, but the link offered is hardly dead—it's a copy of the review from the reviewer—and Mamatas's work (both fiction and non-fiction) are widely reviewed and discussed in trade publications like PW, and in book pages for the Village Voice, American Book Review, Locus, etc. If trade publication reviews and daily paper reviews from major markets and alternative weekly reviews don't count as "periodical reviews" then virtually no author not named Snooki clears notability. It's also worth noting that there are in fact ZERO links to his "personal website"—there is one to a blog entry about getting a job, a job for which he has been nominated for the Hugo Award (link to that also provided). It's clear what happened: you glanced at the entry and put it up for deletion, and now this is a matter of ego for you to have it deleted, WP guidelines and the simple facts be damned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.93.88 (talk) 14:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Author handily meets

WP:BIO and ignorance of what the Hugo, Stoker, etc. are, plus side orders of goalpost shifting and well poisoning. Tasty! Ergative rlt (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

How about this interview over at Dark Horse Comics where Mamatas and Brian Keene are interviewed? Hmmm http://www.darkhorse.com/Blog/260/damned-interviews —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.224.95 (talk) 23:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep - Seriously? How many major genre award nominations and other credits does it take? Stoker, Stoker, International Horror Guild, Hugo, Locus, Village Voice, Publisher's Weekly, NPR, Viz. This should never have been AfD'd; and, having been so, should be snowball-closed into "Keep" posthaste. This is the sort of AfD that people point at and laugh, or at least shake their heads ruefully. This is why we can't have nice things. -- Ray Radlein (talk) 06:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep* Many nominations for international awards, some wins, NPR piece about an essay he wrote. I don't understand why this is even up for discussion. Amuchmoreexotic (talk) 08:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from nominator: This isn't about votes, guys. Repeat, it is great you guys are big fans of the author, that you have mentioned the awards are not regional and he has credits. I get it. Sorry WP can't include everybody you think should be included in an encyclopedia (for the record people you seem to generalize as "deletionist" include people who work hard to eliminate articles that don't belong, they nominate them, hopefully don't delete them right away, and there's typically some fruitful discussion around waht to do). I know some of you think it's all due to big egos or perhaps minions of Jimbo. Perhaps these paranoid people should get out more, spend less time on the internet. And perhaps that is why there are blogs. There, you can post whatever you like, and no one will debate what you think is notable or not. But posting things like this [16] is what I consider campaigning, perhaps canvassing and definately not appropriate to have a link directly to this discussion. Mr. Wisse I can only surmise how many of the keepers here were brought by such methods. It really doesn't help the process. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The determination of whether or not someone should be included depends on the notability requirements (among other things). People are not randomly voting to keep or trying to stuff a virtual ballot box—they are pointing out that Mamatas meets the notability requirements thanks his national and international award nominations (some "keepers" seem really only to care that the awards are recognized as important), thanks his real publishing and editorial credits, and thanks to major market reviews and national media discussions of that work. Your arguments of favor in deletion have been refuted, and all you are left with are explicitly evidence-free claims of campaigning and canvassing. You apparently want people to be silent and let the closing administrator make a decision, and that's a good idea. You should be silent as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.93.88 (talk) 03:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing administrator please note: some of the messages at the top of this discussion are out of order. --MelanieN (talk) 01:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although the article needs to be reorganized to make his notability clearer, his numerous nominations for the Bram Stoker Award and the Hugo Award (the most prestigious award in the genre) suggest that he is notable. May I suggest that the discussion here become less personal, lose the attempts to categorize people as "keepers" or "deletionists", and focus instead on the merits of the subject. As far as I can tell, only three of the numerous !votes in this discussion are SPAs (one "delete", two "keep"s), and I have tagged them as such. --MelanieN (talk) 01:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Let's note that it has largely been the original nominator who made this personal, by dismissing any objection out of hand and believing all these who objected are msiguided fans of Mamatas only coming to Wikipedia to vote in this debate. In fact the overwhelming majority of objectors have been, like me, on Wikipedia for years. The difference is that many of these people also know the context in which Mamatas writes and are hence able to judge his importance better. I'm sure the original nominator meant for the best when he proposed this article for deletion, but his conduct during the discussion is less than ideal. --Martin Wisse (talk) 08:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I find myself highly disappointed with the attitude and multiple flagrant breaches of WP:AGF on the part of the original nominator. Contrary to his baseless assertions, no one suggested I come weigh in on this AfD (though if someone had, I would have gladly come to help prevent yet another embarrassing deletionist mistake); and, far from being a fan of Mr. Mamatas, I have never even read so much as one word of his work. What I have done, however, is heard of him, because I am reasonably knowledgeable about significant individuals in his areas of fiction; though not so knowledgeable, it may be noted, as Martin Wisse, Kevin Standlee, or John freakin Scalzi are. Those three guys really are the equivalent of pulling Marshall McLuhan out from behind the pillar; and disagreeing with their opinions about notability in the SF/Fantasy/Horror fields is the sort of mistake that no diligent editor would ever dare repeat (also, as Martin has pointed out, we are not all exactly inexperienced at this whole "Wikipedia" thing -- both he and I have been here much longer than the nominator, and I, at least, have more article namespace edits as well). What this appears to have boiled down to by now is one person, the original nominator, seeming dead-set on holding on to his "delete" in the face of overwhelming evidence of sufficient notability being documented by several actual experts in the field, complete with relevant cites at hand. Books from major publishers. Multiple nominations for major international awards. Articles, reviews, and interviews in major magazines and on the radio; all documented and linked. Only WP:AGF is keeping me from speculating on what sort of perverse agenda would declare that this overwhelming flood of evidence, any individual element of which would be singly sufficient to establish notabilty, is somehow incapable of proving the point in this specific case. -- --Ray Radlein (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If I could repeat my request - let's stop the personalities and get back to discussing whether the article should be kept or not. As your mothers used to say, "I don't care who started it, just stop it!" (It's mother's day, so listen to your mother.) --MelanieN (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SMP Negeri 5 Bandung

SMP Negeri 5 Bandung (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 does not prove notability and is unreferenced. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SMPK 4 Jakarta, middle schools are not inherently notable. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. —Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Non-notable high school. Keb25 (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Junior high school. Senior high schools are considered inherently notable by consensus, junior high schools / middle schools and elementary schools... not so much. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Baseball Watcher 12:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Copyvio from external site removed leaving only an A10 duplication of existing article(s) nancy 12:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian Nazism

Palestinian Nazism (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 has been put together by copying and pasting, word for word, sections from 2 other articles and from copying and pasting a report, in its entirety, from another website. The sections "Before Wourld War II" and "During Wourld War II" have been copied and pasted from

Racism in the Palestinian territories. This is both a POVFORK and a violation of SYNTH in that much of the material in here does not deal with Nazism (all of the material taken from the racism article) or does not deal with anything besides al-Husayni, which is already discussed in the article on al-Husayni. The rest of the article is a copyright violation. Nableezy 12:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. -- nableezy - 12:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC) 12:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. If this player becomes notable in the future I will be happy to provide the deleted article.   -- Lear's Fool 13:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Hewitt

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

Orignally

WP:GNG
due to a lack of significant media coverage. However this was contested by a user stating;

Clearly fails the "not fit for purpose"

WP:GNG, most of the coverage is local in nature, however this BBC coverage and this au.sports.yahoo.com
could be classed as significant. On balance this should not be deleted with out wider debate.

