Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 May 23

< 22 May	24 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nepal related organizations in USA

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

Wikipedia is not a directory. This article was incorrectly tagged for speedy deletion, but I think it needs this AfD, because it is just a long list of external links for what seem to be non-notable organisations. - filelake shoe 23:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as this is a directory and not an encyclopedia article. DMOZ would be a more appropriate place for something like this. -- Whpq (talk) 16:19, 25 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. Also recreation of previously-speedy deleted page. Neutrality^talk 06:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Bell and Burke Gleason "I Know Who You Are"

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

I'm not sure if this is a sort of worldbuilding exercise, the beginning of a secret history of Atlantis, a utopian fiction, or suggestions for the President's Panel for a Cleaner Tomorrow. Regardless, whatever it is, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I wish there was a CSD category for masterpieces like this, but it's not even clear this is meant to be a hoax—after all, somebody could sincerely be summarizing some kind of short story here. Regardless, for your pleasure, here's Bryan Bell and Burke Gleason's "I Know Who You Are." — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 23:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is some kind of
original research gives it too much credit. It could be the work of a provocateur or some kind of social experiment. It certainly isn't a valid Wikipedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 01:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:NOT. Deor (talk) 01:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. The very first sentence is "In 2020 the natural disasters come to a boiling point in which the lost city of Atlantis rises to the surface in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean explaining how many early civilizations could have resembled each other so closely." This is fantasy, not an encyclopedia article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm going for the option "background scenario for a role-playing game someone was making up - said game possibly including the use of dice of more than 6 sides" - but per nom, this isn't the place for it.FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This either fiction or a summary of a work of fiction.--TeraRose (talk) 03:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Anderson (dancer)

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

Appears to fail

reliable sources and all I am able to find are a few listings where the subject's name is listed on program guides. I have been unable to locate any reviews of his body of work in a reliable source. I have turned up many listings for a Jason Anderson who is a Toronto based writer, but that seems to be a different individual and different from the subject of the article. But that also makes searching a bit more difficult, so I may be missing some reliable sources. Although I have tried and haven't been successful. Barring the discovery of significant reliable source coverage this appears to be a case of too early for a wikipedia article, and perhaps later in life the subject will reach notability by Wikipedia standards. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to be an autobiography. I can find no significant coverage about his person. -- Whpq (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails
WP:ENTERTAINER.--v/r - T P 01:18, 30 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) 00:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of ninja anime and manga

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

This list fails

notable. —Farix (t | c) 21:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — —Farix (t | c) 21:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — —Farix (t | c) 21:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — —Farix (t | c) 21:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it should be stripped of all animanga which is not focused on ninja. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 05:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's really absolutely nothing new, just a split from

Ninja in fiction because it was kind of dominated by this section (like, almost 1/4 of the article), as to make it more compact. I guess I oppose the nomination, but really it's not a big thing if it just goes back there. --Barry Sandwich (talk) 12:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Also I'm pretty sure the sources can be added, but all i did was just a split. (And I actually added a tag for ref improve.) --Barry Sandwich (talk) 12:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, just what is considered to be reliable sources on the subject? Because apparently even ANN and IMDb are not. That is, besides the official websites. (I ask because I might write some anime/manga stuff and not just about video games.) --Barry Sandwich (talk) 14:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with IMDB is that it is user edited. You, I or my fifth cousin twice removed could have added content there meaning there is little editorial oversite. Regarding ANN, I assume that you are talking about the enclopyedia section of that site and not the main sectiomn. That has the same problem as IMDB, as in it is user edited with little oversite either. The news section however, is not user submitted so their news coverage and or reviews can be used.--76.66.185.169 (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If you want to have a rough idea of reliable sources, you can look at GA or FA articles from the anime/manga project group. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 20:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough coverage in reliable third-party sources of "Ninja anime/manga" .--Anthem of joy (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nomination. As expressed there, the article that falls into
a list of loosely associated topics. Jfgslo (talk) 15:04, 27 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. -- Cirt (talk) 07:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Dorian

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

Contested speedy deletion, not mine, and this probably should be speedy deleted. This page was deleted once through full process. The main AfD was at

academic notability either. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - either as the same person deleted under
Mtking (talk) 00:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep The subject of this article is without doubt a different person from any previous article deleted... and it should be noted to any administrator or other editors that the decision to delete this particular subject has been declined twice by two different administrators [1] [2]. It appears that the editors are attempting to override these decisions. More information to be provided soon for notability. But just off the bat I can say that the doctor is a member of a prestigious Canadian Society of Heart Specialists and has been published in notable academic journals such as Harvard Review among others. Harvard Review reference NanaRobins (talk) 15:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC) — NanaRobins (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It should also be noted that Dorian has been written about at length in several places and is currently the director of the Division of Cardiology at a notable University in Canada.[3]NanaRobins (talk) 15:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The former article was about an
2-1-1 Emergency System for the government, at least until this edit by NanaRobins. It continues to contain a link to the Top 40 list, which describes a computer consultant[4]. NanaRobins added the claims about UIS and various tech jobs in the original version of the article[5] and removed them when it seemed this data was linking the subject to the deleted article.

I'm not sure any of the medical journal references establish notability; simple membership in a professional association of specialists is not enough, and the academic notability guidelines require that published works be widely cited or recognized by others as influential. And frankly, at this stage I'm having trouble believing any of this. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Reply. The administrator that declined the first article deletion posted on this article wall that the article needed to be rewritten. I also stated on the talk about during the debate that there was a question in my research about if the two people by the same name were the same person. Once this was cleared up I focused my research on info about the doctor and posted the other stuff on relevant articles concerning the CEO. If you are concerned about if the doctor is a notable person based upon his publications that is why I pointed out his publications in Harvard Review which I think we all know is highly credible and notable. And FYI the policy seems to say that "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." I think the Harvard thing makes that clear.NanaRobins (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is a confused attempt to combine information about at least two people. One is the California businessman, who is the subject of ref. 21 & similar, and has previously been judged not notable here, I think correctly. The other is a University of Toronto cardiologist. Google Scholar shows his most cited articles to have 850 , 818, 802 hits, which , together with his university position, establishes him as an authority in his subject. These are extremely high citations even in biomedicine, and even considering many of them are as one coauthor in a large study. And what Harvard Review has to do with this I do not know: its a literary journal not an academic journal, with nothing much to do with the field of either person. I tend to wonder about a third Paul Dorian; perhaps there are more. A proper article could be written on the Toronto cardiologist , but the first step is to delete the utter nonsense in this conglomeration-~~-so utterly nonsensical as to make me doubt both the competence & good faith of the contributor, something I do not recall ever before having occasion to say~~. DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Hey DGG QUIT the Personal Attacks here! Not everyone is an expert at this stuff... besides you are operating on old information... slowly but surely this article is being revised and since you seem to actually agree that Dr. Paul Dorian is in fact notable enough to have an article then it seems a bit piety AND stupid to want to delete the article just because I'm editing it. After all if it were deleted who would recreate the new article and what would have been the point of deleting an article you have the intention of recreating. However, since you are reading up on the subject you are much more welcomed to add-in information to the article. But I should state something for the record: notability on Wikipedia isn't determined based on hits on Google or whatever.... In fact I think it says that somewhere... but the American Heart Journal is a medical journal :I apologize a little, for it is probable that the problem is either that Dorian has been published in many times. NanaRobins (talk) 18:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Paul Dorian notable enough to have an article, and iI have indeed been known to write articles on subjects of this sort. But it would not be reasonable to do so while there exists an article whose contents is inextricably mixed with material about some other person, and where the irrelevant material would remain in the article history. The only way I know to do this right, would be to entirely delete everything here and start over with a clean article history. I can add material to an incomplete article, I can delete errors, but there is a point beyond which such measures are impossible, and necessary to start over. One of these times when we must start over is when the alternative is to try to turn an article about one person into an article about another while retaining the history. I however apologize for the wording of part of my last sentence, and I reword it as follows: I cannot distinguish whether you are simply confused about what material applies to what person, whether you are trying to write about some person of the name without knowing or caring who he is, or whether you are trying to insert material about one person in the guise of writing about some other person. My working hypothesis under the charitable interpretation is that you intended to write about the executive, learned we would not accept it due to insufficient evidence for his notability , looked for additional material, found a number of items relevant to someone else of the same name, or possibly several other people of the same name, thought without reading them that you could use them to show the notability of the executive, but did not realize that they were totally incompatible with the prior contents, but are too stubborn to do the direct thing, which is to withdraw the article.. The uncharitable interpretation would be that you know the incompatibility perfectly well, and intend to eventually change back the article to being about the executive. DGG ( talk ) 21:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE. That both the sponsor for deletion
User:Mtking are previous sponsor and supporter for the deletion of the former Paul Dorian article and may have a wp:conflict of interest in regard to the subject. Mtking was previously tagged for wp:disruptive editing for the other article under this name [6] and attempted to remove this information from this page under false accuses that have since been cleared as "Unlikely".NanaRobins (talk) 18:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

That is a false accusation, Rainman64 is an entirely different entity, which is believed to possibly be you (not Mtking), as noted in a recent sockpuppet case. At this point, I think it is time to start looking for waterfowl. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 00:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is a notable physician and academic. Google Scholar's many citations of his articles show his importance in the field, and I have added a paragraph to the article demonstrating his wider notability. The article in its current state is about this one person and there does not appear to be any confusion with anyone else named Paul Dorian. BTW the article would actually be improved if someone deleted that list of 15 references proving that he is a "published writer". His notability is clear enough without that nonsense.--MelanieN (talk) 02:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to accept that this Paul Dorian is probably notable, however so as to be sure and to address

