Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 October 28

< 27 October	29 October >

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 redirect to Mashimaro. The consensus here is that most of the content in this article is duplicated in Mashimaro, so a merge in this instance is unnecessary. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chocomaro

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

This article has been unsourced since its creation in 2006 and has had a {{context}} tag for almost its entire existence. It looks to be about a character from undiscernable Korean cartoon, but I haven't been able to find more online other than some YouTube videos and reposting sites. From what I've been able to find, this character(?) has little if any notability. Another editor posted on the talk page, "...what's already written pretty much says everything about Chocomaro, and there's virtually nothing to clean up." If there's little possibility of expansion, cleanup, or clarification, the article really doesn't meet the requirements for being encyclopedic. If someone can actually make sense of this article, clean it up, and provide sources and indications of notability, more power to them, but as it stands I see no reason why it should not be deleted. Agent 86 (talk) 18:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - This looks like a character introduced for a couple of episodes and that's it. There's no coverage that I an find. There may be some in Korean, but I haven't a clue where it might be found. -- Whpq (talk) 16:42, 24 October 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible redirect to Mashimaro since it's essentially just a character from that series, although I do notice that that article is in desperate need of cleaning as well. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Redirect per tokyogirl79. Pburka (talk) 14:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence that the fictional character meets the general notability guideline or that the article can be anything other than a plot-only description of a fictional work. With no third-party sources, I do not believe that a merge is justified or that there is a strong-enough association to justify a redirect. Jfgslo (talk) 03:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a redirect is problematic as there would be no indication why one landed at the mashimoro article. Based on the article, this would appear to be a very minor character that might not even make it on to a chacter list article. - Whpq (talk) 22:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Actually, the (short) Mashimaro article already includes a paragraph about Chocomaro. It seems like a reasonable redirect to me. Pburka (talk) 13:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply - REDIRECT Thanks for pointing out my goof. It's unsourced, but probably verifiable. -- Whpq (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, as suggested. The relevant content in the redirect target is essentially the same as in this article, so no need to merge. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:46, 4 November 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. Sandstein 07:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kanıt

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

Unremarkable film/TV series/other. External links all take the user to foreign-language websites that contain very little information and fail to establish notability. Very difficult to discern the subject of the article. – Richard BB 18:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --Lambiam 18:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. --Lambiam 18:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If someone wants to rescue the article (my interest in the topic is near absolute zero), here are some reliable sources giving some not entirely trivial coverage:

"Polisin tekniklerini deşifre etmek doğru mu?". Haberturk, 28 September 2010 (in Turkish)
"'Kanıt' üniversitede ders oldu". Haberturk, 13 December 2010 (in Turkish)
"Polislere Komiser Kolombo dersi". Yeni Şafak, 27 December 2010 (in Turkish)

--Lambiam 19:31, 21 October 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Year-old Turkish cop show. Created and de-PROD'd by SPA. Refs provided in article are useless for notability purposes--primary or routine listings. Lambiam's links are a bit better, but still far short of making the case. My web searches don't find anything else to improve. If substantial coverage in WP:RS sources can be found, happy to have another look. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:09, 4 November 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 Blanked by original author. Speedy deleted as G7.. Mikaey, Devil's advocate 07:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warstuff

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

Unremarkable website. Some claims of notability, but nothing cited to reliable sources. Google news search shows no results. Standard search shows nothing but press releases, social media, trivial mentions, or user generated sites. No significant coverage from reliable sources found in first 10 pages of results. MikeWazowski (talk) 23:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 29 October 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. Deletion concerns appear to have been addressed. Sources have been found that appear to have established the subject's notability. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ravindra Svarupa Dasa

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

Not referenced article about a non-notable individual. No sufficient evidence that this person has met the minimum requirements for inclusion. (User) Mb (Talk) 17:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Links above give sufficient references to his works being cited in WP:RS to back up his notability. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 07:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you both work for the same company: him and Cinosaur, thus you are anxious to keep him on. Anyone who is impartial that can cast a vote? BTW there is no way to suggest that just because someone is being "cited" he is passing the bar. -- (User) Mb (Talk) 10:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please steer clear of guesswork and go by the rules here? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 12:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you and User:Gaura79 work in the same company cannot be discarded if this vote to be taken seriously in this case, because this person clearly does not meet the required level of coverage to write anything more than two sentences. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Cinosaur http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Gaura79 --(User) Mb (Talk) 14:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm intrigued as to what exactly the above links to special contributions of User:Gaura79 and mine were supposed to reveal, but, again, guessing about personal identities is not helpful for Wikipedia discussions, and may even be in violation of WP:NPA. However, editors are most welcome to take their suspicions to WP:COIN as they feel fit. But what cannot be discarded here is the fact that the person in question is referred to in WP:RS as a leading reformist of ISKCON and a prominent religious scholar [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] who spearheaded the reform movement that significantly shaped ISKCON's governance in 1980s and whose stance on the position of gurus, women, and GBC within ISKCON often formed official attitudes towards these key issues. That is, he is notable per WP:ANYBIO as having "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field". Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 16:23, 25 October 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Comment~~: Please keep the discussion on the merits or demerits of the article. Thank you. Pmresource (talk) 11:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Found numerous sources in Google Scholar. T. Miller 1991, 31 citations, When prophets die: the postcharismatic fate of new religious movements and M. Ekstrand 2004, 15 citations, The Hare Krishna Movement: the postcharismatic fate of a religious transplant among many. Pmresource (talk) 11:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep numerous sources state that the subject is a notable religious leader. In addition, his academic works have been published by many notable publishers. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:31, 3 November 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) 00:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parkgate Press