These sources are fairly

WP:NOTNEWS. --Jimbo[online] 11:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

It is clearly "not fit for purpose" as it does not reliably indicate if someone will meet the
Mtking (talk) 20:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Subject-specific notability criteria aren't expected to "reliably indicate if someone will meet the
WP:NSPORT. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
But the problem with that position is it is contradicted by the VERY FIRST LINE of the guide which says "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a
Mtking (talk) 09:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
"help evaluate" ≠ "reliably indicate". The next two sentences say (unless someone's changed them again in the last few minutes): "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability or sport specific criteria set forth below. If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and recreate when he plays a game for someone. The Player of the Round bit isn't really notable beyond one eventness and the rest as above. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails
    WP:GNG. Media coverage is no more than routine sports reporting. Struway2 (talk) 09:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Seah

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

Political candidate only - fails

Off2riorob (talk) 11:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Agree. But restore if she gets elected.Foxhound66 (talk) 12:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
She's notable as a national celebrity, not (yet) as a politician. There are multiple, independent, secondary sources commenting on her, and therefore she meets the "primary notability criterion" as per
WP:POLITICIAN. -- Gaurav (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Strong keep. The culture by which we judge the notability of candidates in western elections (which WP:POLITICIAN is based on) is not suitable for judging articles on people who participate in less-than-free democracies, but I don't think the nominator knows how disingenuous this nomination is. She is not "a political candidate only".
    Be eudaimonic!) 19:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • WP:GOODFAITH, La goutte de pluie. Off2riorob only had the article as it was to judge by. I'm sure we can change people's minds by improving the article and arguing our case here! -- Gaurav (talk) 10:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I disagree: Nicole Seah's significance (and hence notability) has nothing to do with being a member of the NSP, or in being elected. In fact, I would argue that were Ms. Seah's team to win in the Marine Parade GRC on Saturday, the *other* members of her team would not be "notable" for individual Wikipedia articles, and that a notice of their achievement would be more appropriate on the NSP's article. Ms. Seah's notability comes from her becoming a political celebrity, which is something to do with her alone, and not with her party or even her political future. -- Gaurav (talk) 14:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The people who recommended deletion are either her political opponents or obviously know nuts about Singapore politics. Nicole's facebook entry - no of likes - has already surpassed Singapore's founding father, Mr Lee Kuan Yew within days.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DragTian (talk • contribs)
facebook is not a measure of actual popularity. Anyone cna create multiple accounts and 'like' a person. 'Like's on facebook don't equate to actual agreements; for example people 'like' the Whitehouse faebook apage to spew hatred against Barack Obama.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Who on earth will create 60 000 accounts to like a person on Facebook within a period of 10 days?
One please sing your posts, I get scolded for not doing so. Second, who is not the right word. It is many netizens. All you have to do is create multiple accounts. Yoru argument does not stand.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If Nicole Seah is not notable, why does CNN (for the first time in Singapore political history) bother to come all the way to a small neighbourhood market to interview her?


She has help us to stand up for our rights, so we must not delete her page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.1.26 (talk) 18:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep for now. If going by national press She crosses the bar for multiple, 3rd party, reliable sources that cover her as the main subject.
    Mailer Diablo 19:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I agree - its local news and for Wikipedians in Singapore it must be interesting but surely you have a Singaporean wikipedia to work on local stuff - this would not get support in a British candidate or a USA candidate. You can't comment keep for now and redirect when its realised its not actually notable because its of local interest to you.
Off2riorob (talk) 19:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Now featured on CNN, BBC News, Al-Jazerra and Wall Street Journal. -
    Mailer Diablo 09:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Arguments about being the "most popular" and "standing up for your rights" does mean notable. So many politicians in Thirld World countries stand up for people's rights and dont get a wikipedia page.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 19:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mailer diablo is talking about sources covering her (thus meeting
    WP:GNG), not about being popular or standing up for rights. Are you responding to 220.255.1.26? -- Gaurav (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really, my look through their edits has most their edits about Italian films and other Italian subjects, not Singaporean politics. GB fan (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please point us at the significant in depth coverage. What I see are listings of candidates, facebook pages, passing mentions in news stories and gossip pages about how pretty she is. Really, this is not significant in depth coverage. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not at all what I am seeing. Just following the three references on the article that have her name in the title, I see an 8 1/2 minute news piece specifically about her from the
Straits Times, an article about her getting a "'rockstar' treatment", and an article in which one of the other candidates for her party is asked to justify putting her in the front publicity-wise: "Nicole has been in the media line for two years now, and she's the obvious choice of spokesperson, but we work as a team with each member handling other aspects of the campaign, crafting plans and working out how to get citizens to understand us better." These are definitely not passing mentions. Taken alone, they might not be enough for a biographical article, but the article is a proper biography, and the information appears to be all properly sourced. Hans Adler 20:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.   -- Lear's Fool 13:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Responder apathy syndrome

Responder apathy syndrome (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 my 3O here. The article relates to a theory which does not appear to be discussed in third party reliable sources. Bob House 884 (talk) 10:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Consensus certainly favors retention of the content, with a slightly more vocal argument for keeping it at its current location and to allow for expansion. Nonetheless, regardless of whether such expansion occurs, I see no reason that the merge issue cannot be revisited by interested editors in the future. --Kinu t/c 03:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestry of Thomas Jefferson

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

Prod was denied--bulk of article is simply a collapsible table. Anything useful can simply be incorporated into the main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- this is useful information not otherwise available. It is too long and detailed for the Jefferson article which is too long and had to be shortened. Many historians, genealogists and archivists have worked on the topic over the years and all the major biographies of Jefferson make mention of the material. The fact that it now formatted as a collapsible seems to bother some people for reasons unknown--but that does not affect the contents. It includes an introductory text, discussion of the DNA issue, references to major scholarly books and scientific article, and a link to a useful external website. This is not the family history of a character on a tv show-- it deals in serious, uncontroversial fashion with one of the most famous people in world history. Eventually other editors will add links to the specific individuals included here. Rjensen (talk) 23:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jensen
    89≈≈≈≈ 14:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per nom.Merge/redirect If Thomas Jefferson needs to be shortened, there are better ways to do it. Someone needs to do the hard work of tightening up the prose by making the summaries more concise. There are plenty of subsidiary articles that are the proper places to get into the details. This article has very little real information other than a table that is collapsible. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
it appears no one wants the Ancestry article deleted--they only want it moved back to the Jefferson article which is too long already. This Ancestry article will grow in length --for examples the numerous studies of DNA refer to TJ's relatives (not to TJ himself). When expanded it will be less and less a fit for the TJ article. Rjensen (talk) 23:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Rjensen. Worthwhile content, main article too long.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - the table is worthwhile and should be incorporated in the main article but does not add enough text to justify its own page. Avoid unnecessary splits. Neutralitytalk 17:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. The article is little more than a stub. This topic is biographical to Jefferson. Merge it with the Thomas Jefferson/Family section, which is only a half page long also. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 08:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rjensen, Arxiloxos, et al. This is a worthy article, that would be of obvious interest to our core readership - students. It meets
    we have lots of odd articles. I do not see any reason given as to why this should be deleted, other than its unusual nature. Many genealogy articles are little more than charts. I think the main article is too large for a merger, but I leave that up to the closing admin to decide. Bearian (talk) 23:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep - The main article is too long and this one contains very useful and worthwhile informations. -- Joaquin008 (talk) 07:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is clearly encyclopedic material that is well sourced. Whether to put it in the main Thomas Jefferson article or somewhere else is a purely editorial decision but it is not obviously inappropriate as a separate article nor should it be drastically pruned (e.g. to just the table). Eluchil404 (talk) 10:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rjensen and Bearian. Wickedjacob (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was non-admin closure - Article deleted by Future Perfect at Sunrise as G7, requested by author. GB fan (talk) 20:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guardian Force-Micro Heroes