Mtking (talk) 07:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

There is no confusion of identity in the current article. So your argument for "delete" is specifically to wipe out the article history? That is very strange reasoning, and I don't think you will find it listed under the

criteria for deletion. Personally I would think that maintaining the article history would be a way to guard AGAINST confusion appearing again - since the history documents that the erroneous information was earlier removed and why. --MelanieN (talk) 16:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment I just made some changes, cleared out all that clutter of references to his journal articles (many of which were not accessible anyhow), and added a few significant publications (including two books for the lay public). As the article currently stands it is a straightforward article about a notable academic, and any historical confusion of identity is simply that: historical. --MelanieN (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MelanieN. Notability for Dr Paul Dorian is easily met, and the current article is focused exclusively on him. I also don't see the need to delete the article's history -
talk) 01:23, 31 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) 00:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GameCores

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

Delete I'm tempted to request speedy deletion either as obviously promotional material or as A7 given the fairly weak claim of importance. But I'm bringing it here because there may be good Chinese sources that I can't read that discuss this podcast and establish its notability. Pichpich (talk) 21:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 22:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no coverage about this one year old web site. Of course, there may be some sources in Chinese that have escaped me, but to be honest, I'm not too sure that a one year old gaming web site run by henrysum73, and ppbear with 2,900 users is likely to be notable. -- Whpq (talk) 16:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Schelske

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

Here are the claims to notability:

unsuccessful run for state office. (successful runs for state office are generally the threshold for eligibility)
had a band as a kid, opened for notable bands. (fails
WP:BAND
terribly
married a notable person (fails
WP:NOTINHERITED
, similar to how "played for a notable band" doesn't make the band notable)
was the husband-manager of notable person (this would need a depth of coverage to prove notability, perhaps similar to
WP:OSE
)
divorced a notable person (fails
WP:BLP1E
, and having a muzzle/C&D prevents any depth of coverage)

The rest of it is very poorly written PR fluff, which is especially unfortunate because it was submitted by his PR agency. ("earned a place as a significant political personality", "It was a high-risk business", "not your typical country music band", "filled with adventure... insurmountable odds") tedder (talk) 20:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: it appears to also be a copyvio. Given it was submitted by the PR agency itself, I assume we can assume good faith by not blanking the article for now. tedder (talk) 21:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Failed politician lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails
WP:POLITICIAN. ttonyb (talk) 23:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. — tedder (talk) 23:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — tedder (talk) 23:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not see enough substantial coverage from reliable sources to justify having this BLP. Steven Walling 23:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only is he clearly non-notable, but the article does not have enough references to verify all its content and this search only turns up the same story from different news sources and even includes results from unreliable gossip sites. Jsayre64 (talk) 23:49, 23 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 The 100 Scariest Movie Moments#Sequels. While reporting on a particular list, even a subjective one is not original research there is consensus that this program does not need its own article but can be covered in the article on the original show. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

30 Even Scarier Movie Moments

)

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

There are no refs demonstrating its notability. Do we really need this? The list isn't even there. Also nominating the sister article with more of them. Szzuk (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated: The 100 Scariest Movie Moments

Delete - Even scariest sez even who? Original research. Carrite (talk) 00:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per nom and Carrite. Please let me know when we get to
talk) 17:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Both articles have been trimmed and now focus on the shows that bear these names, so it becomes and issue of notability. I'll try to research on it, and I am neutral in the meantime -

talk) 23:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep. Notability is borderline but it exists, and the content is encyclopaedic -
talk) 22:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to '
original research. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect, per above. An argument could be made for a weak keep, but a redirect seems the better way to go.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My thought as well. If more becomes available to flesh out and source this, it might be recreated. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:39, 27 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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shpilberg

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

Fails notability requirements. I can't find any secondary sources about this band. I would have prodded but the creator removed a prod tag in the past. Slp1 (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Arguably an A7 speedy, but I'll just go with a regular delete as this band has not received coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has no indication of why the band's famous. No notable chart singles either. Minima © (talk) 16:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any reliable source coverage here.
talk) 01:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy - I've applied the A7 tag to it, per my general feelings at
WP:YAMB. → ROUX ₪ 10:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Donnell Beverly

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

Averaged all of 2 points per game for the UConn men's basketball champs. Winning an NCAA title does not grant notability. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not pass
WP:GNG. Jenks24 (talk) 00:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Definitely doesn't meet notability for college athletes at this point - no awards, records or non-trivial new coverage. Just a run of the mill college player at this point in his career. Also looks like the whole article is cut and paste from his bio on the UConn site. Rikster2 (talk) 19:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet
WP:ROUTINE coverage in multiple independent sources. I've also tagged the article as a copyright violation of his university's website. —Bagumba (talk) 02:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

If this article is to be deleted due to its supposed irrelevancy, then I don't see how the articles for Miles Plumlee and several other Duke players aren't being nominated for deletion as well. All of the same characteristics apply, as far as lack of awards and everything else. I suggest that you give that article a good look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.159.172.107 (talk) 02:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because Miles Plumlee hasn't won an award and happened to play for a national championship-winning team doesn't mean Donnell Beverly deserves an article. Not all of the same characteristics apply either, as you claim, because on a cursory Google scan of "Miles Plumlee" I found plenty of non-routine coverage of him as a player. Not to mention he was a significant role player, whereas Beverly got lucky to be on a team that won the national championship without much help from him. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Oh boy, sounds like we're dealing with a Duke fan here. The other editor's claim wasn't that Beverly deserved an article because Plumlee had one. The point was that Plumlee shouldn't have an article if Beverly doesn't as he's not any more notable. You can submit conjecture about what he may do in the future, but a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. I don't know why I bothered to type this as I'm sure it will be dismissed with some sarcastic and insulting remarks. After all, I'm just an IP editor and therefore know nothing. 76.119.77.101 (talk) 21:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(condensed logic from above) 'Beverly should have an article if Plumlee has one' =/= 'Plumlee shouldn't have an article if Beverly doesn't have one'. I'm confused as to how they're not the same idea. Additional comments: (1) You gave no rationale for supporting why Beverly deserves an article; rather, all you did was make a claim based on opinion that Plumlee doesn't deserve an article, which is not the issue here. (2) No Wikipedia guidelines or policy was used to show why Beverly still deserves inclusion; i.e., failing to argue without evidence is a quick dismissal. (3) According to Google, Plumlee is more notable, which is why
WP:GNG exist in the first place – to show why arguments such as yours are not the case. (4) I'm clearly a William & Mary alum, and have been a CAA homer ever since. I enjoy ACC basketball too, but I don't favor any college teams beyond that. Go Tribe. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Just would like to let everyone participating in this discussion, and for reviewing admins once it's closed, to know that the commenting IP above (76.119.77.101), Beverly's article creator User:Walt2020 (talk), and random yet-to-chime-in User:FabFuneralFive (talk) are 99.9% likely to be the same person. Their editing histories and exact edits made are uncanny. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:22, 27 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) v/r - T P 20:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Case, Jr.

)

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

Delete. Non-notable person. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Founder of what became Case Western Reserve University; builder (with brother) of Case Hall source Findagrave; School's bio, and listed in Encyclopedia of Cleveland History quoted here. Dru of Id (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Founded
Case School of Applied Science which eventually became the engineering school of Case Western. -- Whpq (talk) 16:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Founders of significant institutions are generally notable.
talk) 01:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Obvious keep Founder and namesake of a major university. Many references found at Google Books [7] [8] including a biography [9]. --MelanieN (talk) 02:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Smart Power Generation

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

About to be published book; no sources yet;

WP:CRYSTAL. TransporterMan (TALK) 20:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete, does not appear to have received significant coverage in secondary sources. VQuakr (talk) 20:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, will be published in a week or so, and will receive significant coverage and fill the notability clause. Also, the book has been misspelled "The Power Book" in some sources, but it is the same book. AFD2020 (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC) — AFD2020 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. While I'm often willing to afford some leeway on
WP:CRYSTAL when coverage seems inevitable, that doesn't seem to be the case for this not-yet-published book. If reliable, independent, third-party sources emerge later, no prejudice to recreation. Serpent's Choice (talk) 21:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:CHRYSTAL, we can certainly recreate if their are significant reviews, Sadads (talk) 14:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Berggruen (artist)

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

Artist of questionable notability that does not claim significant notability in the article. Article previously consisted of a significant copyright infringement before getting a straight infusion from the german wikipedia. Hasteur (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —AllyD (talk) 22:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The main reference is to an article largely relating to her art collector father. Although the external link gives a reasonably long exhibition list, neither there or in Google Book search is there clear evidence of
notability in her own right. AllyD (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Per
talk) 09:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Samprvaahi

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

Reasons for deletion: 1) Non-

WP:COPYPASTE from social media sites. Note: PROD removed by anon with no explanation. Singularity42 (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam, and apparent copypaste of stuff like this. -- Whpq (talk) 16:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in agreement with the nominator and previous voter.
Original research is also probably afoot. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:21, 26 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) v/r - T P 20:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hilldale Shopping Center

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

Doesn't lay a claim or assertion of notability. It also doesn't provide reliable, secondary sources. AFAICT it's just another strip mall. I'll at least give partial credit to the creator, because it's a lot more nicely written than most of these types of articles, but it still doesn't pass

WP:N. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as one of Madison, Wisconsin's major shopping malls with 50 years of history and enough coverage my reliable, third-party sources to cross the notability threshold. Mall is really fully-enclosed with a new mixed-use addition in front. I have expanded the previous (hidden) references and added several more from reliable sources. - Dravecky (talk) 15:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The citations included the New York Times and the Wisconsin Historical Society. These are third-party sources. Thank you-RFD (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Appears to have some notability. Dough 48 72 16:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of very solid reliable sources means it meets the general notability standards. Royal broil 03:08, 26 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

Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

History of Wyandanch

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/History of Wyandanch

Articles for deletion/History of Wyandanch (2nd nomination)