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

No indication that this publisher meets either the general notability guidelines or the more specific guidelines for companies. Searches for coverage in reliable sources turn up nothing. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Knight of New Orleans and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Fullerty. Whpq (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Looks to be of whole cloth with related promotional articles, by same blocked accounts. 99.12.242.170 (talk) 18:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 21 October 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, nn org. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Year-old company. Ghits are primary, social media, a few blogs. Zero Gnews hits (one to an apparently unrelated concern of the same name that appears to have gone bust a decade ago). --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:34, 4 November 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) 00:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colm Howard-Lloyd

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

This chap seems notable in the most part because he's a trustee of Pride London - but beyond that I can't find a great deal about him in reliable sources. Indeed, every mention of him I've yet found is just him being quoted, rather than an article about him. Given that there is a distinct lack of substantial information about him in third party sources, current referencing on this article is shockingly poor, and includes press releases, wordpress blogs, and 'The Times of India', a newspaper well-known for copy and pasting directly from any source it can, including Wikipedia. Most of the references don't even mention Mr Howard-Lloyd. Finally, this article was created by a paid editor, so there's an obvious problem with neutrality from the start. The Cavalry (Message me) 13:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this person was a notable activist during the Age of Consent campaigns. I agree some of the references are poor or missing but the article should be tagged reference or citation needed. --DavidTTTaylor (talk) 08:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem, as I see it, is that the references don't at present support the fact that he's notable. If the sources can't be imporved, then we can't prove he's notable. The Cavalry (Message me) 20:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There doesn't seem to be enough independent sources that show this person is notable. Inter rest (talk) 20:35, 26 October 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom, there's insufficient evidence of notability. Sure, some of the things he's been involved with are notable, but WP:NOTINHERITED. As an aside, the referencing is so terrible - dishonest even - that I'm prompted to check the article creator's other efforts. —SMALL JIM 15:23, 4 November 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. postdlf (talk) 08:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CanSat

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

Article appears to be semi-disgused spam about a non-notable miniature satellite. Only references provided are to a company website. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references look more like an amateur tech competition than a professional company but this is still not notable. De728631 (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 14 October 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, Rcsprinter (Gimme a message) 10:07, 21 October 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - The article does have a distinct smell of WP:COI, but it does have the potential to be redeemed - I'll work on it later; this NASA paper may be useable as a ref, and this from ESA also has potential. Also [8], [9], [10], [11]. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is a notability claim that can be made, it just hasn't been presented in the article. Agree with De728631: it is the lack of such a claim being made in the article that puts it at risk. (sdsds - talk) 23:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep - Per the following:

• Book source: Rycroft, Michael J.; Crosgy, Norma; International Space University (2002). Smaller satellites: bigger business? : concepts, applications and markets. Kluwer Academic Publishers. ISBN 1-4020-0199-1

• Academic source: Berman, Joshua; Duda, Michael; Garnand-Royo, Jeff; Jones, Alexa; Pickering, Todd; Tutko, Samuel; (The Hokie Space Team) (March 2, 2009). CANSAT – Design of a Small Autonomous Sounding Rocket Payload Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University. Apps.ksc.nasa.gov.

• Primary sources: [12], [13], [14]

— Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Journal of Space Technology and Science (2000) article from a State Space Agency of Ukraine journal. Subject appears to have multiple coverage in countries like Japan and US. Pmresource (talk) 11:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject will become clearly notable after it has achived its mission, if WP:Crystal is a worry it will become less as more information comes out, here[15] is a very promising potential Reference that could provide for very many opportunities for expansion of the article and additional information. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is a good start on what may well become a very interesting subject, given the potential for more information as cited by Phoenix B 1of3 above. Given patience, this will become a very good article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:00, 30 October 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 Rocky and Bullwinkle Show#Characters. While there is a consensus here that there has been some mention in some reliable sources, it's somewhat also agreed that the mentions aren't numerous or in depth enough to qualify as significant coverage. I do see discussion of merging below, so anything worth merging can and should be done from the article history, obviously ensuring it is attributed properly. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frostbite Falls

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

Clearly non-notable. No sources to establish the notatably. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 09:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show. Looked through Google Books and found numerous refs with passing reference that the town was the home of Rocky Squirrel and Bullwinkle Moose, and that it is generally understood to be a caricature of International Falls, Minnesota. I added refs to this effect to the article. The fictional town has apparently become a minor cultural icon, denoting a very cold place, or a place one would not wish to be posted by an employer, or a place of little interest. It gets mentioned without mention of the cartoon franchise or its characters, as a symbol which needs no further explanation to readers familiar with the cartoons:[16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28] etc. I'm just not sure this is sufficient to satisfy WP:N, or that the info could not be merged into the main article. Edison (talk) 16:21, 21 October 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show. Ees plot against moose and squirrel. Anyhoo, if The New York Times can publish an article called "Welcome to Frostbite Falls" without feeling it necessary to explain the reference, that's saying something. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification. It's a well-known location, but there's not a lot to say about it other than jokes. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although my heart won't be broken if consensus calls for a merge or a redirect. A reference already in the article, Television character and story facts by Vincent Terrace, gives a pretty detailed description of Frostbite Falls: "Frostbite Falls, Minnesota, population 29, is the setting for an insane battle of good against evil as seen through the animated adventures of Rocket J. ("Rocky") the Flying Squirrel and his dimwitted friend, Bullwinkle the Moose — the do-gooders who battle the evils of Boris Badenov and his assistant, Natasha Fataly. Frostbite Falls is serviced by the Union Pathetic Railroad, and when the town's only movie theater, the Bijou, opened, the first picture they showed was A Trolley Named Talullah. Rocky and Bullwinkle attended Frostbite Falls High School and then Frostbite U. (where Bullwinkle was a "BMOC" — Big Moose on Campus; he was also hoodwinked into playing football — jersey number 0 — for Wossamatta U.). Red and purple were the Frostbite U. school colors." I think that those details, plus a very large number of other mentions in a wide variety of sources over a period of five decades, are sufficient to establish the notability of this fictional village. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show: I do not believe that the fictional town meets the general notability guideline, but, with the sources shown, I believe that there is a strong-enough association to justify a redirect. Jfgslo (talk) 03:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:15, 4 November 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 University of the Faroe Islands. postdlf (talk) 08:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of universities in the Faroe Islands

