Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 September 13

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards

List of Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

There are many long standing unaddressed problems with this article as can be seen from the tags, some dating back to January 2009. These are not notable awards. The article is poorly referenced, with improper references to self-published sources, and considering that the so-called awards refer to living people, the BLP concerns should not be ignored. Archetypal (talk) 20:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC) Archetypal (talk) 20:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Referenced information was added to the article to establish topic notability. Furthermore, Per
  WP:NOTDIRECTORY guidelines. Furthermore, the article can also serve to promote the creation of new articles for wrestlers, and is functional and appropriate as a Wikipedia article in list format. Northamerica1000 (talk) 22:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I accept that article does not contradict
  WP:GNG), which is to be expected from a subjective award given by a minor newsletter. In short, the subject matter is insufficiently notable. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 05:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete--while as a directory of awards there is nothing inherently wrong here, the awards themselves do not seem to have the coverage to show notability.--Yaksar (let's chat) 14:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per Yaksar. Some awards are notable and can become the subject of a good list. But this doesn't have the sources to do it. Dzlife (talk) 13:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The WON Awards are considered the top wrestling awards given by a third party publication. I should also point out that the list is, in fact, fully referenced. Each Awards issue of the Observer includes a complete history of the awards. Unfortunately, you need a subscription to view it, but I have double checked everything and they are referenced. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but who exactly considers these to be "the top wrestling awards given by a third party publication" and is there any evidence for it? As far as the citations, Wrestling Observer counts as a primary source (i.e. Meltzer is publicizing his own awards). I don't own either of the books cited but the SlamSports citation is merely a passing mention of a wrestler having won an award (i.e. a trivial reference), not an article about the awards themselves. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:23, 20 September 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. Rlendog (talk) 21:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

King Apparatus

King Apparatus (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

For the record, this article was created at a time when Wikipedia's referencing rules weren't as thoroughly codified as they are now — meaning not that they lacked notability but that we didn't have to source articles in quite the same way we do now. In fact, it took me less than ten minutes to track down a number of

WP:GNG, which I've added to the article already — and given that their career predated the days when everything was published to the Internet, it would not be at all difficult to find still further sources with a library search. Keep, and please do give some thought in the future to the fact that being unreferenced is not the same thing as being unreferenceable, especially for an article that was written five years ago when our sourcing rules simply weren't what they are now (and doubly especially for an article that was written by an editor like me, who's quite well-known as being one of the biggest hardass sticklers for demonstrable notability on the entire site.) Bearcat (talk) 21:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment Billboard Magazine in 1994 has more than passing mention, and a breif mention in this book.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Per reliable sources that establish notability of the topic, which were added to the article by user
  WP:BEFORE for source searching prior to nominating this article for deletion, which nullifies the basis of nomination for deletion. Northamerica1000 (talk) 22:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -
  I've heard of them, which of course is not a reason to keep, but I was pretty sure that they would meet notability, and the references added by Bearcat (thanks!) establish that they have received the necessary coverage to meet the inclusion guidelines. -- Whpq (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per the sources identified above by
  WP:BAND.  Gongshow ^Talk 20:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Google news archive search shows a heap of results, but most are pay per view and I'm a cheapskate. Found this one though. [2] One pay site says in its summary that the band is a "two-time winner of the
  CASBY award (the Canadian equivalent of the People's Choice award)". Dream Focus 02:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per Bearcat. Also need to second Bearcat's note about difference between being unrefereced and being unreferenceable, and to remind that per
  WP:BEFORE, it is nom's responsibility to do basic source search before starting AfD. Ipsign (talk) 11:40, 20 September 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. Courcelles 23:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Cruz Skateboards