History of Wyandanch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

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

Previously nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of Wyandanch. At that time, the consensus was to merge whatever usable content into Wyandanch, New York and be done with it. Eight months later, at the beginning of May 2011, the title was redirected over to the target article to comply with the AFD, under the assumption that any content that was worthy of merging would have been done by then. An IP editor has since reverted the redirect on three occasions. So it seems, with the original AFD's result being disputed, that we need to have a new discussion about the fate of this article. Thoughts? SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~This seems to be some kind of joke.~~ The article on this town of 10,000 has about as much historical information as I would expect in an encyclopedia article on a major nation. I'm glad that the citizens of Wyandanch love their town ~~and enjoy a good laugh,~~ but really that's not what WP is for. (Serious note: Wyandanch, New York has more than enough information on the town's history already, no need to merge in any more.) Borock (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep If, as it appears, content has been merged from this article, then the edit history is required for attribution. The matter has already been discussed here and the matter should now be dealt with by ordinary editing and dispute resolution per the template on the article which states, "If you find that such action has not been taken promptly, please consider assisting in the merger instead of re-nominating the article for deletion. To discuss the merger, please use the destination article's talk page.". Colonel Warden (talk) 11:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To my knowledge, there was never any merging of content between the two articles, and just a redirecting of the title, since no merging of content had occurred, and operation under the assumption that if anything had been worth merging, it would have been done by then. If things had gone to plan, we wouldn't be here right now because everything would be following as the previous AFD had determined, and these edits would have gone into the parent article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with Speedy Keep. The History of Wyandanch should never have been split away from the Wyandanch, New York article in the first place. This article details the complex history of a poor, defacto segregated African-American suburb on Long Island, which presently the federal, state, county and town governments are trying to rehabilitate with the "Wyandanch Rising" program. This historical information is available no where else and easily allows planners, sociologists, historians, government officials and the general public to understand the roots of its current ills. Deleting it would be a major disservice to this community and serves no useful purpose. Borock-this is no joke. This is very serious business. We had the same kind of "smear the community" remarks during the last deletion discussion. As Speedy Keep says, be positive and assist a constructive merger. Thanks to whoever recently spent considerable time creating endnotes for this informative article. ```Ldoughist24.184.230.106 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that I assumed the article was a joke. When I saw a massive article about the history of a small town that was my impression. However after learning more I can see that the people behind the article are sincere about doing something good. I still think one article on Wyandanch is enough. Borock (talk) 00:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Smith (footballer born 1989)

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

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

footballer fails
WP:GNG. He has never played professionally but has signed for Oldham Athletic and will no doubt play next season, but the article can be re-created if or when necessary. Liam Taylor 19:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article fails both
WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, has no importance.--Soul Train (talk) 09:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails
^talk 15:52, 26 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 - no assertion of notability. Neutrality^talk 21:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Himmer's Law

Himmer's Law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Newly (today) coined neologism. TransporterMan (TALK) 19:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not for something made up at school one day. The topic does not meet general notability guidelines. Deli nk (talk) 19:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, maybe speedily. Probably falls neatly between the cracks of the speedy deletion criteria (although maybe G3), but there's
absolutely no way that one college student's protologism, coined this week, will meet the standards for inclusion. Serpent's Choice (talk) 20:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia isn't "Neologism's 'R Us".   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 17:05, 24 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) 00:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Words Now Heard

Words Now Heard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Nominating for deletion, as I cannot find (after a wp:before search) how this satisfies wp's notability criteria. Others are welcome to try to find support for that. The article has been tagged for notability since 2009.Epeefleche (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - They exist. But there's no significant coverage about them to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:00, 25 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} 02:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Novak Djokovic in 2011

Novak Djokovic in 2011 (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 should be deleted per
WP:NOONECARES. Yeah, he's having a good year, but surely all his relevant doings can be covered at Novak_Djokovic#2011? Plus, I'm not too keen on this "X in YYYY" format. If we're going to do it for a guy who swats around a ball for a living, why not for individuals who actually made a contribution to history, say Napoleon in 1815, Adolf Hitler in 1939 or Nelson Mandela in 1991? Perhaps because the format itself is flawed, and we'd best quash this experiment before anyone else gets the idea to replicate it. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Agree with nominator. This is just a table of statistics. BTW the AfD template does not appear on the article at this time. Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You do make good points, but given
Roger Federer in 2011 was approved after a long debate (and all his other years), this season makes sense for Novak given he is undefeated. I don't think he needs pages for any other years, but Novak Djokovic in 2011 really is special. Supertigerman (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Maybe delete it if he doesn't win at roland garros? Or keep it until he finishes his winning streak if it turns out to be not that significant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.0.61 (talk) 19:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above, the article can be expanded. --92.32.36.73 (talk) 20:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree completely. Except with achievement relativization. Bahati (talk) 21:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There will be too much victories to import in main article. --94.140.88.117 (talk) 14:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 18:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I agree with Biruitorul that this format is fundamentally flawed. If this win streak is sufficiently notable to be discussed in the main article for the athlete (and it is), then that should be done in the summary style that is appropriate for Wikipedia articles. Detailed match statistics have been largely accepted for the pages of the various tournaments, and can be found there by the interested reader. Individual athlete/year articles are undue weight; this isn't a record setting performance, and even if it were, we do not -- and should not -- have articles such as
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, if this is deleted, I'll happily nominate the Roger Federer by year article series on identical grounds. Serpent's Choice (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Why not take this article and place it in the main Novak article? Yes, this year has been a great one for Djokovic but for Wikipedia, it goes along the lines of, as stated above,
WP:NOONECARES. I am a tennis fan myself and I like Djokovic, but I feel that Novak in 2011 should not be another whole article mostly because it's not very important and it can just be added to his main article. This article already says the exact same thing that's in here. Just add the chart in that section and the problem is solved.KingRatedRIV (talk) 14:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as there are enough references to pass
GNG. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 21:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

The GNG isn't the alpha and omega of inclusion guidelines. Djokovic is clearly notable. His 2011 performance deserves mention in his article; it has received significant coverage. But breaking athletes' performance out by year in this manner places
run-of-the-mill. Athletes like Djokovic or Federer or Babe Ruth or Donald Bradman are notable, and they accomplish notable things -- often in several different years. But their play in each of those years is expected. It is those athletes doing their job. It isn't practical or appropriate to have an article about each year of each individual athlete's play. Serpent's Choice (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Can't delete because of no one cares. For goodness sake. if one puts this into the main article it would make the page really stable and undue weight to this year. As per Roger Federer and Rafa Nadal years keep. Good twins (talk) 10:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Supertigerman. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 18:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A perfect example of "
excessive listing of statistics" Skarioffszky (talk) 19:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Too long to be merged. This is why we split articles to subpages. It cannot be fitted into the main article with so many details in it (but a summary in main Djokovic page with a link to this article is proper). If Napoleon did so many things in 1815 then let it go his way. It is popularist to say that "if we allow this every year within a person's life will have an article from now on". No we are talking about this special year, which is special indeed. I will be the first to vote delete for all other Djokovic in #year pages.
CP 18:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment The reason it is too long to be merged is that it mentions every game, set and match he played this year. Leave out the excessive statistical detail and you're left with no more than one healthy paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 12:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seriously? This is inviting the creation of infinitely many subarticles about infinitely many people. Stifle (talk) 11:29, 31 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) 00:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jae E

Jae E (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. Overly promotional page created by single purpose account. Doesn't look like this rapper passes our
(talk) 17:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - fails
WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 19:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 24 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) 00:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mykle Hansen

Mykle Hansen (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:GNG. No prejudice against inclusion if he starts receiving attention in the future, but somehow, I doubt he's the stuff of literature textbooks. — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 17:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete sadly it seems that the author of such fine titles has received no coverage in reliable sources. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 24 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) v/r - T P 17:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zero-ground

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

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

Proprietry product lacking notability: no significant coverage, no reliable sources. Only one non-trivial, secondary source is provided that refers to Zero-Ground: [10], whereas the others are press releases or primary sources. Zero-Ground LLC, the actual company, also appears non-notable. Meph^talk 16:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Meph^talk 16:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article has been re-named
Talk:Shaft-Voltage. Biscuittin (talk) 20:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

I have done some tidying up and hidden the "advertising" part of the article. I think the article should now be kept. Biscuittin (talk) 22:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Biscuittin. I read it over, and it seems to be not-advert-ish. --Σ _☭^★ 00:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTGUIDE: In response to the above, I don't think promotional content is the issue currently. In its present state, I would suggest that the entire 'Solution' section is misconstrued: it's content appropriate for a research paper, which is exactly what it derives from, according to the author. It is instructing readers how to fix something, e.g. with insulation, and too closely resembles a guide:
WP:NOTGUIDE
. The author states:

'Now I believe this page is, unequivocally notable & a necessary edition, for anyone installing VFD's or having grounding issues.' (my emphasis)

If so, the lede-in section would be all that's left. There's little to justify a separate article, distinct from variable-frequency drive, especially since by its very nature it's a derivative topic. Another option is to merge it with the VFD article. Meph^talk 04:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have modified the text to remove the "how to" content and linked it as a main article from Variable-frequency_drive#Motor_bearings. Biscuittin (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a legitimate topic and the article seems to have plenty of
reliable sources. Wizard191 (talk) 21:38, 24 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} 03:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Neville (footballer)

Keith Neville (footballer) (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:V issues--can't find reliable, secondary sources to verity this player's claims of notability. Frustratingly, I suspect he exists, and playing in the Leinster Senior Cup would likely confer notability, but outside of wikimirrors and blog posts I haven't been able to verify the claims here, although I did discover a football-loving Reverend and a Bohemian Nebraskan mayor, as well as a younger player with the same name in the process. Additional sources welcomed, as always. joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or incubate. I've just spent 20 minutes looking for sources, and there is nothing on soccerbase or any other stats sites that I tried, but I'm not sure that Irish football is well covered on those sites. The-Pope (talk) 16:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article fails both
WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails
^talk 15:53, 26 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) 16:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop Bacani

Bishop Bacani (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 believe this individual meets the
notability guidelines. He was accused of sexual harassment (but apparently not convicted), and resigned, so he's not even a bishop anymore. He is a "trending topic" on Twitter among Filipinos for his debating style. Neither of these facts really confer notability. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 15:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing
WP:BLP. Having once been a "trending topic" on Twitter certainly does not confer notability. -- 202.124.73.58 (talk) 07:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Non-notable, and possible BLP issues. (Also article is misnamed - should be Teodoro Bacani, Jr. - but that's irrelevant if it is going to be deleted anyhow.) --MelanieN (talk) 03:03, 30 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) 16:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Selby RSSC