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

It seems that there is only one university on the islands ([29]), so this article just seems unnecessary. Yaksar (let's chat) 22:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It appears to me that this "list" is a sublist of Template:List of universities in Europe, and deleting it would damage the larger list. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of universities in Denmark. Listed as a dependency of Denmark, the list is necessary for completeness, as Arxiloxos notes; on the other hand, it's a little silly to have a single-entry list, as Yaksar notes.
Delete. I cannot see how it would "damage" the larger list. StAnselm (talk) 01:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC) In light of the other comments, my vote is redirect to University of the Faroe Islands. StAnselm (talk) 10:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Because the template list is supposed to list all universities in Europe (that have articles, at least) and would no longer do so if the article is simply deleted. Hence my suggestion to merge this university listing to the Denmark "parent" list. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 04:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. —Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 04:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Because it would render the larger list incomplete (and I apologize for not making that clearer in my first comment). I note that in response to a prod, another one-school sublist in this group, List of universities in Andorra, was redirected to Universitat d'Andorra. Maybe the same solution would apply here, redirecting to University of the Faroe Islands. I wouldn't have any substantial objection to that solution, although I would note that it might leave things somewhat ambiguous if someone is trying to determine whether there is, in fact, more than one school in Andorra or the Faroes. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Danish article and fix the double-redirect it creates in the template. Lugnuts (talk) 09:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to University of the Faroe Islands on the analogy of what happened with List of universities in Andorra as per Arxiloxos, since the article has no content except naming that one institution. That leaves open the possibility of recreating the list if a second tertiary institution is established in the Faroes. But I am not in favour of redirecting to List of universities in Denmark; the Faroes have home rule and the University is explicitly Faroese (instruction is in Faroese, a large part of its raison d'être is preserving and teaching Faroese cultural heritage). Yngvadottir (talk) 14:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to University of the Faroe Islands - per Yngvadottir. Neutrality^talk 03:38, 30 October 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) 00:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Van Cutsem

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. reddogsix (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A very cute 4-year old. However, she hasn't done anything notable except looking adorable at a wedding, albeit huge wedding. Bgwhite (talk) 03:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Pburka (talk) 15:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The flower girl is not notable.Stormbay (talk) 02:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm sorry BlueGold73 but the consensus here is that he's not notable enough yet. If he gets more coverage later we can reconsider. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley M. Scott

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

WP:NN bureaucrat. While there is some local coverage in the Kansas City press, this individual fails WP:POLITICIAN as a regional manager of a federal agency. This article was previously deleted as WP:CSD#A7 but I restored it to let AFD decide as a courtesy to the article's author. Toddst1 (talk) 22:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The GSA doesn't usually get the good press, it seems. That said, if he ends up involved in something high-profile or notable, an article may become appropriate. But not with what we've got to date. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Scott was not a regional manager. He was a regional administrator. SES administrator level positions are the top executive positions in federal agencies, more similar to executive management teams or directors of large corporations. According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, "Members of the SES serve in the key positions just below the top Presidential appointees. For protocol purposes, SES positions correspond to flag officers (e.g., generals, admirals) in the military." Scott has also been involved in several high profile projects as noted in the article. BlueGold73 (talk) 13:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:POLITICIAN. Moreover, article is like a résumé, fails WP:RESUME. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 08:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ESPN Legends of Cricket

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

Non-notable article constructed around years of POV edits, resulting in numerous potential copyright violations. Overall the topic seems to have only trivial mentions and no widespread coverage to imply why it is a notable list to have on here, besides I can find no independent reliable sources, the only "reference" on the article links to a self published work on a forum, failing WP:Verifiability. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 22:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per discussion here. Nev1 (talk) 23:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above and the WT:CRIC discussion. My reasons stated there are that it isn't notable, it's POV and there is the real risk of copyvio if it isn't regularly watched. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 03:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Johnlp (talk) 10:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments in that talk thread. Ultimate deletion concern is a complete lack of any reliable, secondary sources to confirm notability. Googled and looked through about 10 pages of results without seeing a single potential source -- all completely unreliable, mostly forum discussions of the list. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 14:44, 29 October 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 A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic: Pelasgians) . JamesBWatson (talk) 12:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian LUKA