Santa Cruz Skateboards (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 Cannot find any reliable sources to pass
  WP:CORP after 5 pages of searches on Google... ^Jguy_Talk^Done 23:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep – Per reliable sources that establish notability of the topic: "Extreme Success - A hedonist work ethic leads to big bucks for SC entrepreneurial slacker" from Metro Santa Cruz, published by Metro Newspapers. This is an entire article about NHS, Inc., the company that manufactures Santa Cruz Skateboards. Additionally, there's Associated Press coverage: "Skateboarders Across Nation Find They Are Defying Law and Gravity". These reliable sources were found after just a cursory web search, and it's very likely there are more available on the Internet, as well as in other mediums. Northamerica1000 (talk) 23:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The second source is just a trivial mention, not significant coverage. If I understand the first one correctly, it argues that there is no company called "Santa Cruz Skateboards"? That the basic premise of our article is wrong, that the company is actually NHS, Inc., and that "Santa Cruz Skateboards" is just a brand name? While I doubt whether a Metro Santa Cruz article is sufficient to bestow notability on a Santa Cruz company, if we were to "keep" the article, we would have to rewrite it from scratch under a different title, probably NHS Inc. - so what exactly would be kept? Huon (talk) 23:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Searches for the names of the founders along with "Santa Cruz" and "skateboard" provide ample evidence of the company's notability. See Mercury, EPSN, LA Times, Mercury, a more local source, etc. No objection to retitling the article to the company name. ^Bongo_matic 02:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• keep — per Bongomatic. there are many, many sources which attest to the notability of this brand of skateboards. yes, the article is crappy and doesn't use the references available. this can be fixed by editing, and is not a reason for deletion. i also have no objection to moving article to NHS, although creating a redirect would do just as well. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:22, 14 September 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. Rlendog (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Centennial Park Rangers

Centennial Park Rangers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Now that I've removed all the BS which was copied directly from another team's article with a few names changes for "comedy" value there isn't a whole lot to go on, but it appears that this soccer team plays in a local amateur/rec league and falls well short of all notability requirements -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Completely non-notable. Can't it be speedy deleted for being utter nonsense?
  ^talk 22:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - utter nonsense and clearly non-notable. GiantSnowman 23:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Non-notable, possible prank, surprised it's not been speedy deleted. Del_♉sion23 talk 20:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no indication this is prank ... but seems to be a kids team in
  Welland, Ontario. The town itself is barely notable. One of many kids soccer teams isn't. Nfitz (talk) 02:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was KEEP. Nomination withdrawn, with hearty thanks to the improvers and a special sticker for User:Cullen328. Drmies (talk) 15:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Mulder

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

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

Completely unclear why this man may be notable. The main source is from 1718. Delete. JFW | T@lk 20:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Changed opinion to keep after expansion by Cullen328 (talk · contribs) JFW | T@lk 13:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He was a notable engraver who helped illustrate an important early work Insects of Surinam. The distasteful anecdote in the story is given undue weight. I will try to decode Dutch sources using Google Translate, and tone it down a bit when I have time later. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It appears that the nominator didn't follow the guidelines listed in
  WP:BEFORE for source searching prior to nominating this article for deletion, which nullifies the basis of nomination for deletion. The nomination's basis is upon content within the article, rather than a search for reliable sources. There's no mention in the nomination regarding stated prerequisite searches being undertaken by the nominator prior to nomination. Northamerica1000 (talk) 23:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Northamerica, if I see you make this "BEFORE" remark again (and in this case to someone who's been an admin since 2004) I am going to cite you for making a personal attack: not assuming good faith. Enough with this templated nonsense already. Drmies (talk) 13:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps Northamerica1000 should reword the comment to remove the word "nominator", but the point of the comment appears to have the purpose of improving the encyclopedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have great respect for the two editors taking Northamerica1000 to task above. However, I just don't see that mentioning
        WP:BEFORE in an AfD debate is an offensive thing to do. Gentle reminders of its wise precepts are always in order, in my opinion. Especially when, as in this case, my own search uncovered many useful references discussing Joseph Mulder in a matter of seconds. I also don't see why the word "nominator" is objectionable, since our AfD procedures do ask certain things of an editor who wishes to nominate an article for deletion. Yes, they are requests and are not mandatory. I know that. If "nominator" is considered an insult of sorts, then I hope that 1000 administrators will be unleashed upon uncivil editors who say far worse things with impunity every single day. Please forgive me for noticing that other things exist behind the scenes here at the world's greatest encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
        ]
• Comment I've expanded the article and added references. I will ask an editor I know who is fluent in Dutch to review the source for the story about the baby. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I created this article, so obviously I believe he is notable. His notability rests on two main themes. First of all, he is included in Arnold Houbraken's book of artists, which (however scatalogical the story may be) means he is notable, period. This book of artists is considered today to be one of the top 1000 books most important to Dutch national heritage. Second of all, his works today reach very high prices, placing him well above the notability minimum for artists. The need for reliable sources unfortunately also means that the scatological story happens to be the only one on hand. Surely we don't delete biographical articles based on our perception of the quality of the biographer? The artist's work should speak for him, but as yet I have found no public domain examples (which doesn't mean they don't exist). Jane (talk) 11:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a clear keep, IMO. I've tweak the poop story a little bit. Drmies (talk) 13:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW, editors beware: his name is also spelled "Josef". I found another nice tidbit and added it. Drmies (talk) 14:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a clear keep, IMO. Others have already stated good reasons above. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Jane makes a good case. Notability is confirmed. Dream Focus 00:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 15 September 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. Rlendog (talk) 21:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leathermarket JMB