Guardian Force-Micro Heroes (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 article about some fictional entities with no out-of-universe explanation of provenance, authorship or notability. Orphaned and written by a single contributor with no other edits. Probably something "made up in school one day" by the author. PROD contested by author. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted per

A7 by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Taash

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a slang, jargon or usage guide and the article is a definition of the term Taash, which can be moved to the dictionary project[17]. — ZjarriRrethues — talk 05:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Note that the article creator has the same name as this Indian gambling site. E Wing (talk) 06:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gang Stalking Lawsuit

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

Notability not proven; appears to be one single court case, only a link to a listing of thousands of court cases (coverage on Pacer does not itself connote importance), and then a bunch of links to advocacy sites supporting one side of the "it's a real problem" vs. "it's a psychosis" side of the gangstalking debate. This appears to be a

WP:Coatrack issue, something the gangstalking community has been very clearly pursuing on Wikipedia and advocating on their discussion sites despite a general lack of substantive coverage in reliable media for their cause. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 05:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Improving memory

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

Wikipedia does not include original reearch or essays/theses made by students for their doctorate degree. See for example,

WP:NOTESSAY Timeswantedred (talk) 05:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)— Timeswantedred (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Konstantin and Mouse (film)

Konstantin and Mouse (film) (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 appear to be a notable film, no news hits, no reviews that I could find.

Wha? 05:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Original title: :(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Redirect to director
    verifiable to exist, but does not have enough notability for an independent article. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. This is Death of Michael Jackson all over again. Merge debates can continue on the talk page. Fences&Windows 03:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Osama bin Laden

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

Should be merged into Osama bin Laden#Death. This is a premature fork, and due to the paucity of current information, unnecessary to establish encyclopedic value. Cerejota (talk) 03:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of News-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 03:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 03:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 03:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 03:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 03:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 03:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 03:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tactician

Tactician (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 person; unreferenced biography of a living person; does not meet the requirements for notability; see

PROD.  Chzz  ►  03:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Please do not use all-capitals; it sounds like you're
notability guidelines. Thanks.  Chzz  ►  03:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Redirect to military tactics. Although the artist himself is not notable, tactician is quite a likely search term; it used to redirect to tactics before Yosephbasha changed it, but I usually hear tactician used in a military sense. For what it's worth, Yosephbasha's only edits were to the article being considered for deletion, his talk page, and here and various Wikiproject pages about this article. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. If you want to create a redirect after that, fine, but delete first. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete then redirect to military tactics. The links provided in the articles does not justify notability of the artist. The redirect to military tactics is reasonable per Crisco 1492's comments.--Lenticel (talk) 00:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the proposed redirection does seem appropriate, however I do suggest deletion prior to making a redirect (per Lenticel).  Chzz  ►  11:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 06:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sekolah Dyatmika

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

Barely cited article that does not prove the notability of the school. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. —Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Baseball Watcher 02:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination withdrawn as heading towards

WP:SNOW. LibStar (talk) 01:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Stella Ross-Craig

Stella Ross-Craig (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 and WP:CREATIVE. only the first gnews hit could be considered indepth [20]. a claim to fame is the "Kew Award medal" which only gets 1 gnews hit (the same article) [21]. so it's a very non notable award. LibStar (talk) 02:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I'm finding stuff in Google Books search which would substantiate claims of notability. I'll spend some time doing research and add a few references to the article. riffic (talk) 06:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Apart from the Telegraph obituary in the external links and the book sources already added, there are obituaries in the Times here, the Independent here and an entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography [22] as well as articles and coverage about her while still alive, for example: this and this. All of the above would be considered reliable sources. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 11:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 05:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sheena Knowles

Sheena Knowles (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:CREATIVE. written at best 2 non notable books. gnews merely confirms she wrote these books but nothing more about her as a person. [23]. LibStar (talk) 02:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 23:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
really? google news have Australian major newspaper
Sydney Morning Herald back to at least 1918. [25]. LibStar (talk) 05:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, it is interesting to note that it is far easier to find references in Australian newspapers pre-1950/60. Although some (very few) Fairfax Media (by that I mean The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald) articles can be found via google news archive from the '80s, it can hardly be considered comprehensive. Also, many other main Australian newspapers are not covered at all by gnews in that time period. See, for example, News Corporation#Newspapers, of which I'm fairly sure none of their 1980s articles can be accessed via google news archive. Jenks24 (talk) 11:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep - if she actually won the award, then a strong keep, but it was only shortlisted for the award, not the winner. The 2nd book seems to be part of a school curriculum, so is that enough to satisfy
    WP:AUTHOR? Not sure. Agree with Jenks24 that online coverage of the 80s in Australia is extremely poor - the National Library has digitised newspapers up to the 1950s, but there is a black hole with sporadic coverage by google news in the 60s-90s before the 2000s are reasonable well covered by the current paper archives... but whole states and areas are still missing, so Ghits are not the only requirement.The-Pope (talk) 02:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 06:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bagels and Brownies

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

Company lacks the depth of coverage required by

WP:CORP to indicate notability. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 08:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The article is an almost-worthless stub, but the company has gotten some substantial coverage, like this in the Business Standard, this in the Calcutta Telegraph, and this from the Times of India (or possibly a Times blog). --MelanieN (talk) 22:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Baseball Watcher 02:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Baseball Watcher 01:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Genta Ismajli

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

Unreferenced

WP:NMG is questionable. bender235 (talk) 13:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 00:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable enough --Vinie007 12:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  09:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Baseball Watcher 01:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
No one is suggesting that her Facebook page is proof of notability. Doesn't
WP:ABOUTSELF specifically permit the use of a subject's official Facebook page as a source of information about the subject herself?--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
If that's the only source? Nope. We can confirm information - "Her birthdate is X, as per her website" for example - but even then, it's in the context of what the subject says, rather than what is verifiably true. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, it's not the only source. As noted above, there's at least one reliable source in English (behind a pay wall) and some in other languages, although they're not easy to pin down on line (here's another one, in Turkish, that popped up in today's GNews search[29])--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Joliet Herald-News, source. Passes WP:BIO.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - She has proven national notability in Albania, Kosovo, and Macedonia as a model and singer. Interviewed by the Voice of America as well. --Doktor Plumbi (talk) 02:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2030 FIFA World Cup

AfDs for this article:
2030 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sounds a lot like

WP:CRYSTAL. Baseball Watcher 01:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was merge to Contemporary circus. (non-admin closure) Baseball Watcher 01:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme Circus