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

Content is, apart from being in Albanian, is nothing to do with the article title and is original research. Contested prod, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't know Albanian, but it's obvious from looking at the article creator's talk page what the article essentially says. It's basically an incoherent essay in a foreign language on a subject we already have an English article for (Pelasgians). (NB: It's also clear that the user in question is unfamiliar with Wikipedia's editing tools: he named the article after himself rather than after the subject; he's apparently made test edits to Help:Contents/Getting started a few times, etc. Don't seem to be bad faith edits, just the edits of someone who doesn't know how to edit Wikipedia) --Miskwito (talk) 05:33, 29 October 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. per CFORK. The argument for a merged article doesn't overcome individual notability. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Livesy and Jackson Walsh

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

Procedural nomination per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 October 20 Courcelles 21:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I created the article, whose structure was based on the article John Paul McQueen and Craig Dean, which survived a deletion attempt although like Aaron and Jackson both those characters also have their own stand-alone articles. Like those two characters, Aaron and Jackson are a highly popular couple whose story was central to the programme for about 18 months, and generated some of the show's highest ratings. This article is essentially a WP:Content fork: my intention, before the article was inappropriately speedied, was to merge the relevant information from those two articles into this and to expand it; in general, it's better to have one article on a given topic than two, and there's more information than really should be in either of the two characters' articles. It's true that the Jackson character is dead, and his article probably can't be expanded much further, but the Aaron character is both long-running and continuing and his article will inevitably continue to grow. The two characters are inextricably linked by the nature of their storyline, and so we currently have the same information in both the characters' articles since only having it in one of their articles wouldn't work precisely because they are inextricably linked. It seems far better, therefore, to place the information on their shared storyline into its own article, and keep the characters' articles more focused, which is why I created this article. The characters' storyline was a major one, possibly even the main one in 2010-2011; there is a following outside the serial, and no question of notability. I'd also point out that the article is not complete: it stands as it was an hour or two after creation, and hasn't been edited since then. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely unnecessary as a content fork. No evidence they are a super couple in sources to merit a joint article in addition to their own articles which already touch on the subject. Nobody is questioning notability of the characters just that this article is necessary and notable on its own.Edinburgh Wanderer 19:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Both characters are independently notable, and both have extensive articles of their own which actually do a remarkably good job of not overlapping too much. This article can only serve to duplicate parts of those articles, which makes it a redundant content fork as defined by the guideline linked above. In addition, I'm not seeing much evidence of a following outside of the serial - everything is currently sourced to the same two sites, one dedicated to TV and the other a primary source, and more than half relate almost entirely to one character rather than both. Better sources obviously exist, but they don't come close to overriding the duplication concerns. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Bear in mind that the article was deleted very soon after it was created, and hasn't been edited since then. The idea is not to duplicate the existing articles, but to move the relevant information from them to this one. Exploding Boy (talk) 04:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 21:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The New Uncle Gregory Horror Hour

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

Minor TV program that does not have any reliable sources. No evidence of notability and not verifiable by our readers. Appears not to meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. Contest prod so brought here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as non-notable. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as non-notable per nom. It seems to be a public access channel show that hasn't garnered any news articles at all. Just about every link on google is something added by the show's creators. If/when the show becomes notable it can be re-added but at this time it fails notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete Probably on regular TV once upon a time, but right now on "Mediacomm Channel 85 in Springfield"? That's paying to get on TV at this point, and not even throughout a full television market. No notability found. Nate • (chatter) 05:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- From what I can gather it was never on regular TV. It just recently started showing on public access (only 2 episodes have shown so far) and the "new" part of the show's title refers to the titular in-universe character's attempt to restart his career. A search through google shows that there was no previous show, at least none that shows up on google search. (Meaning that there was no prior show or that it was likely a public access show like this one.) Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl[reply]
  - Comment Ahh...the history and research made it sound like how many horror hosts have been lately (good Saturday late night slot on a regular channel, then cut down to public access as stations cut budgets and plug in Proactiv infomercials instead), but this one isn't even out of the gate yet. Makes sense now, but definitely no change in vote. Nate • (chatter) 09:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 21:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lego Super Heroes

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

restored after prod: uncited article about unreleased products DGG ( talk ) 19:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete—seems like a candidate for a g11 speedy to me, since there is no discernable coverage in reliable sources yet. certainly fails the gng.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk). — frankie (talk) 19:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems implausible to have DC and Marvel characters in one game, though anything's possible I guess. But if there had been such an announcement, surely some sources would've picked up on it - and, so far, there's nothing. WP:CRYSTAL may apply, as well, as the article appears to be largely speculative. If this game actually comes into being, and if sources cover it - then yeah, an article might be appropriate. But not today. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG and WP:CRYSTAL. Even after it is released, it shouldn't be recreated unless there is real proof of notability. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice there is a strong whiff of gonads about the article, particularly with the list of non-existent Lego games mixed in with a few real ones. However, apparently Lego have tied both Marvel and DC down for a spanking under a single Lego brand, leaving the door open for Warner to produce a video game on the line. Rather than being a faint possibility I'd say a video game along these lines is likely. If it is, then notability will not be an issue, the licensed Lego games both review and sell well. Someone another 16:17, 4 November 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 Kittie. Davewild (talk) 21:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tara McLeod

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

Only known for being a one major ban. Does not meet the criteria needed for a page of her own. magnius (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should have simply redirected her page to her band's article, Kittie. Obviously the band members are likely search terms, so we'd want redirects in place instead of just deleting outright. postdlf (talk) 04:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, and at the same time consider redirecting the other band members' pages. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw the nom and redirect: That way in case a substantive article on her can be written (unlike the current content), its easily enough done in the future.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, Kudpung has the right idea. It's common practice to make artists who aren't notable outside their band to become redirect pages, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Tuck for an example. He's Gone Mental 15:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 21:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appin Security Group