Leathermarket JMB (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 indication of meeting guidelines at

Delete Not notable, little better than an advert.I also find it in rather bad taste to use the passing mentions in the murder story covered in reliable sources as notability claims.RafikiSykes (talk) 21:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh look we now have a rescue tag. I'm not a deletionist by any stretch but surely there are better candidates for rescue than this blatantly promotional offering.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RafikiSykes (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No coverage in reliable sources about the organisation. That somebody with a job placement there was murdered is a coincidence and does not establish notability for the organisation. - Whpq (talk) 16:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - notability per
  WP:CORP not established. ukexpat (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as per nom and RafikiSykes. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 12:28, 20 September 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. Rlendog (talk) 21:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ektoise

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

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

May not meet notability criteria for

• Delete A band looking for notability, but does not have it. Fails
  Mtking ^(edits) 00:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete although I hope the article can be rescued, current references do not establish notability. 78.26 (talk) 05:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete there are sources, but they're not really enough. Either blogs, local music shows or in one case a non-independent site. The rest are listings. Even going by the band's own website they haven't actually released anything that's not published on their own label, and don't even play live very often. Whilst their music is very interesting (free download on their website, thanks) unfortunately that's not enough to save the article as it is. Note, also, that the band were previously deleted under their former name at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purity Device and that article wasn't really sourced any more poorly than this. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:MUSIC. Quality of sources provided is poor. LibStar (talk) 09:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unfortunately, this article fails
  WP:BAND, and will continue to do so until such time as they get a hit in a mainstream chart. Mjroots (talk) 09:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm not finding significant coverage in
  WP:BAND at this time.  Gongshow ^Talk 20:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - lacking reliable and sufficient sources. 11coolguy12 (talk) 06:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Appears to fail the criteria of
  Ghost 06:34, 16 September 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. There is a difference between a source mentioning a chart position and a source that writes about the chart itself and/or the organization or entity that compiles said chart. That seems to be the crux of the debate here, and it seems nobody has been able to locate such sources despite thorough searching.