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

Not yet notable term or phrase, recently coined (feb 2010) not yet notable. @ d \/\/ | | |Talk 11:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also I can't find the mentioned Brimbank weekly article, or any other related news. The other problem is "Extreme" can be used in so many contexts, "this looks like an extreme circus, awesome", "dude look at those extreme circus tricks" etc. @ d \/\/ | | |Talk 12:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I expected to do some searching and quickly conclude delete, but it wasn't so easy. It is a harder term to search because the phrase 'extreme circus' is used incidently in a lot of articles. A little more work gave me [30] and others. The term is used extensively in news reports to describe a type of circus, so it appears to be a very valid and accepted term (whodathough). The question remains, however, if it is more than a
    WP:DICDEF, as I didn't find a lot on the concept of 'extreme circus', just a lot of valid usage and a couple of circuses that use that as part of their name (there is much I didn't search, so it may still exist). The current article, however, is wrong and the term wouldn't be credited in 2010, as it was in use before that. In it's current form, there really isn't anything of value (no sourcing, inaccurate info), so transwiki to wiktionary isn't really a choice. This might be a good candidate for a rescue, as the subject matter *might* be notable on its own, but would require a complete rewrite. Withholding !vote for now. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I've added a little but it is a difficult subject to research. Hoping the rescue tag will attract an editor or two with more experience with these types of articles. I'm still bordering on keep, but reserving my notvote until I see more input on the article. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The term is used in many places to describe something more than just a regular circus. Austin Chronicle Dream Focus 15:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Sydney Morning Herald says "Its genre, known as extreme circus, is a fusion of free-form acrobatics, hip-hop, virtuosic percussion and beat-boxing, a type of rapping." See? Its a genre, a major newspaper defines it. Dream Focus 17:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except there's little indication that Cirque du Soleil, the most prominent practitioners of this "genre", meets the musical component of this 'definition' -- which seems to be speaking of the 'Tom Tom Club' act, rather than the genre as a whole. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you bother to read that article, it says "They draw the audience into the performance through continuous live music". Dream Focus 12:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. If you read the article you would notice that it gives no indication that Cirque du Soleil's musical repertoire is based around "hip-hop, virtuosic percussion and beat-boxing, a type of rapping." HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Austin Chronicles says "stunning sets, outrageous costumes, modern music, and an attention to art in every aspect of the production" [31]. Exactly what type of music they use, isn't really relevant. No animals, just a lot of stunts and constant music, etc. Dream Focus 14:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (i) "Exactly what type of music" is very relevant, because the SMH article specifies "exactly what type of music" in its definition -- a type that does not appear to match Cirque du Soleil's music. (ii) No mention is made of "constant music" in either cited source, as far as I can ascertain. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also the Austin Chronicle is describing Cirque du Soleil specifically, not 'extreme circus' generally (in fact it barely mentions the latter, in a passing reference, in discussing "most obvious differences between the original and the assortment of 'extreme circus' imitations" late in the article). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It mentions other "extreme circuses" exist, calling itself the original and the rest just imitations. That proves that extreme circuses do exist. There is music. Dream Focus 16:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ITEXISTS! Big fragging deal! And the source spends one whole sentence on this existence. T_R_I_V_I_A_L mention. Notability. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge (to Circus, per Dthomsen8 below [or to Contemporary circus ]) the Austin Chronicle article is on Cirque du Soleil, not 'extreme circus' generally, and the SMH article is (i) rather short & (ii) on the topic of a (second, if less well-known) specific act, rather than 'extreme circus' generally. This does not appear to be "significant coverage" on this topic (to which both sources are tangential). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Merge with Circus and create a redirect to the section. There are only 55 prose words in this article--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge may be the best option. It is just hard to find anything with reliable sources, with several trying. Dennis Brown (talk) 10:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Baseball Watcher 01:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

123mymd

123mymd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks like nothing but spam, nothing in Google news archive Yakushima (talk) 11:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Baseball Watcher 01:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted per

G4 by Alexf (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Alli L!ve (Socialite)

Alli L!ve (Socialite) (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 individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails

WP:BIO. CSD was removed by author sockpuppet. ttonyb (talk) 01:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was keep. joe deckertalk to me 20:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maia Mitchell

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

Content of this article seem to be entirely school age vandalism/gossip. Falcadore (talk) 01:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This article appears to have a long history of vandalism and unconstructive edits. I deleted some seemingly irrelevant personal stuff, which leaves only a few of her credits. IMDb says she's had roles in four different Australian TV series, so it's possible she's a legitimate TV star down there, but I couldn't find any independent sources to back this up. Will be happy to !vote keep if some such sources can be identified.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as essentially unsourced BLP of a non-notable actress. Carrite (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Comment Youth notwithstanding, her roles as the major characters of
    WP:ENTERTAINER. Do we toss any article because it is subjject to vandalism? Or might we assume a little good faith in the significant roles in multiple television shows and dig a little further ourselves? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The lack of policing of such vandalism would suggest that notability is relatively low. There does not seem to be much attempt to expand the article to cover these performances. --Falcadore (talk) 02:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While there have been some minor instances of true vandalism, such minimal vandalism has been quickly dealt with and reverted... so there is no more "lack of policing" than there is for any other article. And in reviewing the history, it seems that the majority of the edits seem more to be more in the line of inexperienced editors
not yet been expanded by experienced editors simply means it has not yet been expanded. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Baseball Watcher 01:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of airlines of Bermuda

List of airlines of Bermuda (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 page only has one thing in it's table with close to no info at all. The company shown does not have a wikipedia page.

talk 03:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Baseball Watcher 01:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nyumbani

Nyumbani (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 setting does not meet Wikipedia's

WP:NOT#PLOT because there are no reliable sources explaining the real-world reception and significance of this setting. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to
    Imaro (novel), trimming appropriately in the process. Jclemens (talk) 21:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  07:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Baseball Watcher 01:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gyokko-ryū

Gyokko-ryū (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 has no reliable sources and is about a non-notable martial art. It might even be a non-existent martial art since even the article says "there is no historical evidence that this martial art ever existed." My search found nothing that supports notability. Papaursa (talk) 01:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 01:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Papaursa[reply]
  • Delete I found no reliable sources that show this martial art is notable (if it even exists). Astudent0 (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete following the comments above. Janggeom (talk) 06:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.   -- Lear's Fool 13:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gator Chomp

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

merge and redirect This article takes a semi-notable fan motion made by fans of the

WP:NPOV
, and friends-over-beers fan folklore to try to extend it into something more. The "curse" section is the worst, as it tries to "prove" that opponents performing the motion during games usually causes their eventual downfall.

Note that this isn't a rival fan starting trouble. I'm a life-long Gator fan, a UF alum, and a former Gator bone, meaning that I personally played the accompanying "Jaws" theme hundreds of times. However, this is Wikipedia, not a fan page, and the article clearly doesn't belong. Yes, it seems to be well sourced. If you look at them more closely, though, you'll see that many of them refer to game results that seek to "prove" the existence of a "curse" but do not actually mention the Chomp (or the curse) at all.