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

Notability Criteria not met Sonakshi87 (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable firm. Keb25 (talk) 10:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer This article was not listed in the AfD log, I am now adding it to today's log. Monty ₈₄₅ 19:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:ORG. — Abhishek ^Talk 05:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another information security products, services and training company advertising on Wikipedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:22, 29 October 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) 00:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doyle Miller

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

Fails WP:GNG (Newsbank is bone dry), player has never played in an NFL game, thus failing WP:NSPORT as well. Practice squad members do not count towards passing NSPORT. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Based on my searches, I'm not finding significant, non-trivial coverage of Miller. If others are able to identify such coverage, I'll reconsider. Cbl62 (talk) 20:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to CDJ. Black Kite (t) 01:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CDJ-100S

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

Delete. Non-notable product.

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are mostly one line or so about non-notable products:

WP is not a product catalogue. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge - Non-notable item, only source seems to be link back to it's own site. Delete any of the articles that are in the same shape as the main one... Sergecross73 msg me 19:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Upon seeing the later comments, I still don't think they need to have their own article, but I would be okay with a merge as well. Sergecross73 msg me 19:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep CDJ-800 and CDJ-1000 - Nom did not WP:BEFORE or WP:PRESERVE. 800 has NY Times source and 2 book sources (2004, 2010), and the 1000 article can use these too (in addition to its several sources). Other listed articles may have similar sources. If not individually notable, Merge into List of CD DJ turntables, per WP:PRESERVE. --Lexein (talk) 21:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. BEFORE you delete, I'll put the info onto one page for all these. They are notable enough for that single page in that they form the basis of the industry standard CDJ-series DJ products, and are also often found in studios too. Seems best compromise. Please give me a few days to do this. --Jimthing (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(You may already know this, but there is no "notable enough" - notability applies only to whole articles, items only have to survive verifiability with reliable sources, not WP:GNG) --Lexein (talk) 21:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all with redirect, either to CDJ where they already appear to be mentioned, or to a separate list. I agree with the cogent arguments put forward by Lexein, and would add that WP:ATD is yet another guideline that also precludes deletion in cases where there's a viable merge target.—S Marshall T/C 22:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Nominator did not follow WP:BEFORE. Google news archive search has results for all of these, and not just token mentions, but actual reviews in various languages. http://www.audiomap.de/news/pioneer_mp3_deck_cdj_200/uncategorized/ for example. A notable line of products, is sure to have coverage for it in places that review such things. Dream Focus 10:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PRODUCT suggests that they should all be merged into one article but the notability of the individual products is too low for WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, that isn't what it said. "If the products and services are considered notable enough on their own, one option is to break out the discussion of them into a separate article." If they have coverage, then they are notable. Dream Focus 15:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I know what you said and now you are saying "If they have coverage, then they are notable". That is not true. Individual notability guidelines stipulate certain conditions to be met in order to attain notability. To put it another way, sources (references) does not automatically assign notability for WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - No guideline can trump policy. If general notability is met, as for the 800 and 1000, individual guidelines can't exclude content. Just saying. --Lexein (talk) 23:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:GNG OR the secondary guidelines must be met, not both. Dream Focus 02:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. WP is not a product catalog. Product reviews don't make it notable. Any tiny morsels of interesting info can be merged to CDJ. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Coverage over time is the definition of WP:GNG. However, I think a merged article would be a better article overall, and would benefit the encyclopedia. --Lexein (talk) 23:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge all: per combination of NOTE and NOT arguments above Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 16:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Davewild (talk) 21:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marcin Meller

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

IP rm prod without explanation, so taking to AFD. Individual appears to fail general notability requirements for inclusion. Primary claim is unreferenced as being former editor in chief for Playboy's Poland version. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, fairly visible media personality, plenty of sources for notability.--Kotniski (talk) 11:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can't you point me to these reliable sources? If I had easily found some, I wouldn't have AFDed it. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, here is a list of articles where he's mentioned in Gazeta Wyborcza.--Kotniski (talk) 07:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely notable person who can be seen at the moment every Saturday on one of most popular TV station in Poland, with own show.--Verdin 07:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verdin (talk • contribs)
Keep. Seems like a notable media personality. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:10, 31 October 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) HurricaneFan25 | talk 16:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert Blitzstein

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

Does not pass WP:CRIME, minor criminal Cox wasan (talk) 12:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Major player, and criminal, in the Chicago mob's presence in Las Vegas, prosecuted in the '80s by the feds, was a member of the Hole in the Wall Gang, was nominated for inclusion in the Black Book of unsavory characters but was murdered before his inclusion, and was the last mobster murdered in Las Vegas. The article can be improved to better show notability, with reliable sources/citations. AuthorAuthor (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep—easily meets gng. i added three more sources and a bunch more info to the article, will do more later. there are 34 articles in newsbank on blitzstein, and i only made it through the first 5. there is a lot more to add, but the outcome of this afd should be clear from the ones i've already added (and probably from the ones that were in there at the time of nomination).— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets the GNG →Σ τ c. 01:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Syria national football team results 2012