FAR (chart)

FAR (chart) (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 non-trivial secondary sources found. Prod removed by author without comment. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Sources to published material have been added. FAR is a recognized chart in the music industry, especially with respect to the niche Americana and Roots music genres. Google search for "freeform american roots" yields 32,200 hits referenced from artist pages and industry (promoter, label). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wbmnstr (talk • contribs) 19:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• None of which mentions the FAR chart. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Google search for "Freeform American Roots chart" yields numerous mentions, contrary to the statement above. There is a case that the FAR And Away — Best of 2010 section is in itself lacking in notability but the chart itself would appear to be recognised in secondary sources. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 19:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted by the nominator that while it is encouraged to leave a comment when removing a PROD, it is not a requirement so the fact that happened in this case has no relevancy to the AFD. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 19:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "numerous mentions" I found are twelve in number, and amount to literally no more than "Song X is at position Y on this week's Freeform American Roots Chart" — hardly non-trivial coverage. The long-deleted

WP:BADCHARTS went through the same thing: people were citing the positions here and there, but that didn't amount to non-trivial third party coverage or a notable chart then, and it doesn't now. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Kindly do not misrepresent my comments. I used a standard Google search [3] (which does indeed give "numerous" hits), not the specific "Google news" search you have used.
However, as you have demonstrated, the chart has been mentioned in mainstream news sources such as NME, Los Angeles Times and the Baltimore Sun. I submit that the chart's mention in such secondary sources indicates its notability.
Deletion/retention of other articles relating to music charts has no bearing (

WP:ALLORNOTHING). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep Google 12 links in 'News' -- but 18,700 in 'Web'. Seems very notable if New Music Express, Baltimore Sun, Los Angeles Times are referencing the chart in recent news articles as you indicated. User talk:Wbmnstr —Preceding undated comment added 20:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

• But they're still only tangential mentions that literally say nothing more than "song X was at Y position on this chart". Do you really think a.) that's enough to build a whole article on and b.) that
  WP:GOOGLEHITS is a valid argument? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep Notable news sources do in fact consider this chart notable enough to mention it. [4] Some results are hidden behind a paywall. If a major newspaper considers it notable enough to mention someone was on it, then its certainly notable enough to have a Wikipedia article for it. Dream Focus 03:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• BUT HOW IS THAT NON-TRIVIAL?!?! ALL THEY DO IS MENTION IT IN PASSING!!! ARE YOU NOT LISTENING TO ME?!?!?!?!??! Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be

civil here, shall we? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 03:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

You can determine notability by common sense, and not just word for word interpretation of the suggested guidelines.

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Dream Focus 03:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I still think you're beating around the bush. Literally all of the sources merely cite the chart's positions. Do you really think that's enough to build an article on? Get your head out of the clouds. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense is correct. If this was a non-notable chart then nobody would care what its positions were. The fact that musical acts and media agencies do mention the chart's positions indicate they consider it to have a degree of importance. Therefore the subject has notability. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 04:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WRONG! It's notable when they talk about it in depth, not just name drop it. You're missing the "non-trivial" part. Saying "but it charted" is trivial. TRIVIAL. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And just how frequently do people talk in-depth about a music chart? It's just a compilation of sales statistics or, in this case, plays. What else is there to say? What we're left with, as previously stated, is whether anyone actually gives a hoot about the chart. And in this case they clearly do (otherwise they wouldn't quote what positions were achieved on it). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 04:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make the point plain. The sources are not trivial because the clearly prove interest in the chart's results. And a chart is solely results. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 04:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG. Coverage needs to actually provide information on the subject to show that it is notable, not simply state that songs had a position on it; that coverage is hardly much more than trivial coverage. Yaksar (let's chat) 05:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So how is this any different from the Billboard Hot 100 chart? all that coverage is about position. User talk:Wbmnstr —Preceding undated comment added 22:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails
  Stuartyeates (talk) 00:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete That the FAR chart rankings are cited in music articles does not establish notability. Notability results from passage of the
  GNG, which requires significant, reliable sources independent of the subject.
  The four sources in the article are either unreliable, irrelevant, or not independent of the subject. The first, Conquest, John. 3rd Coast Music Magazine, September 1999., is clearly not a third-party source, as John Conquest created the FAR chart. The second (http://www.nodepression.com/profiles/blogs/the-nomenclature-of-americana) is a user-created blog on No Depression that does not even contain discussion of "FAR" or "Freeform American Roots". The third (http://www.tcmnradio.com/far/far1.htm) is merely a listing of FAR rankings—as articulated above, this does not establish notability. The last source (http://www.countryrootsmusic.com/3rdcm/) is a scan of the September 2011 issue of 3rd Coast Music. This is not an independent source.
  Since no significant sources establish notability, this article should be deleted. Goodvac (talk) 09:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Official and Unofficial Club World Champions (Football): the Timeline