My proposed fix is to add a section in Florida Gators (and perhaps Florida Gators football as well) about the Chomp and redirect this article name there. Zeng8r (talk) 01:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This has recently been put through the AfD meatgrinder and was kept. The reason that it was kept is that the
    Gator Chomp article and then link to it as a "main".  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 01:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
comment As was pointed out to you many times in the article's talk page, there is not "significant coverage" of the Chomp that says anything more than it exists and is very popular among Gator fans. That's not enough to meet notability for a separate article. Also, many of the current sources are fan blogs, which are not reliable sources in any case. And there is no way to justify the "curse" section. It's just silly. Zeng8r (talk) 01:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gator Chomp article to the Florida Gators article because it would not look balanced.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 02:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
The first source is an unusable
WP:BLOG. The second contains only exactly one sentence mentioning the Gator Chomp.--Cúchullain t/c 15:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Okay, that's simply not correct. Zeng8r did in fact initiate and participate in discussion at the article after the last AfD, it just didn't get anywhere, with Nipsonanomhmata being the sole voice for keeping the article in its current state. This isn't a tenable position, as the majority of the sources are unreliable blogs and the like, and the reliable sources mention the subject only in passing, which doesn't establish notability.--Cúchullain t/c 15:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To further clarify, I didn't initiate the first AfD on this. Just look at the discussion; it was User:Canterbury Tail. I didn't even know that the article existed until following a wikilink from another Gator-related article. My first impression was that it was very weak, so when an AfD nomination was initiated (by somebody else), I shared my opinion. Zeng8r (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see a lot of articles NOT from blogs and the like and plenty of reliable sources. Why is there any harm in having this article? It seems to meet all criteria, even if a few sentences can be trimmed. Zeng8r, my apoligies. Those comments WERE directed in your direction, but shouldn't have been. I think it is pretty reasonable to assume that the person who nominated it also made a comment to justify it, but that was still my mistake. Thanks for not taking offense. — BQZip01 — talk 01:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem; it happens. Again, my issue wasn't with the number of citations to seemingly reliable sources. It's that those cited sources often had nothing at all to do with the statement that they're supposed to verify. Anyway, I've cleaned it up quite a bit just now (see below). What do you think? Zeng8r (talk) 02:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. Nothing here establishes notability. The majority of sources are unusable blogs and personal webpages, and even these contain little by way of significant coverage. There are a few reliable sources here, but they contain nothing beyond trivial mentions of the Gator Chomp.--Cúchullain t/c 15:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can't see how this helps the encyclopedia's coverage of Florida athletics. It's an extremely well-known sports gesture, and there are mountains of references to it in the media.[32] Problems with the "curse" section (and there are some) don't make the subject non-notable. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment The "curse" section is clearly a college sports version of
wp:synth and should go. If a buddy sitting next to me in the stands at The Swamp
points out an opposing player doing an "unauthorized Gator chomp" and says that the poor fool has just sealed his fate, I'd laugh and hope he's right. If I see it in a Wikipedia article presenting that cause/effect relationship as repeated historical fact, I'll delete it an inappropriate for the project. Everything has its place.
Anyway, I figured that once that section is gone, there wouldn't be enough information left for the article to ever grow into anything longer than a stub. If some people think that's good enough, then fine. I'm of the opinion that a merge and redirect is the way to go here. Zeng8r (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise?

Ok, so I went ahead and cleaned up the problem section and references. With all the discussion about the text, I hadn't noticed that there were 4 blatant

wp:linkspam
problems down in the external links section. They have also been removed. Some of the remaining references don't really talk about the chomp much, but at least they refer to newspapers and other reliable sources, so I left a few that could probably be trimmed if somebody wants to pick some more weeds.

If consensus exists that what remains of the article is notable and valuable on its own, then I'd be perfectly happy to withdraw the AfD nomination. (I have a feeling that a close eye should be kept on the article if it survives, however, to prevent ad links from reappearing later.) Zeng8r (talk) 02:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


So, if the current stub-length version of the article is deemed notable enough to keep, I guess we can close this discussion and move on? Zeng8r (talk) 12:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it were butchered down to one sentence it would still meet
WP:GNG.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 14:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Owen× ☎ 09:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Generation (poem)

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

Appears to fail

WP:GNG, as there is no significant coverage from independent reliable sources. Poem won second place in a content that itself is non-notable. Several blog hits can be found, but all are of the form of "I like this poem." PROD removed without comment. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 00:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

It was also used as inspiration/parody by a Microsoft advert Searching youtube returns an pages of videos and google returns endless results.. skipping 30+ pages in still returning topical results on searches like 'Lost Generation Palindrome' or 'Lost Generation Reed' --KHobbits (T|C) 01:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Baseball Watcher 01:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep This poem generated enough of a viral splash that there must be enough references out there to constitute notability. I'm not going looking for them but I'm sure they are there to be found Tesspub (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I love this poem, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of discovered knowledge, not a discoverer. At the moment, secondary coverage is lacking, especially in-depth coverage from reliable sources (a million people praising it on youtube doesn't count). If it is notable, it will be covered. Wikipedia can catalog it then, but an ecyclopedia should not be predicting if a poem will have lasting notability. Wickedjacob (talk) 16:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Strong arguments on both sides, but no clear consensus. Owen× ☎ 09:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Toretto (Character)

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

Unreferenced article about a minor character in film series, no evidence of notabilty, a redirect by another editor has been reverted. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What is at issue here is whether the article meets the
notability guidelines. The subject has been a character in a number of films and apparently there are more to come, but articles are not kept because thee may be indications of notability in the future. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
The article is barely a month old, and as I said, the film franchise has its newest release just this very week. Give people a chance to add things. What's the goddam hurry to delete ? The Yeti (talk) 22:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is whether there is any evidence of notability for the subject, so far with four films released there is none, so i suggest at the very least a merge with
reliable sources may be useful. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep

( I place some weight on the fact that this article has been in substantial form for over two years (April 20, 2009), and contributed by over a dozen named (and over a dozen unnamed) Wikipedia editors. I take that as strong evidence that the Wikipedia community feels there should be an article. )

The notability criteria is: 

   "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources
   that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the
   inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list."

I searched for sources prior to 2011, since the Web is a bit flooded with marketing for the current movie.

These pages have Dominic Toretto as the main topic:

More than trivial mention, but not the main topic:

Macchess (talk) 03:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first three pages are all user edited and likely wouldn't be considered reliable sources (I know we can sometimes use a awikia if it has a long history of being stable like Memory Alpha). It looks like the next two sources in your list are going to have the same problem. I'm unfamiliar with (and therefore unsure of) the Craig's Corner and DNA India sites. The PDF is actually pretty interesting but I don't know what we could use it for beyond what it actually is: a debunking of a the action sequences based on science. Millahnna (talk) 04:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Response:
Definition of Secondary Sources I'm new to deletion discussions - just so I'm clear on the rules of engagement here - my understanding is that for information on this character, the primary sources are the movies the character has occurred in, plus any marketing material he appears in (dolls, posters, video games, etc.). It isn't kosher for a Wikipedia editor to add content to this article based on their direct viewing of that material (no original research). Reviews of the movie, however, are secondary sources, and if the reviewer can be shown to be reliable, reliable secondary sources.
Reliability of Secondary Sources While two of the examples of secondary sources I provide are from wikis, it seems that wiki material can be regarded as reliable if the page is stable (longevity) and is the result of multiple editors (the Delphi Method approach). ( While the Delphi Method assumes the result to be the consensus of multiple experts, when the topic in question is a fictional character in a movie, I submit that anyone who watched the movie at least qualifies as a direct witness.)
Summary: While the page
Wikipedia:PLOT#PLOT Macchess (talk) 20:50, 1 May 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment Google claims half a million and a quick glance at the first 6 pages has the links showing either articles here, Fast and the Furious Wikia, reviews of the cars, youtube video clips of the film, facebook profiles and news on the film. No notable, independent information on the character that warrants him an article rather than an entry on the List of Fast and Furious characters. Checking the next 4 pages you've got IMDB links, personal angel fire sites and still nothing of use. I can probably find more information on Randy Meeks and he's been in less films. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The significant coverage in the reliable sources listed below shows that "Dominic Toretto (Character) " satifies
WP:GNG
, hence should not be deleted.
I believe that the sources listed below meet
WP:NOTE
)
Please note that I am not asserting that the article in its current form meets all Wikipedia's standards, but that is not the question here. We are discussing whether the very existence of this article is acceptable and the criteria for that is
ISBN 9780760325681 (I didn't list this for notability, since the "Official" imprimatur implied some dependence, but there's a lot of Dominic Toretto in it.
)
The 1,000,000+ hits in Google I get when I search for the quoted string: "Dominic Toretto" suggests notability (fame, popularity), but is not sufficient evidence by itself. "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below."
WP:NOTE
The essential
WP:RS
sense.
The minimum number of
WP:RS
to meet the WP:GNG threshold is only the number to verify enough content for a non-stub article, but at least two are expected:
(1)
WP:GNG
: "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected."
(2) Reinforced here:
Third Party Sources: How To Meet the Requirement
-"At least two third-party sources should cover the subject"
-"These reliable third-party sources should verify enough facts to write a non-stub article about the subject, including a statement explaining its significance."
I've grouped the information from any single author or organization to count as a single source, since: "[3] Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." (
WP:GNG
)
Source #1: Roger Ebert's Movie Reviews
Roger Ebert is a well-known American film critic who was the first film critic to win a Pulitzer Prize for Criticism. His reviews of "The Fast and the Furious" and "Fast & Furious", contain enough information on Dominic Toretto to make a good start to an article, and were republished over time. His 2001 Review of "The Fast and the Furious" in the Chicago Sun-Times also provides evidence of long term interest, since it appears in three of his annual "Robert Ebert's Movie Yearbook"s: [2002 REMVYB], 2003 REMVYB, [2004 REMYB]. His 2009 Review of "Fast & Furious" in the Chicago Sun-Times also appears in his Roger Ebert's Movie Yearbook 2010
Source #2: Discussion of Dominic Toretto in the book Manhood in Hollywood from Bush to Bush, by David Greven, University of Texas Press, 2009,
ISBN 9780292719873
The coverage here is not lengthy (about 7 lines) but is a respectable scholarly
WP:RS
that appeared eight years after the movie (indicating long term interest), and provides a reference for many things about Toretto that are not covered by Ebert above.
Source #3: Pages 71-78 of "Vin Diesel: Fueled for Success" by
ISBN 9780689859823
These eight pages from Nancy Kruliks' biography of Vin Diesel have pages of information on the Dominic Toretto character, as well as: Vin Diesel's take on the character ("A character who is strong, who is a caretaker."), the take of Kevin Thomas of the Los Angeles Times ("surprising in the complexity of its key characters"), and the effect of portraying this character on Vin Diesel's career, including getting him (and Paul Walker) the 2002 MTV award for "Best On-Screen Team" (over the cast of "Ocean's Eleven"). (Note: even though Vin's thoughts, in themselves, might not be "independent", since the secondary source (Nancy) chose which ones to include, I think they count, and in any event, they are a small fraction of the material here.
Source #4: pp. 52-53 of: The American South in a global world by J.L. Peacock, H.L. Watson, C.R. Matthews, UNC Press Books, 2005,
ISBN 9780807855898
In this section, Lucila Vargas describes how she uses the characters from "The Fast and the Furious", and in particular Dominic Toretto, of whom she says: "Toretto is a bit more complex as a character, and his race is ambiguous." to probe her students on their perceptions of Hollywood cinema. This source focuses on Toretto's relationships, and the fact it was published four years after the movie shows long term notability of Toretto, as does the republishing of this Toretto material in Latina teens, migration, and popular culture by Lucila Vargas, Peter Lang, publisher, 2009
ISBN 9780820488455
.
Film reviews in newspapers by professional critics are
WP:RS
, even if online rather than print
(for example: "Several newspapers host columns they call blogs. These are acceptable as sources if the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." WP:NEWSBLOG).
Source #5: Film Reviews in Britain at The Daily Telegraph by Nick Cowen and Hari Patience
The Daily Telegraph is a 150+ year old Conservative newspaper and the highest selling newspaper in Britain. The 2008 review of The Fast and The Furious and the 2009 review of Fast & Furious:
"Wheels On Film: The Fast & The Furious" By Nick Cowen and Hari Patience 22 Mar 2008
"Wheels On Film: Fast & Furious" By Nick Cowen and Hari Patience 09 Apr 2009
confirm details about Dominic Toretto from the prior sources, add new tidbits, provide a different perspective from Roger Ebert's reviews (they found a Dominic Toretto quote that Ebert praised "silly"), and show that Dominic Toretto's notability is not confined to the United States.
Source #6: Film Reviews in India at
DNAIndia
Daily News and Analysis (DNA)
is a Mumbai-based Liberal Indian daily newspaper launched in 2005, targeted at young readers. Their 2009 review of Fast & Furious and 2011 review of Fast Five:
"Fast and Furious 4 is faster and more furious" Apr 2, 2009 By Lhendup Gyatso Bhutia | Place: Mumbai | Agency: DNA
"Fast Five is more than mindless entertainment" May 5, 2011, 17:56 ISTvBy Mihir Fadnavis | Place: Mumbai | Agency: DNA
provide a lot of material on Dominic Toretto beyond the above (for example, this is the first source I've listed that covers "Fast Five"), and show that Dominic Toretto's notability is not confined to the Western Hemisphere.
Source #7: Film Reviews at CNN
Cable News Network (CNN) is a U.S. cable news channel founded in 1980 by Ted Turner. Their 2001 review of The Fast and the Furious and their 2011 review of Fast Five:
Review: 'Fast and Furious' runs on empty By Paul Clinton CNN Reviewer
'Fast Five' is a thrill ride, so just go with it By Tom Charity, Special to CNN
are independent reliable secondary sources that fill in more plot details and interpretations of the Dominic Toretto character.
Source #8: Film Review of "Fast & Furious" at Toronto_Sun by Jim_Slotek
Smash, bang, zoom! By Jim Slotek ,QMI Agency, April 3, 2009
Source #9:
MTV
coverage of "Fast Five": Significance of Dom Toretto, Film Review
Why 'Fast Five' Dominates Box Office A Decade After Franchise Debut By Eric Ditzian By Eric Ditzian
Gives much of the credit for Universal's biggest opening since 1997 to Vin Diesel's embodiment of Dom Toretto. " 'Simply put, in the pantheon of action studs, Diesel is now immortalized as Dom.' (Jeff Bock, box-office analyst for Exhibitor Relations)"
Fast Five Movie Details (Full Summary) Mark Deming, Rovi
Source #10: Slate Magazine film review of "Fast Five"
This reviewer sympathizes with the efforts to portray Dominic Toretto's family, protective side.
"Fast Five A tenderhearted family drama starring Vin Diesel". By Dana Stevens, April 29, 2011
Source #11: Ventura County Reporter film review of "Fast Five"
This reviewer focuses on the sex appeal Vin Diesel brings to Dominic Toretto's character.
"Fill 'er up with Diesel" by Tim Pompey 05/05/2011
Summary: The significant coverage in the reliable sources listed above shows that "Dominic Toretto" satifies
WP:GNG, hence should not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macchess (talk • contribs) 06:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC) [reply
]
Macchess appears to be confusing reviews of the actor's portrayal of this character with substantive in depth coverage of the character. So the argument above is spurious. Jezhotwells (talk) 07:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 05:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Humanscale