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

WP:CRYSTAL and might be A3. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 17:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy This isn't that far in the future, and when Syria plays there first game, it can be moved back into the mainspace. Also this is not A3. A3 is when there is nothing on the page at all. And with those, you don't know if it will be started later or will stay short, so it is hard to judge early. Bar Code Symmetry (Talk) 02:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:CRYSTAL. Giant Snowman 18:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. This is a clear cut case of WP:CRYSTAL. No prejudice to recreation once there are some actual results. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:52, 30 October 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) 00:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Kelly

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

Not a notable guitar. The only 'reference' I can find is this--a self-published PDF. Drmies (talk) 17:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no references! Web sites give no information. This article has no substance. 68.106.218.221 (talk) 22:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP is not a product catalog. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:53, 4 November 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DSDR Data Sharing for Demographic Research

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

Promotional; no independent sources confirm notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but delete all the linked articles under "List of Studies". . . Mean as custard (talk) 18:19, 13 October 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, merge subarticles into main. There is at least one print entry ([30]). It is a bit of a mess, particularly the subarticles. I'd strongly advise merge of the subarticles into the main body, they seem to have an even weaker claim on notability than the parent. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 00:57, 22 October 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 - T P 16:58, 28 October 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. Davewild (talk) 16:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joymax

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP (Google searches yielded only a few references to the gaming company, almost all of which are very brief). There are other references which aren't about the company at all. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 02:45, 7 October 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) 13:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:13, 11 October 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 October 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 - T P 00:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per sources: Joystiq.com, BetaNews.net, DDaily.co.kr, etnews.com, ITDaily.kr, khan.co.kr, BoanNews.com, NACpress.com, Asiae.co.kr, news.mt.co.kr. Note: Google translates the company name from Korean to English as "Joyimaekseu". --Odie5533 (talk) 05:28, 21 October 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 - T P 15:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Odie5533. →Σ τ c. 01:57, 2 November 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 as hoax. Refer to Edison's link below. Neutrality^talk 03:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bronze Medallion (UK Law Firm designation)

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

Made up concept which is not referred to in either the current sources in the article or any others which I can find. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a commonly used term in general legal discourse, will try to find further cross-references - had thought it was referred to in at least some of the articles linked. Dooley (talk) 17:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a possible hoax besides being a nonnotable neologism. The article appears to be the result, somehow, of a prank by someone trying to get this term adopted, and that the next level down would be the "magenta circle law firm." Persons on the board referred to "secret missions" such as multiply posting the word "moist." They even discuss this Wikipedia entry,and this AFD, so some sock input is to be expected in this AFD, per a request on that board:[31]. One ref is a deadlink, another makes no mention of "bronze medallion" and the third only has it in an anonymous comment accompanying an article, which may be part of the same effort. Edison (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it looks like a prank, and the discussion which you have have linked to seems to confirm that feeling. I am therefore changing to Speedy delete too.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of minor DC Comics characters. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Javelin (DC Comics)‎

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

Contested PROD. There is no evidence that the fictional character meets the general notability guideline as there is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject about this character. Also, with no reception or significance in reliable secondary sources, it is unsuitable for Wikipedia since it can only be a plot-only description of a fictional work and an indiscriminate collection of information. Jfgslo (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 16:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 16:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Character is in The Encyclopedia of Super Villians (p.169).SPNic (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If not kept, redirect/merge to List of minor DC Comics characters is a better course. Perhapse something that should have been proposed prior to PRODing and then AfDing. - J Greb (talk) 15:20, 16 October 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, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Again an informative article, broken into highly organized legnthy sections, it needs aditional citations, but very salvageble. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of minor DC Comics characters. Inclusion in The Encyclopedia of Super Villains doesn't confer notability. No reliable sources have been added, and this B-list villain seems unlikely to have coverage significant enough to meet the WP:GNG as anything more than an entry in the list. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:43, 28 October 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 - T P 15:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of minor DC Comics characters. Fails WP:GNG Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of minor DC Comics characters. I was about to close this as no consensus as I didn't find any of the keep !votes convincing but a merge seems to be a better option. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of minor DC Comics characters. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shark (comics)‎

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

Contested PROD. None of the three fictional characters meets the general notability guideline as none has significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Lacking reception or significance in reliable secondary sources, any article about them can only be a plot-only description of a fictional work and an indiscriminate collection of information, making the subject of the article inappropriate for Wikipedia. Jfgslo (talk) 16:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 16:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 16:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. It's obvious that this is nothing more than a blatant attempt to purge the DC Comics characters from Wikipedia. The bbest known Shark is covered for example in The Encyclopedia of Super Villians (p.314) and 500 Comic Book Villians (p. 261)SPNic (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If not kept, redirect/merge to List of minor DC Comics characters is a better course. Perhapse something that should have been proposed prior to PRODing and then AfDing. - J Greb (talk) 15:21, 16 October 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, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Truly no guidelines have been violated, this is a very descriptive and encyclopedic article, with actual book sources. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "No guidelines have been violated" is not a reason to keep. And the "actual book sources" you mention are the comic books themselves. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to List of minor DC Comics characters. Inclusion in The Encyclopedia of Super Villains or 500 Comic Book Villians doesn't confer notability. No reliable sources have been added, and this B-list villain seems unlikely to have coverage significant enough to meet the WP:GNG as anything more than an entry in the list. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:46, 28 October 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 - T P 15:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of minor DC Comics characters. Fails WP:GNG. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:21, 28 October 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Levi Casboult