Official and Unofficial Club World Champions (Football): the Timeline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unreferenced,

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Its not impossible for this type of thing to gain enough media coverage to have an article (the unrelated
  Unofficial Football World Championship for example) but there is no evidence that this is anything other than original research. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete.
  ^talk 22:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as original research. GiantSnowman 23:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per all above. –
  Jay 13:25, 16 September 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, G3 by Fastlily. Non-admin closure.

Harris Walker

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

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

Speedily a hoax - no such tennis player exists (e.g. ITF has no record of any 'Harris Walker' - check here Mayumashu (talk) 17:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete, G3 I can't find any information whatsoever to support the claims in this article. Moreover, a 15-year-old cracking the fastest serve ever would be all over the news. So tagged.
  96 20:45, 13 September 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 issues identified by the nominator have been addressed by editing, and there is a consensus that this is both a valid concept and one that meets the notability guidelines. If it is still wished to pursue a merge then that should be the subject of a separate discussion. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Protein music

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

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

May be a hoax. Sources provided are primary and unreliable Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 17:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to

talk) 19:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Here is another paper on the subject. It references a number of other potential sources, such as this one.

talk) 19:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

 Done adding Reliable journal articles from multiple authors. — Saeed (Talk) 22:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Looks like a valid stub with enough references to support its notability. It requires copy-editing, some editing/simplifying to extend the range of its audience and some cleanup for style compliance. However, I am sure that deletion is off the table. This article is definitely not a hoax. Fleet Command (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -
  reliable sources. I re-worded the lead to make more sense. Bearian (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Well, its "oddness" can be reduced. I do not think it is odd at all but that is probably because of my computer background. I still remember modem and their horrible Modem music. But since DNA's structure is harmonic, the resulting sound is also musical. Fleet Command (talk) 11:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Norbert Wójtowicz

Norbert Wójtowicz (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 person is a Wikipedian and wrote the article (and numerous interwikis) himself. However, he is not notable according to

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. One cite on GS for a writer on freemasonry, a very popular subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. He appears not to pass
  WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - while he has some Google scholar ghits in
  the prof test. Bearian (talk) 21:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Not notable according to
  Wikipedia:BIO --Cox wasan (talk) 18:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Idle worship

Idle worship (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. Facebook game, still in beta testing. No assertion that the game already meets our inclusion guidelines. Delete.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete: Non-notable beta game. SL93 (talk) 22:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As doesn't meet
  in general. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 23:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Solodiesel Cap

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

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

Advert pure and simple. The concept of misfuelling is notable per the Daily Mirror source and others such as the AA, but this product is not mentioned and is not notable. An article could be written on Misfuelling, but this is not it. RexxS (talk) 16:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete In fact, in my opinion this is close to the borderline for speedy deletion as a promotional article. There is no evidence of notability at all. Of the four references, two are pages on the web site of the manufacturer, one is the manufacturer's page on a site that provides company listings on behalf of businesses, and the other is a newspaper article which deals with misfuelling, but does not mention the Solodiesel Cap. Thus we have a total of zero independent sources. My own searches have produced numerous pages on the manufacturer's site, Wikipedia, FaceBook, YouTube, a forum post, sites advertising and/or selling the product, etc, but nothing that even begins to look like coverage in reliable independent sources. (The article was created by a single purpose account with no edits other than to this article, and it looks to me as though it was, as RexxS suggests, intended as an advertisement.)
  talk) 19:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy Delete as per
  WP:NOTADVERTISING. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 12:32, 20 September 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. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Miss Model of the World winners