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

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

A non-notable, minor, regional football club that lacks reliable sources and significant coverage.
WP:PROD was removed without addressing the issue, as can be seen with this edit: [11], and the inclusion of a Facebook link. Meph^talk 15:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this club hasn't competed at a high enough level OR in the FA Cup, and can't be considered notable. Giant Snowman 17:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Has not competed at a high enough level and, just for good measure, completely lacks any coverage in reliable sources.
^talk 15:51, 26 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) 16:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Real Vocal String Quartet

Real Vocal String Quartet (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. Fails
WP:N local notability only shown through the reference on the page. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 14:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

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

Weak delete The article is very spammy and needs a major rewrite if kept. The group exists and it gets occasional news coverage [12], but I don't think it amounts to significant enough coverage to qualify as notable. --MelanieN (talk) 03:08, 30 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 redirected to
semi-finals already redirect there, I see no reason this would be contentious. Non-admin closure. Serpent's Choice (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Round of 16

Round of 16 (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. Delete and move the text to a glossery list or move to wikidictionary if one exitst 400 not out (talk) 13:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article is about a pairing and elimination style tournament with sixteen participants. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry I may be a bit thick here but I don't get why you wrote what you did. And I can't see how it is all that helpful either 400 not out (talk) 14:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The main AfD daily pages are busy. Editors browse them looking for subjects of interest to them. It was not obvious to me what this article was about, neither from your nomination, nor from the title "Round of 16". So I added it to the "Sports" deletion sorting list, and added a comment describing what the article was about. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commment Thanks for making it clear. :) 400 not out (talk) 14:42, 23 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) 16:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Federated state (disambiguation)

Federated state (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)

This doesn't look like proper disambiguation. It's not like someone's going to type in "Federated state" expecting to get a list of the states of Brazil. If anything it's a list of lists, though the article Federated state appears to list them all anyway. I suggest outright deletion. Rennell435 (talk) 13:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; this is a list, not a disambig page, and we already have a much better article on the concept of a federated state that encompasses everything (except Palau, but that is not really a federation) on this list. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know why Palau is in there... Rennell435 (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Becuase it's divided into "states". Apparently a translation as "states" and any level of state powers not merely delegated are enough, or it would not have Germany either. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The title is "federated state". Just having the word "state" in the title doesn't make it relevant.
talk) 04:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep and move to
List of federated states, since the title is the objection. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Federated state is all but a list, and a much better one. Johnbod (talk) 03:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obviously not a disambiguation page, and a better, more detailed list is already incorporated into the federated state article. Powers ^T 17:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This disambiguation page was created as rather an unsatisfactory compromise between those editors who thought these examples of federated states shouldn't be listed at State and those who did. (The discussion was here.) In reality providing a link to a list article would be considerably most satisfactory. In reality the same logic who goes for not listing examples of federated states at State goes for not listing them at Federated state (disambiguation). — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 18:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above; the main article is fuller & better. Johnbod (talk) 03:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unnecessary, and an inappropriate use of the term "disambiguation". As BHL alluded to, this was the creation of one editor who had an objection to removing these links from the
talk) 04:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Nothing is really being disambiguated here.
T
23:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Delete as above. Neutrality^talk 06:24, 30 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) 16:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chess Dungeon

Chess Dungeon (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 that was created by the creator of this game as a way to "spread the word", which falls into being
promotional. No reliable sources currently exist in the article. In fact, most of the links are to many Facebook pages, which doesn't help with notability.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 12:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
I completely agree that the notability part is completely missing in this article. This looks more like an advertisement, there are no valid references given as such.  tashif   (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Delete I didn't see any reliable sources. Sounds very promotional.--SPhilbrick T 13:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the Chessman site might be independent and reliable though it seems to be a SPS. I cant' find anything else that even might be. No boardgamegeek page either which is generally a bad sign. Hobit (talk) 21:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A note from the page creator: Please have a little patience with the Chess Dungeon article as it is my first article and is not intended as a promotional page but as a recognition of the rapidly growing Chess Dungeon gaming community in Perth / Western Australia. The game has only a community of approximately 50 players at present, but as it has now become part of a chess training program run in primary schools (by an entirely independent organization: Chessman - formerly of Chess Rules Australia), it is gaining members weekly. I welcome any suggestions about external sourcing - Please! A newspaper article covering Chess Dungeon in schools in in the works - would this help? Regards, Thomas P.W. James Thomas P.W. James (talk) 22:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would help, but might not be enough. Wikipedia, for better or for worse, documents things that are "notable". And we define notability as basically having multiple independent sources cover the topic. See
WP:RS) writing a review of the game. My guess is this is going to get deleted. But please don't be overly discouraged, once the needed coverage happens just recreate the article, citing the coverage. If you need help with that just let me know (or the deleting admin will usually be happy to help). Feel free to pop over to my talk page and ask anything you need. Good luck! Hobit (talk) 02:18, 24 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) 16:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sikat

Sikat (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 coverage that indicate the organization's notability. Moray An Par (talk) 12:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Moray An Par (talk) 12:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Moray An Par (talk) 12:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had tagged the article for
₤10,000 per year, that it is probably not notable. The author has provided no further citations to contradict that opinion, and as the nominator suggests, no sources can be found in a Google search either. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I concur with WikiDan61, no reliable sources found.--SPhilbrick T 13:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a single reference found   tashif   (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find WikiDan61's points sound and agree entirely with them. Mouse Nightshirt | talk 18:20, 23 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. Neutrality^talk 06:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taupo glory afc

Taupo glory afc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Declined prod by IP address without improvement. Prod reason was "Non-notable as per
WP:NFOOTY" Hasteur (talk) 11:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, unsourced and self-promotional. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 18:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete new non-notable 1 year old 1-team youth club that has not played at a level that would confer notability and has not done anything of note. unsourced COI self promo--ClubOranje^T 09:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable youth team. Giant Snowman 13:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable and completely unsourced.
^talk 15:54, 26 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) 16:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

QSLogBook

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

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

Prodded, and prod removed by IP address without any improvement to the article. Prod reason was "Unreferenced specialty social network". While I support the site (Ameteur Ham myself) this article doesn't qualify for inclusion in notability. Hasteur (talk) 11:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article is a pure promotional piece, does not in any way qualify to be a part of Wikipedia (whether it is notability or the references).   tashif   (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 23 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) 16:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pain (Pain album)

Pain (Pain 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)

Tagged as unsourced since December 2009. Difficult to find any sources to make article seem notable, but using song titles and release date in the search, I wasn't able to find anything beyond online retail stores. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 10:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unlike some of their later works, this one doesn't seem to have made the charts anywhere. swedishcarts.com doesn't list anything for the album, and allmusicguide doesn't have anything either. Seems to be a case of notable artist, non-notable album.--Martin IIIa (talk) 21:22, 28 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) 07:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rebirth (Pain album)

Rebirth (Pain 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)

I cannot find many sources that discuss this album—though there are some retail stores that are offering it for sale. I cannot find the Terrorizer magazine review online, so presumably it was reviewed in an actual issue, but since the proof of burden lies on whoever submitted it, and the submission wasn't properly cited with an issue #, etc., I believe it fails to be an actual source. Article has been unsourced since December 2009. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 10:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Peaked at number 21 on Swedish Albums Chart: [13]; 7 weeks in the charts.--
T 16:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - The same site GreatOrangePumpkin linked to also says that two of the songs on the album were Top 40 singles on the Swedish charts. I'll go add that to the article. The article desperately needs a lot of work, but the subject seems notable enough to merit the attention.--Martin IIIa (talk) 21:09, 28 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. -- Cirt (talk) 07:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Save Historic Newmarket

Save Historic Newmarket (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 protest group - fails
WP:GNG as the only reliable sources given mention the group in passing only. Contested Prod. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 09:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 7 gnews hits consisting of comments made in the media rather than coverage about the organisation. LibStar (talk) 01:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article clearly doesn't fail WP:GNG

For a start, it's the first organisation ever to win a judicial review against Regional Spatial Strategies and Local Development Frameworks:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/606.html
The organisation has been reported far and wide across the UK (example below):
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/uk/racing-fans-win-newmarket-battle-15126232.html
They're also the first organisation to successfully campaign against a major planning application after Regional Spatial Strategies were abolished.
It's looks like a pretty broad group, and is being cited as a model for a lot of LDF and RSS-focused groups.
And it gets a lot of media coverage, here are just a few articles:
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/uk/racing-fans-win-newmarket-battle-15126232.html [14] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/horseracing/8341960/Housing-turf-war-divides-Newmarket-the-home-of-horse-racing.html http://www.newmarketjournal.co.uk/news/local/hatchfield_farm_housing_plan_decision_deferred_1_551155 http://property.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/property/article6916182.ece
--Mardyten (talk) 09:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC) — Mardyten (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - none of those articles seem to have much in the way of detail on this particular protest group, mostly just brief mentions. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 14:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While I think that the mentions in the sources provided qualify to more than just brief or passing (I mean, that they are somehow significant mentions), I agree with Ilikeeatingwaffles that they don't provide much detail, particularly they don't specify how or why was the organization formed, so I was left to assume that it was created as a response to the development action. The article itself relies too much on a description of the events, with little to none description of the organization other than to remark its key role in the protest. As of now I would go for a weak delete, but I'll wait until I can search for possible extra sources tonight -
talk) 15:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. The organization meets notability easily, and even with the organization being all around a single event, such event has definitely garnered a lot of attention. The article as it stands fails
talk) 23:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Perhaps this should be merged into Newmarket, Suffolk?--Pink Bull 17:12, 31 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) v/r - T P 15:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McFarlane (photographer)

Robert McFarlane (photographer) (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. one of the 2 references is a blog. I found no indepth third party coverage of him [24]. ~~created by a~~
~~WP:AUTOBIO or advert for his servies.~~ LibStar (talk) 07:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: Seems to be a fair amount of third party references of a type that might indicate notability. If I had chanced upon some of those third party references I might well have come to wikipedia for more info. The article does not read as an advert for services. But As this is my first visit to AfD I'm not adding a keep or delete as I don't feel I have sufficient experience in interpreting the various guideleines at the moment. PRL42 (talk) 13:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Having done more research on the subject of this article and the various guidelines it now seems that this article easily satisfies WP:CREATIVE simply by number of significant institutions that hold his work. PRL42 (talk) 15:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I'll answer the points in reverse order, and also note that I'm the originator of the article.