Humanscale (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 meet the

independent sources. I had deleted this following a Speedy Deletion tag, but restored it following a discussion, and concluded that it was not quite promotional-enough to justify the deletion. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Wired and Metropolis reference cited are independent and provide significant coverage. There are other references available, such as Forbes. Note that the article should survive if either the company or any of its products is notable—perhaps it should be renamed if a thoughtful analysis determines that the products are notable but the company is not. Bongomatic 22:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment shouldn't this be disambiguated? "humanscale" is the scale of a human, which is the common usage of the term. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 06:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Humanscale (furniture maker). This business makes unique consumer products sold under its own brand, and as such those products have received independent attention from reliable sources. Human scale should also be disambiguated here; it should be about the concept of keeping things useful to human abilities, needs, and attention span, with particular attention to the defects of the metric system. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguating is not a bad idea, but no need to move, as "humanscale" is not a word, and certainly has no entry. Bongomatic 15:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jersey Cowboy

Jersey 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)

Doesn't meet

WP:ENTERTAINER as he hasn't worked in a promotion or held a title that establishes notability. All sources in the article are primary, trivial, and/or unreliable. Nikki♥311 18:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Competitive social networking

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

Main Google hits for this term lead back to this Wikipedia article; apparent neologism. Ckatzchatspy 17:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems to be mostly a confection of original research with reference inflation; the "references" are to a handful of general texts about social networking, the rest to Facebook sites, dictionaries and encyclopedias, and Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable. Mentions "Web 2.0". - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Always Remember Never Surrender Scholarship

The Always Remember Never Surrender Scholarship (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 scholarship and "pending" endowment at Colorado State University. No third party sources: sources are the scholarship's webpage, and media connected to CSU. The references include a link to an article from The Coloradoan, which would be third party coverage, but the link is dead. Prod declined. Hairhorn (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dzimitry Kanavalau

Dzimitry Kanavalau (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

WP:PERPETRATOR: A living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured. Prod has been contested. Ben Ben (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Atleast for now. This story will probably be making headlines when he goes to trial. Or similar.. I say keep anyway.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL, we don't keep because we think there will be future notability. LibStar (talk) 08:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scarred for Life (Harry and the Potters album)

AfDs for this article:
Scarred for Life (Harry and the Potters 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)

This article was nominated for deletion one year ago; closed with no consensus. I can't find significant coverage for this EP in independent

talk) 12:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete article claims only 1000 copies of the album were ever produced.. far from notible. Alan - talk 03:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete: fails
    WP:NMUSIC#Albums, singles and songs
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Stormoen

Jake Stormoen (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 has all the hallmarks of self promotion and the subject does not appear to be notable: I can find no neutral references to the subject online.

The key role of 'Dan' claimed for the film 'Step Up 2: The Streets' is not mentioned in the castlist of the Wiki article for that production. The external links for 'Sojourn Movie' and Jake Biography lead to Myspace pages. The 'meet Jake and me too' leads to a page promoting the subject. The Wikilink to Dick Grayson does not come up with a film, but with the fictional character of that name.

Accordingly this page should be deleted. Asnac (talk) 10:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete According to his imdb page, he's uncredited in
    talk) 21:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Churchill Estates

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

Neighborhood with no evidence of notability. Appears to fall under the scope of

WP:LOCAL. Kinu t/c 00:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Royals Rugby Football Club (RFC)

Charlotte Royals Rugby Football Club (RFC) (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 amateur rugby team. Article appears to promote the team, and looks like a copy-and-paste; user name of original author is User:croyalsrfc, which raises strong suspicion of conflict of interest, Many "facts" provided likely cannot be verified except by a club insider. This organization seems to peg its notability more toward the sexual orientation of its members than its on-field exploits. Does not meet notability standards in either case. Contested PROD, removed without explanation by original author. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because there's no reference from secondary sources. The club website pretty much says they're a local club - this would fail any similar sports notability test. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

E-dinar

E-dinar (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 internet currency.--Themane2 (talk) 01:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non notable currency, but most of the article is about the equally non-notable company. No refs for either. Two comments about facts that are unknown (buyout company and amount of gold held), don't help either. Perhaps redirect to an article on digital currencies, but otherwise delete.--Dmol (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible Game Changer. http://www.e-dinar.com/html/ --Themane2 (talk) 16:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flyswatter (Demo)

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

Demo albums are generally non-notable per

notability criteria for albums and no source contradicts this. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 00:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Age of Worms#Summary. Notable content, if any, can be added to the target page. Owen× ☎ 13:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Age of Worms Timeline

Age of Worms Timeline (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. A

original research. Nothing that can be kept according to Wikipedia's guidelines. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep or merge to Age of Worms. BOZ (talk) 02:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - note that the page was redirected, essentially a contested PROD, but the nominator restored with the PROD on it; as that is a violation of the PROD procedure, at worst, this page should be restored to its state as a redirect. BOZ (talk) 03:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    When the page was redirected, I reverted it because I thought it warranted a 7 day wait period as per usual prod procedure. It wasn't until afterward that I realized the redirect-er was contesting the prod. AFD is the best way to settle this type of discussion about what's best: deletion, redirect, or otherwise. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Wait a tic - why isn't a merge acceptable? Seems that that was proposed, and it came here for deletion instead. But I may be missing something. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trim and Merge - There's a lot of nice info there, but it seems non-encyclopedic and/or original research. Very little of it is of direct impact to the storyline; a few of the more relevant events could be pulled out of it and merged into the Age of Worms article. - Sangrolu (talk) 12:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:OR applies to the unreferenced (even with primary sources) 553 CY, 564 CY, 569 CY, 577 CY, 583 CY, 586 CY, 592 CY, parts of 575 CY, 576 CY and 593 CY and particularly c 573 CY, c 580 CY and c 586 CY, which by adding the circa means that it's a guess by the person that added that text. Jfgslo (talk) 18:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
You are probably correct in that. That said, I would argue that in a merge, a summary should really exclude the exact dates anyway. They seem a bit too trivial to include in a summary that would be appropriate for inclusion in the Age of Worms article. - Sangrolu (talk) 14:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, or maybe the circa was included in the original story, that is to say "somewhere around this year, this happened". I couldn't say without checking the acutal source. BOZ (talk) 13:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All that is speculation and that material is not referenced anyway. In any case, to quote another similar AfD, the timeline itself is merely a non-concise plot summary of various works presented in a non-encyclopedic format, using the fictional timeline rather than real chronology as a framework, so it has no place in Wikipedia.
Also, note that no reliable source has an Age of Worms Timeline, not even a primary source. That means that the timeline itself is
original research by synthesis since it has not been published by any reliable source outside of this article and the timeline here is created by piecing together information from primary sources. In fact, checking directly Dungeon #124, one of the most used references within the article, I have confirmed that there is no direct mention of the dates used in the article at all. For example, quoting from page #62, "Gansworth lives in the heart of Diamond Lake, at the end of a cul-de-sac marked by a memorial obelisk dedicated to the memory of a mine collapse 70 years ago that killed more than 300 miners", this was "translated" into "525 CY - A mine collapses near Diamond Lake. Over 300 miners die in the disaster" within the article. Seeing how this same situation applies with all the content referenced with Dungeon #124, I do not see how any part of the article could be of value for the article Age of Worms. Jfgslo (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Summer (Zombie Computer album)