List of Miss Model of the World winners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

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

Beauty contest with insufficient evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Disagree. This pageant is perhaps not one of the more covered ones but still its notable. Several of the winners have articles here on Wikipedia and the pageant has an official website and the 2010 winner got some coverage, per sourcing.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Per
  WP:NOTDIRECTORY guidelines. Furthermore, the article is appropriate as a Wikipedia article in list format. Northamerica1000 (talk) 22:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment – Here is a reliable source, further qualifying notability guidelines: Miss Model of The World: A Franco-African wins the coveted title from Afrik-news.com. Northamerica1000 (talk) 22:24, 6 September 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, v/r - TP 15:51, 13 September 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, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 19:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Has been mentioned in many articles, mostly in pieces about the contestants. I would prefer to find some articles about the event itself. --Ryan.germany (talk) 13:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ironholds (talk) 02:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EComXpo

EComXpo (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 even exist anymore. Never met

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. "Doesn't even exist anymore." is never a valid argument. Once notable, always notable. Some of the references in the article are not independent, but there are enough references from reliable sources to pass notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Chicago Tribune coverage and this Washington Post article in the article serves to qualify notability. Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How does that constitute "significant" coverage?--Cerejota (talk) 01:36, 7 September 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, v/r - TP 15:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 23:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of English civil wars

List of English civil wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This "list" actually acts more like a disambiguation page than a list. I thought of turning it into one, but the page already exists at English Civil War (disambiguation), making this unnecessary. The Evil IP address (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The list contains other civil wars that are not included in the page you provided. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 15:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the list describes more than just the
  WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, more a reflection that the article similarly aids in quantifying conflict involving England). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep – Per
  WP:NOTDIRECTORY guidelines. Furthermore, the article and is functional and appropriate as a Wikipedia article in list format. Northamerica1000 (talk) 00:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep and rename The list is valid, but it would be better moved to "List of civil wars in England", which would avoid confusion with the mid-17th century wars and would have less suggestion of a dab page.--SabreBD (talk) 06:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I respectfully oppose that particular renaming as Revolt of 1173–1174#The_Revolt shows that significant parts of one of the wars took place outside of England. Perhaps there's a case for renaming as "List of British civil wars" and emcompassing conflicts in Scotland and Wales? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 07:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately there is no way of hermetically sealing the wars off. The 17th century wars spilled over into Ireland. Many conflicts also spill over into modern France.--SabreBD (talk) 07:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point and I certainly see the case for "English civil wars" having potential for confusion, especially as the "English Civil War" had three distinct components. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 14:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Northamerica. It matches all factors for keeping, and our core readership - students - would likely be seeking this formatted information. Bearian (talk) 21:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This doesn't hurt anyone and doesn't fall foul of policies and guidelines, it seems to me. I think renaming it is a good idea, though I'd love to see some expert on the English/England/British thing weigh in. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response - English civil wars is appropriate as the conflicts listed were between factions trying to control the Kingdom of England. My issue with renaming as Civil wars in England was that nowadays "England" refers solely to a geographical region, not a nation state (the United Kingdom is the nation state), so that title could be interpreted as referring only to conflicts within the boundaries of England (whereas they spilled out into other areas). As for British, the disambiguation page can explain better than I! ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep seems notable and verifiable. Dzlife (talk) 13:44, 16 September 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. Ironholds (talk) 02:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Gruenwald