So far as I can work out, LibStar is a self-proclaimed deletionist. To my mind, that automatically goes a long way to undermining his or her position, unless it's backed up by an argument that's substantially better than normal. The argument above certainly isn't that.

I probably can't prove that my work is neither an autobiography nor an advert, but I can honestly tell anyone reading this that it's not. As far as evidence that it's not an autobiography goes, probably the best that I can do is to point out that it's not the only biography I've initiated. They can't possibly all be auto, so it's already fairly unlikely that this one is, but fundamentally you either you take my word for it or you don't. On the possibility of it being an advertising piece, I'll say this: I have actually worked as an advertising copywriter, and I am, currently, absolutely skint. But the idea of making money by writing about a handful of photographers is simply ludicrous. In my experience, advertising is a truly soul-destroying industry to work in. Compared to putting up with the bullshit around this place, however, I'd rate it as quite pleasant.

Tied in with the idea that it's an ad or an autobiography, there's the suggestion that I'm a single purpose editor. Well, there's an extremely good chance of that. I've contributed to and originated articles on music and photography, and enjoyed the process. Until we get to all of this behind the scenes stuff. I'll quote from the SPA page: "New editors should be aware that while courtesy and a warm greeting will usually be extended..." Maybe, but in my experience so far, it's the courtesy of a nest of vipers. The chances of me branching out into other subjects and making any sort of long-term contribution are declining very rapidly indeed. But purely for the record, my recent burst of activity started when I noticed that a number of the photographers included in a major recent exhibition in the city I currently live in weren't mentioned on Wikipedia. Being interested in photography, I thought I'd add them.

The link provided to suggest that there's "no indepth third party coverage" essentially proves just one thing: that when it comes to the Robert McFarlane I've written about, any web hits are swamped by those of another Robert McFarlane, who happened to be Ronald Reagan's security adviser and therefore had a camera pointed at him fairly frequently. This is so obvious from looking at the results that it's difficult not to regard the link's inclusion as a deliberate sleight of hand. Even so, the fifth entry on the linked page, at the time of writing, does at least suggest one thing: that as my article suggests, Robert McFarlane (photographer) could conceivably have been photography critic for the Sydney Morning Herald. Nonetheless, I'm happy to admit that there probably isn't a huge amount out there on McFarlane, and that one of the links provided is a blog.

Still, as far as I can see, neither of those points (Google news, the blog link) could possibly matter if LibStar's suggestion that McFarlane fails the specified test is refuted. So here we get to the real meat of the matter. If I had to rate the top ten public galleries in Australia, they would certainly include the National Gallery of Australia, the National Portrait Gallery, the Art Gallery of New South Wales and the Art Gallery of South Australia. Feel free to follow the links and form your own view on whether my opinion of those galleries is reasonable. They all hold examples of McFarlane's work. Then there's the National Library of Australia, which also holds his work; the fact that McFarlane was a major contributor to Candid Camera, an exhibition examining 30 years of Australian documentary photography at one of the country's major public galleries; and the 48-year retrospective of his work that's currently touring Australia.

Unless LibStar can mount a serious argument that all of this still amounts to a failure of WP:CREATIVE (4. The person's work either (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums) then he or she is being obtuse to the point of dishonesty, and is almost certainly acting in service of an agenda.

Finally, I realise that commenting on LibStar, even in a conditional manner like that, will perhaps be considered disruptive, but I'm going to be absolutely clear in this: it's far less disruptive than LibStar's behaviour. We're talking about someone who has suggested that my work is possibly corrupt, with nothing but the weakest conjecture to back up that opinion, and who maintains a user page that makes a point of mocking other people's work. I'm an irregular contributor around here, at the point of giving up in utter disgust, and while I have no interest in fights, I'm not going to leave this unremarked: in my opinion, LibStar isn't just someone who deserves to lose the argument he or she has picked, but someone who deserves to be censured. BlueThird (talk) 13:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you do not
WP:ADHOM. LibStar (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

He does not claim to own the article but some of the points he makes seem very valid. In particular looking in some depth at the results of a Google search the subject of the article seems very suitable for Wikipedia. PRL42 (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm making absolutely no claim to ownership, and I don't see how you could think that I am. I've taken on your case for deletion, certainly, but I'm not in any way suggesting that my views on the content of the page are the only ones that can be allowed to stand. I'd be absolutely delighted if you chose to improve the article, but if you want it deleted you'll need to show that it doesn't meet the notability guidelines. You haven't. With regard to the idea of there being an ad hominem attack, it's a pretty weak case. I'll agree that right at the start of my response I flagged my observation that you appear to be a deletionist, and I've stated my considered opinion that, as such, your arguments should be held to a higher standard of proof than they might otherwise be. Some rhetoric – oh dear. But when it comes to personal attacks to further an argument, well, let's see. You've suggested, without any real evidence but clearly in an attempt to get your way, that you think I may be corrupt. I've suggested, with evidence drawn from the weakness of your link and material that you posted on your user page, that you may be acting in service of an agenda rather than good faith, but it's quite clearly an addendum to the rebuttal of your arguments. (Born of frustration. There's far more work in mounting a decent defence of something than in making an empty accusation, and given the way things work here there's really no option but to mount a defence.) Still, I made it clear that I know my last comments don't further my case, so that part of your response really just amounts to point-scoring. I notice that you didn't take the opportunity to add anything to your argument. Feel free to do so. BlueThird (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

such long winded arguments by the article creator that attack anyone that dare questions its notability is classical
WP:ADHOM attacks to silence me. LibStar (talk) 22:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

The problem isn't that you've questioned the notability of the piece, it's that you've got so little to go on. In my anger at that, I'm sure I've overelaborated. But I'm certainly not trying to silence you, and I'll repeat my earlier invitations: feel free to improve the page, or your argument for deletion. Incidentally, I hope you can see the irony in your second sentence. BlueThird (talk) 00:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This one source [25] establishes his notability. That's the Aussie not the Yank ABC. Borock (talk) 21:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it's copied directly from a blog website and therefore not a
reliable source. LibStar (talk) 23:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Here's what the
reliable source page actually has to say: "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." The blog that Borock refers to is by a career journalist, writing on the arts, and is hosted on a website run by Australia's national broadcaster. It is interactive only in the sense that comments were invited after publication, and don't feedback into the article itself. Purely as a matter of logic, either you haven't read and understood the reliable sources page, or you have, but chose to post that comment anyway. BlueThird (talk) 00:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Once again, a substantive biography is hauled to AfD for annihilation by this nominator rather than engaging in preliminary tagging for sourcing.
WP:BEFORE, please. I've wasted more than an hour on another bogus nomination, so I'll just offer one tidbit out of the 86,000 Google hits for "Robert McFarlane" + "photographer"... SUBSTANTIVE BIO ON NEW SOUTH WALES GOVERNMENT WEBSITE, www.manly.nsw.gov.au/ Now comes the wailing about using Google to estimate the probability that sources exist and/or denigration of the comments of one who disagrees with the nomination. Carrite (talk) 23:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

it is not a
New South Wales Government website it is a local government website. of course no comment on how the article creator chooses to denigrate the nominator. LibStar (talk) 23:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

86,000 Google hits does not equate automatic notability. Peter Banana gets a staggering 30 million hits. perhaps an article is in order? it's got to be notable!!! LibStar (talk) 00:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE like you should be? Carrite (talk) 00:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

86,000 Google hits does not equate automatic notability. you should realise that. LibStar (talk) 00:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I never said that. HOWEVER, in a haystack that large, you may rest assured that there are at least 3 keeper sources, which are already showing above and below in this thread. When you run a Google search on an unsourced article — which you should be doing EVERY time — and you see that many hits for a specific subject, you should say to yourself, "hmmm, this person is probably notable even if the article is currently sourced like a sack of dog doo... I'm gonna tag for Sources instead of hauling things to AfD, where several hours of valuable editor time will be wasted over the
WP:DRAMA. Carrite (talk) 00:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment There's a news report with an interview of him here. Admittedly the exhibition does contain works beyond just his own. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 23:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also another newspaper article about a collection of his work here, including the statement "The exhibition...is the first comprehensive survey of four decades of his [McFarlane's] work, not only as a photographer of repute but also as one of Australia's leading photographic critics" Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 23:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty obviously a shitty nomination, don't waste too much time fueling the
WP:DRAMA. Carrite (talk) 00:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:ADHOM. LibStar (talk) 00:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