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

A season later, still a rookie listed Australian Rules football player with no senior games. does not satisfy WP:NSPORTS. has some coverage for a car accident but that was just a routine news event and Wikipedia is not the news. lacks other significant coverage required for notability. (the booze cruise was also a news event and the coverage Casboult got from it was not non trivial.) duffbeerforme (talk) 17:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least it should be redirected to List of Carlton Football Club players and I'll create a section entitled "Currently listed players yet to make their debut". See List of Melbourne Football Club players#Currently listed players yet to make their debut for an example. When I have some more time I'll check to see if I can find any significant coverage not from the "booze cruise" incident. Jenks24 (talk) 08:01, 15 October 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, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as he is still on their squad, has some significant coverage in independent reliable sources (I think it is non-trivial), and he could still make his debut at any time next season. If he is delisted,(team lists are all being updated over the next two months, so this is a really bad time to be AfDing player articles) then WP:AFL has a policy of redirecting delisted players who never played to their team's player list (and we know this goes against the notability is not temporary idea, but it works very well). The-Pope (talk) 17:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Has plenty of references on google, however no senior games and a classic up and coming article. Redirect to [[List of Carlton Football Club players][ Ray-Rays 21:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymond88824 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 15:46, 28 October 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. postdlf (talk) 08:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Camilla (film)

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

Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 15:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article adds nothing to Wikipedia and doesn't have any information in it. It should either be merged to the director who made the film. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 15:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:BEFORE would have been helpful here. Plenty of reviews and other coverage of this film can be found easily[32]: here for starters are reviews by Variety[33], the San Francisco Chronicle, [34], Roger Ebert [35], and Janet Maslin in The New York Times[36]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you would like to expand it? Because otherwise, I see no reason for it to remain. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 20:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A reason to keep or delete should really not be based solely upon current state, and per policy should be based upon notability of the topic itself, and its WP:POTENTIAL for improvement. Stubs are welcome, as they encourage collaborative editing, and AFD is not to be used to force improvemenmt. "Fix it NOW or delete it", is a very poor deletion rationale. Please read WP:PERFECTION and WP:HANDLE, and please understand that your nomination rationale fails WP:DEL#REASON. Also, please take a look at WP:Somebody Else's Problem. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here's an excellent reason for this article to remain: the film is notable, as Arxiloxos has so ably shown. As for nominator's statement that the article "doesn't have any information in it", that is incorrect. The article makes a strong claim of notability about the film; namely that it was the last film role by one of the 20th century's greatest actors of stage and screen, Jessica Tandy. The article lists ten members of the cast and crew, includes an image of the poster for the film, includes the release date and links to other films by the same director. Admittedly, the article is a stub, but we don't delete stubs on notable topics. Instead, we expand them and improve them through the normal editing process. I think the nominator would be an excellent person to take on that volunteer task, but failing that, other volunteer editors will do so, I am sure. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a "Critical reception" section to the article, quoting from 3 reviews. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For someone who doesn't know anything about the topic, I wouldn't have known those things, thus it clearly did not have any information about it. And I would hardly call having an info box with a few names hugely informational. The article had only been edited 8 times in 2 years, so if people think this should stay, surely it shouldn't take more than 2 and a half years to expand it. And I have no interest in improving this article, you seem to know a lot about it, so perhaps you should, as you feel so strongly. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 10:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you had chose to follow the wise precepts of WP:BEFORE, you would know something about the topic because you would have investigated it before nominating the article for deletion. I knew nothing about the film before this debate, but now I know a fair amount, because I spent a few minutes reading up on it. That simply increased my respect for Jessica Tandy, and it wasn't at all hard to learn more. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. WP:NOEFFORT is not a proper rationale to continue wishing deletion, as notability is to be found through the topic's available sources, and NOT decided by an article's current and improvable state. See WP:DEADLINE, WP:HANDLE, WP:POTENTIAL, WP:ITJ. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, speedy close. "We don't delete stubs on notable topics" hits the nail squarely on the head. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Speedy close per poor deletion rationale that refects a possible misunderstanding of editing policy and deletion policy toward a demonstrably notable topic. So it was a stub when nominated? Not a big deal and deletion is NOT the preferred option for an improvable stub. What BUILDS an encyclopedia is editors working collaboratively to improve stubs, not tossing them because they might meed work, specially with the nominator's admission that he is someone "who doesn't know anything about the topic". Tough to set oneself up to judge a topic's potential if you do not know the topic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:34, 29 October 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 Arcata, California. you can merge anything sourced Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

North Country Fair Samba Parade

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

Non-notable event lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. reddogsix (talk) 15:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge a sentence or two to Arcata, California. Sounds like fun, but it's a small parade which is just one minor part of the North Country Fair, a two-day festival (which itself is not notable) in Arcata. --MelanieN (talk) 04:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of the North Country Fair Samba Parade page, should I redirect and merge a few sentences? dr clave

Dr Clave, I would encourage you to go ahead and add a little more information to Arcata, California#Events - both about the Samba parade and about the North Country Fair in general. Right now that section merely lists the events; it would be good to see it expanded, with a sentence or two about each event. However, do not redirect this page. Let the discussion run its course, normally a week. At the end of that time an administrator will decide what should be done with this article. --MelanieN (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG. No prejudice against adding some info to Arcata, California#Events. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction mechanics