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

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

Gruenwald does not meet

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Vic49 (talk) 17:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Vic49 (talk) 17:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per above and lack of reliable sources. Merge with Lufthansa heist. - DonCalo (talk) 17:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explain?.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I already explained. He can be dealt with in the article on the Lufthansa heist. Read
      WP:CRIME: A person who is notable only for committing a crime should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there are any existing articles that do or could incorporate the available encyclopaedic material relating to that person. - DonCalo (talk) 23:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Well, not necessarily often a person from a larger "event" can have its own notability, like here. And should then be subject to its own separate article.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Like in this case, a separate article is justified.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Other than his involvement in the Lufthansa heist he has no notability, consequentle merge and delete. - DonCalo (talk) 14:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Does not meet
  WP:CRIME--Gagg me with ah spoon (talk) 18:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • How?--BabbaQ (talk) 22:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Needs sourcing but that is not a reason for deletion. when searching on Peter Gruenwald I get 867 000 hits on Google. Does meet
  WP:CRIME.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Those hits are not all about the same person. And when they are about this Peter Gruenwald, they are clones of the Wikepedia article. In other words, a very bad argument for keeping the article. - DonCalo (talk) 19:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BabbaQ, you need better reasoning, see

WP:GOOGLEHITS. LibStar (talk) 03:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I would say the same to you in this instance actually.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per
  WP:ONEVENT. take away this crime and he is not known for anything. simple. LibStar (talk) 03:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Take away the politics and Barack Obama is not known for anything, take away all her films and Julia Roberts isnt known for anything. Strange and/or weak reasoning for deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

these people are noted for multiple events, achievements. please nominate both Barack Obama and Julia Roberts and see if your reasoning is correct. if you do nominate both, I'll happily change my vote for this to keep. otherwise this is a slam dunk delete. regards LibStar (talk) 23:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Doesn't meet
  WP:CRIME criteria. Keb25 (talk) 06:13, 11 September 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, Courcelles 15:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was never listed on a daily log. Please close seven days from this timestamp. Courcelles 15:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP he was an important mobster in his day and a lot has been written about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Necktor (talk • contribs) 19:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He was not a mobster but a pilot with a minor role in the heist. You obviously did not even read the article. - DonCalo (talk) 15:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I still say he does not meet
  WP:CRIME --Vic49 (talk) 21:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment - The vote above this comment was made by the nominator for deletion of the article. Voting twice is unallowed. Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Topic actually passes
  WP:ONEVENT, specifically, quoted from this policy guideline page, "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Gruenwald only had a minor role in the heist and he can be dealt with in the article on the Lufthansa heist. Does not pass

WP:ONEVENT. - DonCalo (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete Common criminal who had a small involvement with a crime that has an article on WP already. --Gelobet sei (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Emma

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

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

Emma does not meet

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Vic49 (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vic49 (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - A lot of uncited information (presumably coming from one book, which is referenced) but no real proof (via multiple secondary sources) that the subject meets general notability guidelines. Info relating to the Rampers, shootout with the Gallos and death can be easily contained within the articles on Sammy Gravano and Gerard Pappa. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -does not meet
  WP:CRIME. --Cox wasan (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Does not meet
  WP:CRIME. Unsourced information mostly about other gangsters. DonCalo (talk) 12:27, 18 September 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 Relisted as individual entries per below.

Jeff Szusterman

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

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

Actor, only one minor role is asserted in the article. This is part of a series of stubs submitted by Hunter Bradley (talk · contribs), some of which have been nominated for A7 speedy deletion after a BLP-PROD has been contested with the insertion of an IMDB link. One of those I just nominated for a speedy G4. Delete.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating

• Hector David Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
• Hector David, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
• Brittany Anne Pirtle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
  )
• Erika Fong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
  )
• Steven A. Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
• Jacinda Stevens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
• Grant McFarland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
  )
• Felix Ryan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
• Mike Ginn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
• Bede Skinner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
  )
• Steven Skyler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
• Najee De-Tiege (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ah, the vageries of mass nominations. While appreciating the headache cause by a Power Rangers fan creating multiple stub articles, it would seem that not all are unsalvable. Of the mass, I found three that are notable per guideline and have