As you wish, but finding extra sources, particularly for a BLP, is not a waste of time IMO, particularly if one of those sources contains a pretty unambiguous statement of notability. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 10:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Libstar, you talk about ad hominem but it is fairly clear you are carrying out a vendetta against another editor which could be construed as gaming the system. When I happened on this entry I checked other entries by the same originator to discover if he was, indeed, a single subject editor. I found that he wasn't but I notice that you seem to have been systematically picking on his articles for deletion - possibly as a result of his robust defence of the first article that you selected. It may be that your actions are entirely within the rules of Wikipedia but they are also those that drive away editors who may make valuable contributions. PRL42 (talk) 10:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment LibStar, if you really want this page to be deleted, why not concentrate on your idea that McFarlane isn't notable? After all this, you still haven't offered a single word to back up your assertion that he fails WP:CREATIVE. If nothing else, actually making some effort, however derisory, to engage with your own argument might go some way to convincing people that you were genuine all along. BlueThird (talk) 01:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

why are you so preoccupied with this? you yourself have engaged in
WP:ADHOM attacks on me and now you expect me to engage in genuine conversation with you? if you'd been polite the first time then maybe. LibStar (talk) 01:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Why so preoccupied? I'm new here. If I'm going to hang around then I definitely want to learn how to avoid this sort of rubbish. The ad hominem attacks started when you suggested, without any reasonable evidence, that the page was possibly an autobiography or paid for. The fact that you see fit to propose an article for deletion when you seem to have no intention of mounting a reasonable argument is another attack. From what Carrite has posted, you're acting outside Wikipedia guidelines in flagging this for discussion, and it seems unlikely that it's for the first time. I'm not asking you to engage in a genuine conversation with me, just to engage in a genuine attempt to defend your arguments and your actions. You are, after all, the person who started this AfD, but so far you've offered absolutely nothing that can't be trivially refuted. BlueThird (talk) 01:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I can appreciate the need for quality control at WP, really I can. Bad nominations at AfD waste valuable time that could be more profitably spent tagging or approving new articles however. Most importantly, when a nomination is a bad one, such as this one, things should not be fought out with knives to the last ditch. Nominators owe it to the project to say, "Whoops, sorry, nomination withdrawn" if they goof so that we can all get along with life. Every minute spent here is one less minute spent writing or improving articles or performing more vital maintenance tasks. AfD is not a place to get an adrenaline fix, it's a place to bring legitimately unsalvageable junk to get legitimately gone. Carrite (talk) 15:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please comment on the nomination, and not the nominator - this discussion doesn't need more drama. Nick-D (talk) 05:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You will note I am not talking about this nominator. I am talking about NOMINATORS, plural. What I speak of is a common Party Foul and it should not be. Carrite (talk) 14:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I think this and this together with his work appearing in some important exhibitions and galleries is just enough to satisfy notability although I'd be happier with more sources. I am aware that one of those sources is a blog but agree with BlueThird that in this instance it is probably a reliable source. Dpmuk (talk) 11:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being part of the collections of a number of museums and the National Library satisfies
WP:GNG. freshacconci talktalk 14:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Sources above meet notability and depth of coverage -
talk) 23:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Question. As one or two of you may have noticed, I'm new to AfD. But there has been significant debate, and no one has argued for deletion. Is it possible to wind this up early? BlueThird (talk) 23:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no hurry -
talk) 00:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

It probably is possible, but it might be a little controversial. There is indeed no hurry. -- Hoary (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously. He gets this effusive write-up at ABC's website. Et cetera. -- Hoary (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All references provided above combine to show that McFarlane has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources and so passes the
general notability guideline. Jenks24 (talk) 08:47, 29 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) 16:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

J. Francis Hitching

J. Francis Hitching (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Obscure advocate of
find}}. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep article:) Liveintheforests (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many sources can be found on Google books about Hitching there are already quite a few on the page, Hitching is notable. - Do not delete article. Hrafn is a militant religious guy who deletes evolution articles on wikipedia which oppose his own view. He is not neutral. Liveintheforests (talk) 17:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to also point out the article has been on wikipedia since may 2006!! - No idea why it has to be deleted now?? It's been up for nearly 6 years!Hitching is a notable figure. Liveintheforests (talk) 18:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wasn't able to find any reliable sources to validate any of the claims in the article. Also, I have to say that attacking another user's religious beliefs is not a good thing to do, and would suggest other editors refrain from this.
talk) 19:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
It will doubtless relieve you to know that Litf has been blocked a week for making such attacks. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable, per nom. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Contains no
WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 22:18, 24 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} 02:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concert for George (disambiguation)

Concert for George (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)

Dab for only three pages—{{About}} on the page without the disambiguation solves this problem. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and convert to hatnote. I agree there is an obvious primary topic, and it should be easy to write an acceptably short hatnote for the other two.--SPhilbrick T 13:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are three entries so disambig is needed. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 09:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The hatnote currently present at
talk) 15:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per frankieMR. Extraneous page.--Pink Bull 19:59, 31 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) 16:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flippin Yeah industries

Flippin Yeah industries (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 coverage or reliable sources. Notability is not inherited. Meph^talk 05:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or at best redirect to Darren Hanlon. References listed are all self-published or on Wikipedia. No reliable independent sources seem to be writing about this record label yet. - filelake shoe 23:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Darren Hanlon as per above. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 00:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. nothing in gnews. LibStar (talk) 01:46, 26 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. Sandstein 05:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kern precision scales

Kern precision scales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

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

Delete. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google Books search under the company name "Kern & Sohn" shows discussion of this company in the technical literature of several academic and engineering fields going back at least 130 years. Perhaps the article should be moved to "Kern & Sohn". Cullen328 (talk) 05:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall move the article to Kern & Sohn as suggested James nester (talk) 08:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move as suggested. clearly a notable company based on the awards. DGG ( talk ) 23:07, 29 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) 16:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of expressways in Michigan

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

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

More roadcruft. Even as the main contributor to
original research as the Michigan Department of Transportation does not label their map with "expressway". The only distinctions they make are: "freeway", "multi-lane divided" and "paved" for state highways and "paved" or "improved" for county roads. Absent an official source about classifications, half of this list has to be gutted. Imzadi 1979 → 22:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Not roadcruft, list serves a useful purpose. Dough 48 72 02:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per
WP:CLN; we don't delete lists just because categories cover the same subject. Particularly where this list clearly has more information than just the alphabetized article names, which is all the category can provide. If any of the redlinks in the list actually merit articles, identifying missing article topics is an additional function this list is providing that the category cannot. I'm leaning towards thinking this is a speedy keep as there really isn't a valid deletion rationale presented. postdlf (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
In response to the "update" added to the nom, that's still not a deletion rationale. That "half of this list has to be gutted" is, if true, a solution that calls for editing to remove incorrect entries (by implication, half does not need to be gutted), not deletion. Further, some of the roads listed are federal (e.g.,
Detroit-Toledo Expressway) and are expressly named "Expressway", so whether MI as a state uses the classification is not dispositive. And given that the category corresponding to this list is Category:Freeways and expressways in Michigan, the nom's complaints call for renaming this list to List of freeways and expressways in Michigan. We do not delete lists just because they have incorrect titles. postdlf (talk) 19:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
I just had to remove the entire "expressway" section because of sourcing and OR concerns. As for the federal/state distinction, none of these are "federal highways" because the only federally maintained roads in Michigan are National Park or National Forest roads. (Interstates and US Highways are state highways, a huge misconception, btw.) We're down to just the named freeways, which can all be listed in the notes of
List of Michigan trunklines. The remaining information is adequately covered by the category. Imzadi 1979 → 00:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

P.S. MDOT renamed all of the "expressways" to "freeways" years ago; what opened as the Lodge Expressway in 1957 has been the Lodge Freeway, by name, for years. Imzadi 1979 → 00:14, 25 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) 16:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steinbach Millers

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

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

Procedural nom for
t • c) 02:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

[Reserved for nominator's comments]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there could be an article like this for pretty much every small town in Canada. The information included here would better fit in the "Recreation" section on the page for Steinbach, MB. Canada Hky (talk) 00:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect per Canada Hky. → ROUX ₪ 10:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It isn't even a junior program. It is a local minor hockey program, same as exists in every single town or city in the country. No indication that this one is notable. Reso lute 15:23, 29 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) 00:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yodelbank

Yodelbank (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 assertion of notability (indeed, the article actually states the bank was never popular); no third-party sources cited. Can't find any third-party sources myself. Psychonaut (talk) 15:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The only reference I found on Google Books was from Wikipedia itself. Nothing on Google News. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 16 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete lacks notability demonstrated by reliable sources. Chester Markel (talk) 06:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A hoax, madeup or unverifiable. Take your pick. Szzuk (talk) 21:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain - certainly not a hoax or madeup, as archive.org shows it existed, as do discussions online. But I can't find any reliable sources either. The best I could come up with was this questionable PDF. -- Dandv (talk) 01:18, 24 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Riverview Racer

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

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

Delete as a
non-notable amusement park ride. Tavix | Talk 15:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 16 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong delete unsourced and nothing in gnews for this ride. [26]. LibStar (talk) 03:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A defunct ride. Not worth the server space. Szzuk (talk) 21:43, 23 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ecosse Heretic Titanium

Ecosse Heretic Titanium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

See
WP:FUTURE. "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors." There are a handful of blog posts about this future product,[27][28][29] all of which are based on press releases, but no significant coverage as required by Wikipedia:Notability. The claim to be world's most expensive motorcycle is highly dubious: the $275,000 price is lower than the $555,000 Dodge Tomahawk, for one, and there is no evidence that any have been manufactured or sold at any price. Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete just not enough info available to create even a stub article. Claim of most expensive is dubious as the nom notes. Zero hits on Google News. While there are numerous Google web hits, sources are questionable and those that repeat the claim of "most expensive" seem to be parroting a press release which is of questionable validity. RadioFan (talk) 15:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree, the "most expensive motorcycle in the world" is a dumb phrase ... is
Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