Indian Summer (Zombie Computer 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)

fails WP:NALBUMS. preemptive to create WP article 5 months before release by a

single purpose editor with no significant coverage. [34]. LibStar (talk) 08:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
because it hasn't gone to AfD before is a very lame reason for keeping. As per
WP:CRYSTAL we cannot guess future notability. It may never reach WP:NALBUMS. LibStar (talk) 03:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
True, you got me on that one, thanks for the catch. However, it's been sitting three months and the album is about to be released. I'm not using
a crystal ball in any fashion, but more than half the time has elapsed to album release. Two months before release seems reasonable. But you have raised my only doubt; the album very well may never chart. I say it depends on the artist's notability; if they have notability, it's a definite keep. But I haven't researched the group fully, so I have no idea. CycloneGU (talk) 04:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Eisenhower_Middle_School. (non-admin closure) Monty845 21:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dwight D. Eisenhower Middle School

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

Middle school with no evidence of standalone notability. Could be redirected to North East Independent School District; alternatively could be replaced by a disambiguation page with links to districts, as there appear to be several schools named such. Brought here for consensus. Kinu t/c 00:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate and redirect per Kinu. By consensus, middle schools should be mentioned in articles about their school districts, rather than having stand-alone articles. The rare counterexample would be a school of unusual historic or architectural notability. This one doesn't qualify. Cullen328 (talk) 00:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Doesn't need to be redirected, lots of words, sentences, and other things about School. doesn't need to be redirected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stickulus (talk • contribs) 13:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect per nom. Words and sentences are fun, but to have an article here the subject needs to be notable. I'm not seeing that, nor do I see sources that would indicate that. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge anything helpful as usual. It'll go in a sentence in the main article probably. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate, redirect, and move along. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 00:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It turns out a similar disambiguation page exists at Eisenhower Middle School, to which this could simply redirect if consensus is such. (That redlink farm there needs to be properly disambiguated, of course, but it's a start.) --Kinu t/c 00:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the DAB page found by Kinu, Eisenhower Middle School. It should not be redirected to a particular school district since there are many schools in many different districts sharing the same name. --MelanieN (talk) 23:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Koba Tirkia

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

No significant third party coverage by

WP:BIO. Muhandes (talk) 13:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deerfield, San Antonio, Texas

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

Neighborhood with no evidence of notability. Appears to fall under the scope of

WP:LOCAL. Kinu t/c 00:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Hero's Return

The Hero's Return (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 pass WP:NSONG, specifically:

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

Analyzing the refs, the first discusses the album, The Final Cut and its significance to Roger's life. I don't believe the song is even mentioned, but if it is, it is a trivial mention. The second source, Andy Mabbett could perhaps confirm for us, is an indiscriminite guide of every Pink Floyd song. Its entry will almost certainly validate that this particular song is trivial. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 03:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 03:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zhuang jia shan

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

No sourcing given to indicate that this settlement exists. Not even Chinese, coordinates, or a smaller division within Shandong province given HXL's

Roundtable and Record 06:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 03:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Srebotnjak

Tina Srebotnjak (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:CREATIVE. gnews confirms articles/stories reported but nothing remarkable or about her as a subject [35] LibStar (talk) 08:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment Hosting multiple television news series is remarkable. How many television shows have you hosted?. Nominator, I'd highly suggest you familiarize yourself with
    WP:BEFORE, this article needs citations, not deletion. riffic (talk) 09:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete nothing notible found anywhere, insufficient coverage Alan - talk 22:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Evidence of notability is found in the article as there are citations to sources referencing the subject's role as host of multiple notable Canadian broadcast television series. This indicates notability under
    WP:ENTERTAINER as an "Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities". riffic (talk) 06:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 14:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Susheel Jangira

Susheel Jangira (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 on an unreferenced BLP. The subject appears to be non-notable, since "most ravishing anchor" does not seem to be a notable award. StAnselm (talk) 00:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete - model of minimal independent note. My search revealed nothing in
    Off2riorob (talk) 15:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity page, non-notable bio. Keb25 (talk) 21:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article is poorly formatted for a good quality Wikipedia article, but the references in the article (including multiple articles from 'The Times of India') show that she is notable (GNG) so the article should be improved, not deleted. Ougro (talk) 21:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete fails WP:BIO. the times of india references are passing mentions, as with the 4 gnews hits. the excessive bolding indicates vanity page. LibStar (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carla Gebhart

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

Only source is FMD (the IMDb of the fashion world), which shows her career so far is merely two seasons of runway work - very minor stuff. No Gnews hits.  Mbinebri  talk ← 18:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — Mbinebri  talk ← 02:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Devlin Weed

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO, no indication the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other specialized guideline. No nontrivial GNews or Gbooks hits. Recognition by the Urban Spice (Urban X) Awards/Hall of Fame, by previous AFD and DRV consensus, is insufficient to establish notability; the awards fail the "well-known/significant" standard. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Could you link us to the other AfDs involving the Urban Spice Hall of Fame inductees? Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Examples) Urban Spice/X Hall of Fame Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kitten (pornographic actress)
Urban Spice/X awards Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_January_24#Carmen Hayes
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boxing in Latin America

Boxing in Latin America (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 has no references and very little content, and has not been improved in over four years. The topic gives no indication of even being appropriate for an article -- the information currently in the article is more appropriately handled by the category system (see

• ¢ 21:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 03:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Liang-Jie Zhang

AfDs for this article:
Liang-Jie Zhang (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 an OR autobiography and an orphan, and has been for over two years with no sign of improvement. »

• ¢ 21:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep. He passes
    WP:PROF #C2 (the IEEE Technical Achievement Award), #C3 (IEEE Fellow), and #C8 (editor in chief of two journals), so notability is a lot clearer now than it was in the previous AfD when only #C8 was in play. Being an autobiography is not a good thing, but in this case it would be better dealt with by cleaning up the article (I've made a start but it needs a lot more) and possibly sanctioning the user who has been doing it (very likely unnecessary since the article was quite far out of date).—David Eppstein (talk) 06:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Weak keep. Seems to have a GS
    WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC).[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Hot Club of Detroit

The Hot Club of Detroit (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 band completely unknown outside of Detroit, and even there only in very limited circles. Incarnatus (talk) 23:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 03:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Wang

Kris Wang (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 notability. delete - UtherSRG (talk) 09:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC) UtherSRG (talk) 09:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - fails
    WP:POLITICIAN
    . Although it is referenced, poorly, that the subject of the article is the mayor of Cupertino, the city itself is not "...cities of at least regional importance."
Cupertino is not even on the
WP:GNG; on this point, it is debatable if the 100 news hits, or 7 book hits, could be considered Significant Coverage under GNG. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment Disagreement about what constitutes a city of "regional importance" as mentioned in
Apple Computer, now the largest technology company in market capitalization in the world. The company operates over 50 buildings in Cupertino. Cullen328 (talk) 15:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Erin Andrews drops a Gator Chomp on DWTS OnlyGators.com, 31 March 2010.
  2. ^ Michelle Obama's Visit: Minute by Minute The Gainesville Sun, 22 October 2008.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2011_May_2&oldid=1142637275"