potential for expansion and improvement. My rationales are listed one-by-one below. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep
  WP:ENT[5] and seems to have decent enough coverage in New Zealand.[6] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete
  WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete
  WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete
  WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep
  WP:ENT[10] with such as his lead role in This Is Not My Life, and seems to have decent enough coverage in New Zealand.[11] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete
  WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep (undelete)
  WP:ENT[14]] and the individual IS sourcable.[15] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete
  WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete
  WP:ENT. Its the curent lack of coverage that seals this one for me. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete
  WP:ENT. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete
  WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete
  WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep Jeff Szusterman, delete the rest. Other than fan sites, I could only find these interviews for Hector David Jr [22] and for Mike Ginn [23], nothing impressive. I think that Szusterman is a borderline case, but there is a fairly good interview of him and his wife [24], and some reviews for 3 plays he's directed [25] [26] [27] [28] (also, the Drammy award mentioned on his website can be confirmed here). I think that Steven A. Davis and Grant McFarland are also close calls, based on their careers, but I didn't see any item significant enough to go for keep — frankie (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Steven A. Davis, per below — frankie (talk) 14:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Toward
  WP:FILMMAKER as his work The Fanimatrix has been the recipient of independent critical commentary and review in secondary sources.[29] I have added that information to the article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I had missed that work, and together with the role in This Is Not My Life I think it is reasonable to expect further notability in the future, so I'll change my !vote — frankie (talk) 14:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there anyway way we could break this up into several AfDs so that we can evaluate them separately with more ease, as Schmidt has shown might be a good idea? Moogwrench (talk) 22:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with User:Moogwrench, this is a nightmare to attempt to deal with it like this. I would prefer if we can break these up and discuss them separately. Trusilver 07:34, 14 September 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. Ironholds (talk) 02:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tomas M Fleischmann

Tomas M Fleischmann (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/paid-to-publish author of questionable notability. Book published through AKA Publishing, a pay-to-publish outfit (see [30] and [31]. Google search on "Tomas Fleischmann" "Lolli's Apple" shows little significant coverage - one or two reviews, and a lot of social media sites and sales links. Award does not appear notable - 346 awards were given in one year. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 15:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as does not fulfill
  WP:AUTHOR (a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.) or general notability guidelines. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Users participating in AfD discussions are expected to be familiar with the policy of civility and the guidelines Wikietiquette and "do not bite the newbies". Droopyjaz (talk) 04:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)— Droopyjaz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

*Response to accusation of incivility and "biting newbies" (As message above was left on my talkpage and on this AFD, I will leave the same response in both places)

I have reviewed my statement in favour of deletion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomas M Fleischmann and do not find it to have broken any guidelines or protocol. I stated the facts neutrally as I saw them: that according to Wikipedia's guidelines (as quoted exactly and linked to in my statement) the article is a valid candidate for deletion. I did so without reference to any editor, without stating or inferring any prejudice towards the article's creator and without any assumptions of bad faith. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 08:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails
  Stuartyeates (talk) 00:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep Who is this fellow deleting this Holocaust survivors profile? He is the keynote speaker of Courage to Care who have reached 250,000 school children in Australia promoting multiculturalism, anti-bullying and tolerance. He is NOT paid for this work as they are a MAJOR project of B'nai B'rith. He is also a regular speaker for free at the Jewish Museum of Sydney. He is also a leading member of the Holocaust Child Survivor Group in Australia...with Eva Engels and Litzi Lemberg. Tomas Fleischmann's page needs to be on Wikipedia for our community and for the future of our children. Let's edit it, get the facts right and keep it there for the community. What on earth is going on when profiles like this one are suggested for deletion? Unfortunately there were only 120 odd child survivors from 16,000 children in Terezin. Most of them are not even alive today to share their testimony and here is a fellow doing so perpetually. Leave it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharon001 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC) — Sharon001 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

*Response to accusation of Lolli's Apple being self-published" Tomas Fleischmann is not a self-published author. This can be verified through AKA Publishing who publishes both self-published and other notable works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.167.107 (talk) 00:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC) — 59.167.167.107 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]