At today's exchange rate, £133,000 is about US$215,000, and $215,000 < $555,000. So there's that. MCN is generally a reliable source, and they qualify the headline as "the most expensive new bike on the market", meaning perhaps the highest MSRP for the model year 2007. But that was four years ago, and it appears nothing happened since the initial press launch. The photos suggest a prototype was built, but there are no indications this ever went into production, or that it ever will. No evidence of any orders. If it's not in production, it's a one-off prototype, and if you want to talk about one-off prototypes, then GP motorcycles routinely cost upwards of US$1,000,000 each.
If you ask me, Ecosse just wanted their name in the news, so they made up a quick pretend custom bike and pretended they would sell it for a fanciful price of £133,000. They threw in a $6,000 BRM chronograph watch to pad the price a bit. And there were not takers. What if they'd asked a billion pounds? Or a trillion? And nobody bought one. Would that be a record or just a publicity stunt? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your expert explanation. You are better informed than I am in this field. I edit articles about everything, often those nominated for deletion via CSD and PROD. When I have doubts, I ask. I trust your opinion on this. --
Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 20:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, would the manufacturer Ecosse Moto Works be notable enough to sustain an article? Any info about the bike that can be verified by reliable sources such as MCN could be added there. Mjroots (talk) 10:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I hope someone more expert in motorcycles will weigh in here but it looks like it's going to be difficult to create an article on
WP:CORP. I'm having difficulty finding reliable sources covering the company and only a few on it's products. Zero google news hits on the company name and only a couple hits in magazines and all are more about this supposed Heretic bike. Without anything else to go on, this looks more and more like a publicity stunt by this company, I normally avoid the company website when looking for sources but the press tab on the company website does link to some reasonable publications. --RadioFan (talk) 11:32, 17 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong delete. I just want to go ahead and point out here that even the source cited in the article does not claim that it's the world's most expensive motorcycle, only that it was the most expensive new bike coming out recently. i have to admit I'm a little amused that a one-sentence article is getting an AFD longer than it is. Nevertheless, this fails
WP:GNG on every criteria: the secondary source is a trivial mention that does not in and of itself constitute notability. I could sell my kitchen table for two hundred thousand dollars and it'd likely make it the most expensive kitchen table put on the market recently, but I doubt I or my table get an article for it. — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 17:57, 23 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. Consensus among policy-based arguments here is that the subject is not yet notable by Wikipedia standards. Michig (talk) 08:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Nahon

Alex Nahon (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 individual fails to meet the inclusion guidelines as he appears yet to receive any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. None of the many sources offered (a comment by the subject to a blog entry on the New York Times website!) comes close to meeting the threshold. ^Bongo_matic 01:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an ambitious article about an 18 year puppeteer. Coverage in
WP:TOOSOON offers excellent guidance. Cullen328 (talk) 05:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Though the sources may be an issue, as I have seen in many, many Wikipedia articles, this wiki article is still valid. There are other articles on wikiepedia about high school artists who have performed works similar in the suggested level of importance. The subject has performed off-broadway, which is comparable to a performance in an independent film. Additionally, he has worked in several theaters and has studied at two universities before age 18. He is the youngest puppeteer to study at the University of Connecticut's Sandglass Theatre Institute. He was one of e 60 students who were selected from more than 1000 applicants to Middle Tennessee State University's Tennessee Governor's School for the Arts.
I am seriously opposing the deltion of this page. According to
Wikipedia:ARTIST#Creative_professionals
states in it's 4th clause ″The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.″ As per clause 4 parts b and c, the subjects work has been featured in galleries in Memphis, TN and the subject ″has been approached by the Brooks Museum to teach puppetry for film as a summer course″ (quoted from the Wikipedia article). If deleted, I will recommend the deletion of another page about a Memphis child actress who's work is similar to the subject's. I am interested to know what others think about this proposal to delete an article about a real person. I am asking that this article not be deleted from Wikipedia's ever-growing encyclopedia of factual, reliable information.
Ath3aterg33k4ever (talk) 07:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC) — Ath3aterg33k4ever (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The key word in the guideline is "significant" and minor appearances on TV do not qualify, nor do high school or local, non-professional stage performances. Other aspects of your argument are known here as
other stuff exists, which is a well-known argument to avoid in deletion debates. You may be right; perhaps there are other substandard articles on Wikipedia which have not yet been discovered and deleted. That is not at all a valid argument for keeping this particular substandard article, which is the only one being debated here. Being "approached" to perhaps teach puppetry as a summer course at a museum is not a valid or persuasive claim of notability. As for deleting articles about real people, we delete them by the thousands all the time here, when those real people do not meet our notability guidelines. Cullen328 (talk) 07:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Count me in for the defense! I happen to know of this guy's work and it it is significant. I'm pretty sure that most kids would agree that there is nothing minor about Blue's Clues! (Also consider that without his voice, the characters lips would have looked quite weird without the audio to accompany them.) Playhouse on the Square is a PROFFESSIONAL theater (many of its employees are equity. It is a nationally recognized theater that is the headquarters for UPTA (United Professional Theater Auditions... http://www.upta.org/). Additionally, the theater is a part of Circuit Playhouse Inc, which is made up of four professional theaters: Playhouse on the Square, Circuit Playhouse, The Evergreen Theater, and Theaterworks. Please see http://www.playhouseonthesquare.org/join/bng.php#Morgan%20Freeman As a long time patron and former board member, this theater is known to receive rights to broadway musicals, just after the shows have left broadway. Playhouse is one of the first, and has at times been the first, theaters to receive the rights to many shows. This season, it is one of the first 5 theaters to receive the rights to "Next to Normal", "Spring Awakening", "Avenue Q", "God of Carnage".
His high school show was nominated for 4 theater awards including Best Musical, Best Music Direction, and Best Supporting Actress. I know Ridgeway High School, my cousin went there, and its theater department is nationally recognized. In fact, one of their students won Best Actor and was sent to New York to study acting this past year. Like Playhouse, the schools designers and technicians are all working professionals with degrees in their area of work.
By ″approached″, I believe the last person was saying ″asked″. ″The Memphis Brooks Museum of Art is the oldest fine arts museum in the state of Tennessee″ and the summer programs director recently worked with Justin Timberlake on a new music video. The museum is well known is basically what I am saying.
I think its weird to say that because you delete articles all the time, it is therefore justifiable to delete an article simply because you do not think that the subject of the article is noteworthy to your standards. Some people find things important that I would deem unimportant but I certainly don't censor them from the public domain, which is afterall, the goal of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a ″free, web-based, collaborative, multilingual encyclopedia project″ (thats from Wikipedia. The article is not offensive, and has sources providing it with validity.
I am not in favor of deleting this article. Puppeteerman901 (talk) 08:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC) — Puppeteerman901 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Thanks for the support. I knew I couldn't be the only one! God point about Playhouse, I hadn't heard about the new season until now. Yeah, I guess ″asked″ would have been a better choice of words and I agree that it is weird to delete articles just for that reason. Also, good point about the collaborative nature of Wikipedia.
Ath3aterg33k4ever (talk) 08:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was not able to find any significant third-party coverage to establishes the notability of this person. Furthermore, the two "keep" !votes above mine appear to have a connection with the subject, as Ath3aterg33k4ever's first WP edit was to this article a scant 16 minutes after it was created, so that right there throws up a Redflag.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 12:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet notability criteria. Keep votes are similarly and suspiciously long winded and as mentioned above appear to have a connection with the subject. PRL42 (talk) 13:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I haven't yet had the chance to review the sources, but I can see that the article needs to be cut down severely. If the subject's claim to notability is as a puppeteer, lists of colleges where he applied to and did or didn't get in, and discussion of other college majors he has considered, are not obviously relevant to that and are unsourced anyway. The article needs to be focused on the subject's professional-level activities. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Much of this article is unsourced, and significant portions appear to be unsourceable autobiography. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:53, 24 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.
G11 promotional in nature Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Dead Paki Walking:A Study of the British National Party

Dead Paki Walking:A Study of the British National Party (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 published work which does not appear to meet criteria of
WP:NBOOK. References search results in blogs, Facebook, and booksellers. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 01:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Fails notability. Obviously the present content does not pass for Wikipedia since it appears to be a straight reproduction of the publicity for the book, but I have found no evidence of extensive reviews in general interest newspapers or magazines, for example. So a rewrite would not help.--AJHingston (talk) 13:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 23 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) 00:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Largest producing countries of agricultural commodities

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

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

This article is a list of unsourced #1 and #2 national producers of goods. The data is presented without any context, or indication about how/when the info in the list was decided. aprock (talk) 02:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 11 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Encyclopedic topic, tag for sources. Another good example of something that got hauled to AfD prematurely. This is theoretically fixable through the normal editing process. A polite note to the page creator to provide sourcing might work wonders. Carrite (talk) 04:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did some searching for sources, and found none. The linked reference is to some stat site, which hardly indicates notability. By all means, if you think it's worthwhile, do leave another note for the page creator. aprock (talk) 06:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appropriate topic for a comprehensive encyclopedia ; WP includes many of the elements of an almanac, as do all unabridged encyclopedias DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If secondary sources can be found establishing the notability of this sort of almanac data, that would go a long way establishing the article as encyclopedic. aprock (talk) 06:09, 18 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Topic is obviously notable since this sort of thing is surely covered by reliable sources. Chester Markel (talk) 06:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list, not an article, and should be renamed accordingly. Frankly, Wikipedia's coverage of agriculture and agricultural topics is absolutely terrible, and badly in need of support from experienced editors. But deleting this list won't improve matters at all, so keep.—S Marshall T/C 09:47, 23 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) 00:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cross the Styx

Cross the Styx (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 individual notability shown for this album. lacks charting, awards, coverage. nothing satisfying
WP:NALBUMS. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

I am also nominating the following other album pages by the same band:
Hate (Sinister album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

The Silent Howling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) duffbeerforme (talk) 10:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:44, 10 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 16 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete all Wikipedia doesn't need album pages that will perpetually consist of only a track listing. A lack of notability or reliable sources locks this into a state of eternal uselessness. i kan reed (talk) 18:36, 23 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. -- Cirt (talk) 07:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Foligno

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

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

Winning a silver medal in the WJC or being invited to the orientation camp doesn't meet NHOCKEY. USA1168 (talk) 01:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:
Notability is not inherited, and no evidence he meets the GNG. Someone named to the U20 team will likely have a professional career of some sort, but that's a CRYSTAL deal. Ravenswing 06:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet
WP:NHOCKEY and no indication they meet the GNG. Most likely just a bit of crystal balling. Can be recreated when he becomes notable. -DJSasso (talk) 14:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to Mike Foligno#Personal, which contains ~~a little easily sourceable~~ reliably sourced information about him. Rlendog (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No objections to a redirect. Ravenswing 19:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Foligno just signed an NHL contract.[30] J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Being under contract with an NHL Team does not establish notability. If he plays in one game in the NHL, however, that would do it. Please see
WP:NHOCKEY for notability requirements for Hockey Players. -Pparazorback (talk) 00:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Response. The coverage of Foligno's signing has pushed him over the
GNG. Google News returns numerous hits regarding the signing, including this beyond-routine piece and this wire story.J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 02:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Standard wire service pieces, both extremely short and well within
WP:ROUTINE. Ravenswing 03:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

You're wrong. The wire story may be somewhat routine. The WIVB story is not, nor is this Buffalo News article on his signing. Quit making excuses. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 11:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I recommend you review
WP:CIVIL. That being said, the link you claim is an article on his signing merely mentions it along with a section on the Sabres' minor league affiliation and an even longer section - featured in the photo accompanying the story - of the thrilling saga of sledgehammering down the walls of the team's dressing room in light of a renovation. Neither it, nor any of the other links, discuss Foligno in the "significant detail" required. You'll have to come up with a better rebuttal than "I disagree with you." Ravenswing 18:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

The Buffalo news article that you quote would be routine because its routine for a newspaper to report all signings of its professional hockey team. Now if it were a news paper in some other far away city then you might have a stronger case. But a local paper reporting the signing of its local team is pretty much the definition of routine coverage. -DJSasso (talk) 12:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject Fails
WP:GNG -Pparazorback (talk) 00:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep – This article started as a redirect before it was expanded into an article, and it should revert back to a redirect if he is not yet notable, however Marcus Foligno passes
WP:GNG
as demonstrated by the significant and non-routine coverage he has received in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, including:

USA Today

The Good Point

The Sudbury Star

Canadian Press

Toronto Sun

Ifpress

The published feature stories about Foligno, many from before his professional contract was announced, pushes this article well over the GNG threshold required for a stand-alone article. Dolovis (talk) 13:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dolovis. Foligno easily meets
WP:GNG, though it would be nice if he would integrate the articles he found into an expanded article. Reso lute 15:26, 29 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) 16:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Asia Pacific Journalism Centre

Asia Pacific Journalism Centre (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:ORG. fancy name bu nothing in gnews [31]. LibStar (talk) 01:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable organisation. Keb25 (talk) 22:56, 28 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 with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Baby I'm a Fool

Baby I'm a Fool (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 seem to pass
the guidelines for music. A Google search shows no reliable sources available. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 8 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 14 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:42, 23 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 with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who Will Comfort Me

Who Will Comfort Me (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 seem to pass
the guidelines for music. A Google search does not show any reliable sources. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 8 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 14 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:41, 23 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.
CSD G11 Advertisement Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Awo Study Center

Awo Study Center (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 educational tool. Fails
Mtking (talk) 23:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 9 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, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:23, 15 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:34, 23 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 again. However, since this is an unsourced
incubator Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Olivia Waldriff

Olivia Waldriff

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Olivia Waldriff

Articles for deletion/Olivia Waldriff (2nd nomination)

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

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

as per my previous nomination. whilst she has had a few roles, i can't find evidence of significant roles as required by WP:ENT. gnews makes passing mentions [32]. LibStar (talk) 08:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry stub that needs some care. Her career is easy to
research finds more than just "passing mentions". For instance, the Toronto Star article of March 2008 represents significant coverage and is not just a passing mention.[33] It could/should be used to begin citing the article, yes... but simply needing work is rarely cause for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:00, 12 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per MichaelQSchmidt. Chester Markel (talk) 01:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 02:11, 20 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 23 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 The book sources identified by User:frankieMR and those added by other editors since deletion indicate that the group is notable beyond Peru. Mandsford 18:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Los mojarras

Los mojarras (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 seem that notable. All I can see on Google is Blogspot, Facebook and YouTube.
talk) 07:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Have you checked to see if those sources already in the article are notable? Are there any sources in Spanish?
Wha? 07:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: this is perfectly notable, just you are searching google in the wrong language. We need to keep the page, but it needs a wikification added to it and its broken English needs improving. It also needs a band template and photo added and filled out. It also needs to be redirected to a page with proper capitalization and the redirect article removed. User talk:Pingu.dbl96 —Preceding undated comment added 10:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 10 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. I was able to find several sources in books and news, ranging from incidental mentions to a slightly more focused coverage (I wasn't able to find an exclusive profile or interview). Here are some examples from books 1 (this is the one mentioned at the article I believe) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9. A couple of them are interesting in that their subject is actually a city, and Los Mojarras are mentioned because of a song, like in "This place X is what Los Mojarras were talking about in Y song", which I think reflects a certain level of repercussion. Here are some examples from the first page of Gnews 1 2 3. A quick look to the second page of hits showed more articles available (of a different content). I can't judge the reliability of the sources, but it seems that notability is met overall -
talk) 23:19, 16 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Delete to the fact that this has too many unknown links and I agree with
Who needs names?. --Strangeowl1948 (talk) 11:29, 23 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) 00:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George Richter

George Richter (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:HOAX and there is no such person. Pburka (talk) 03:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

This is a very interesting observation. I had a very hard time finding anything about him. Maybe this information could be aggregated into the article instead of the article being deleted? I didn't write it as a hoax. — fnielsen (talk) 08:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to imply that you had intentionally added false information. I assumed that it was written in good faith. I don't think you took it the wrong way, but if so I do apologize. Pburka (talk) 22:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wasn't able to find anything other than the source indicating the subject doesn't exist (though [34] says something similar). This isn't the creator's fault, rather whoever produced the recording decided to credit to a fake conductor and a different orchestra. If the subject does exist then he fails
WP:BIO and the article should be deleted on notability grounds. Hut 8.5 08:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. I have now tried to add the information from Jonathan Brown. — fnielsen (talk) 09:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An article documenting how this conductor doesn't exist still doesn't pass the
notability guidelines because the Brown source doesn't constitute significant coverage. Hut 8.5 09:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

I suppose that the information could be included in Heinrich Hollreiser, although it is not clear whether all "George Richter" attributions are Heinrich Hollreiser? — fnielsen (talk) 21:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One solution to George Richter could be to construct an article called fictional composer or fictitious composer and move the information about "him" as a part of the article. There is a "fictional musicians" category. — fnielsen (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 16 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Delete, but only because I can't locate sufficient reliable sources for this fictitious individual. There's no problem with having an article about a fictitious person - my personal hero Jakob Maria Mierscheid MdB is a case in point - but notability is as important here as with any other article. I don't see enough reliable sourcing here to be certain that this fictitious person is notable, and unfortunately the name Richter is too common for Google to be of much use, or at least I'm not finding much in the way of reliable sources through it. --NellieBly (talk) 06:08, 23 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) 00:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Roseto

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

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

Performer with no evidence of
WP:GNG. Kinu ^t/_c 07:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 16 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. The article says he was in a play with Al Pacino; what it doesn't say is that he played an unnamed captain of the guard. It says he appeared in Mad Men; what it doesn't say is that he played an unnamed bartender. It seems he's had bit parts in some notable productions, but that doesn't make him notable. I couldn't find any
WP:NACTOR. ----Smeazel (talk) 05:14, 24 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) 07:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Australian and New Zealand Sports Law Journal

Australian and New Zealand Sports Law Journal (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:GNG. a mere 6 hits in gbooks [35] including 2 from
LLC Books which uses WP as a source. nothing in gnews [36]. LibStar (talk) 07:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Bduke (Discussion) 08:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 16 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - It's a stub, it's about a peer-reviewed journal, what possibly would be gained by deletion? Carrite (talk) 01:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG? LibStar (talk) 01:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:WHYWORRY?]- As we move into week 2, I don't see a lot of people chomping at the bit over the need to delete this to defend the honor of Wikipedia. Carrite (talk) 01:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't make it pass the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) and only found a few trivial mentions in third party sources. AIRcorn (talk) 04:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, that's the right criterion, simply being peer reviewed as Carrite says does not equate to notable. LibStar (talk) 04:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regretful delete - while I disagree with the policy, that's
the word on the street. Bearian (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

(edit conflict) Comment. I'm leaning keep at the moment, but will freely admit that I have little to no experience in this topic area. That said, a peer reviewed journal definitely seems a notable topic. This is what my gscholar and gbooks searches have come up with: the journal has been cited 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 times. Gets a paragraph in this newspaper article and seems to be affiliated with all major Aus/NZ universities. Is this enough to prove notability of a journal? Honestly not sure at the moment. Input from people who have a better knowledge of this field than me would be greatly appreciated. I would also note that Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) is only an essay (although it does seem much better than most notability essays). Jenks24 (talk) 14:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

whilst this is not the
New England Journal of Medicine, a mere 8 citations is an extremely low number for an academic journal. LibStar (talk) 14:30, 31 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) 00:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Longmore

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

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

autobiography of non notable actor...trying to promote his training facility?
^Talk 20:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 17 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete He has appeared in a number of notable series but doesn't appear to have received any coverage from reliable sources in his own right (no interviews etc). Article would be stuck as a CV. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 14:23, 26 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) 00:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malissa Jones

Malissa Jones (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, only claim to notability is being the youngest person to undergo a gastric bypass surgery, which is a fairly tenuous claim to notability. Quasihuman | Talk 21:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 17 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as a
biography of a living person known for only one event. The brief article says that she "made headlines" but does not assert any ongoing notability. Cullen328 (talk) 01:38, 24 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) 00:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Austin

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Hugo Austin

Articles for deletion/Hugo Austin (2nd nomination)

Hugo Austin (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
general notability guideline. Two of the sources are from a licensed TV affiliate, and are not sufficiently independent to verify notability. The other sources merely verify his existence. The general notability guideline calls for significant coverage, where "sources address the subject directly in detail" and they should offer "more than a trivial mention". Shooterwalker (talk) 22:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination. The fictional character, as a subject, does not meet the
reliable third-party sources independent of the subject that cover the character in detail with critical commentary or real-world context. Jfgslo (talk) 22:55, 19 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - insufficient secondary coverage. --Anthem 20:44, 26 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) 00:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Spark (band)

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

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

I came across this article after seeing it at
WP:N notability of this band, but all I've been able to find are a few directory-type listings for when they played some venues in their hometown. Perhaps another editor will have more success than I did at finding sources. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 17 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, fails
WP:BAND. PK T(alk) 00:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Per nom.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:04, 24 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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2011_May_23&oldid=1142637231"