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

Seems to be a classic violation of WP:OR. The lede raises red flags with this respect all over the place. Google books search gives no related hits for "reaction mechanics (A lot of hits related to the mechanics of chemical reactions making it hard to filter the results.) T R 15:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC) T R 15:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is structured like a research paper - it even has a Conclusions section! All of the citations are in the Introduction, where previous work is discussed. I was slow to notice this and wasted a lot of time editing it. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seemed like WP:OR when I first looked at it, and the author's post on the talk page there [[37]] only reinforced that impression. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - Looks like an originally researched essay →Σ τ c. 02:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will edit the article during the week of 7 to 11 November 2011. Reaction Mechanics is a mathematical model for calculating the motion of physical systems with delayed interactions. In the limit of no delay it reverts to Newtonian Classical Mechanics and in the limit of infinitesimal delay it reverts to the General Theory of Relativity. Neither Classical Mechanics nor the General Theory of Relativity analyze systems with delayed interactions. In the first example where Reactin Mechnaics was used it gives results in excellent agreement with observations. Philipp Kornreich — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkornrei (talk • contribs) 17:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 16:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BMI Appraisals

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

Advertisement for a non-notable business. Contested proposed deletion, not mine. Article about the parent company of this business was deleted after discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BMI Group (Hong Kong). Business is a financial services company that provides consultancy services in areas of real estate valuations, plant & machinery valuations, and business valuations.

The shoveled-on external links are press releases and directory listings, which are either self-published or unreliable sources and trade-related publicity websites with small audiences. The bits that are in reliable sources are not about this business, but rather about corporate governance standards generally on the Hong Kong stock exchange. There might be an article that could be written about that subject, and I'd be happy to see the contributors have a go at it; but the subject of this article does not have the kind of historical significance that makes for notability in Wikipedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not established. The company may have affiliate membership of one or more professional organisations (this is not clear) and have had clients that are quoted on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange (this is not clear either) but this does not confer notability. The generalised text concerning the importance of corporate governance and valuation does not confer notability. Any bicycle courier firm could claim as much, citing its major clients and its green credentials. We are given few indications of the size of the organisation except that it has two offices. We are told it gives to charity but not how much or how it stands in comparison to other donors (there are certainly many companies giving scholarships of some size or other at Hong Kong Polytechnic University). There seems little prospect that further editing will establish notability, though the article's creator (who has a clear WP:COI) may be hoping a Wikipedia article will confer it. NebY (talk) 12:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Clearly promotional. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Davewild (talk) 16:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Free World

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

This article is too big and is claiming a lot of facts based on a single reference. If more references cannot be added within 7 days, this page should be deleted. This whole article seems to be clearly Original Research WP:OR and this is not allowed in wikipedia. The start of the article gives a sense that this article is a definition of the term 'free world' but WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. With some strong claims about what nations were included in the free world, this article provides no references that the country were really included as such. There is also a section 'usage in the former communist bloc, which makes extraordinary claims without a single reference. In fact, all of the sections are super flawed. DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 13:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but prune. This revision looks like a good revision to start over with. It gets rid of the POV-essay sections of the article, reduces it to the common (US) usage of the term, which has a reference (yes, just one). WP:DICDEF doesn't really apply here - certainly not to the long current version, but even the pared-down version is much more of a fledgling encyclopedia article than a dictionary definition. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 14:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreed. To prune, will only delay the inevitable. The very first sentence of even your suggested version has heavily exaggerated claim based on zero references.Sorry, not convinced.DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 14:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The version also includes country like India and Taiwan as part of the free world?Greece, Chile and Brazil?- On what grounds or references. Superfluous- no reference! I am just pointing out that revision or cut of the article will only delay the inevitability of the deletion of the article. It is just totally not convincing as an international perspective how you can categories a single nation as a leader of the free world.DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 14:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What exaggerated claims are you talking about? I suppose you can quibble about Greece, but the others seem (from my memories of my history texts) to be solidly part of it. I think your last comment reveals the issue here, though - by having an article, we aren't saying that any country is the "leader of the free world" or even that certain countries should be part of the "free world." What we're doing is documenting what the people who use the term mean when they use it.

I looked through a few Google sources (including some history ones), but they all assumed the definition of "free world" and didn't bother to define it (though one PBS source did contrast it with the Iron Curtain). I suspect the best simple definition would come from a high school history text and the best history of the term from a scholarly work on the subject; unfortunately I don't have either on hand. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 14:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot even find a dictionary meaning of this world, why are you trying to make Wikipedia a dictionary for this term? What do you mean what exaggerated claims I am talking about? I am asking you straight on what grounds can those countries be considered free world? Just provide me a single reference please. As I am repeatedly saying, this article can be reidentified as anything as this can mean anything to anyone. But we do not put such biased WP:POV on wikipedia. FYI, Chile, Brazil were ruled by socialists, revolutionary parties after the world war II. Also, India was under colonisation of UK until 1947 which was after the war. What do we really mean by free world here ? The world that is free or the free world of the world? But hey that is a sentence not a wikipedia article. The article clearly has to be deleted- no option. And yes, the article is clearly saying that USA was the leader of the free world. A single author using the term should not be interpreted as 'people' using the term. There are no references to back that people used that term then or even now.DBhuwanSurfer (talk)

Keep and improve, on the basis that the topic is defined and discussed in reliable sources (i.e. [38][39][40][41]). Turning this into a quality article will take some work, but it's definitely possible. And now I have that Neil Young song stuck in my head. Thanks a lot. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is going to take a lot of work to turn into a good article, but the notability and importance of the term is surely beyond dispute and it is not beyond rescue. As the article seeks to point out it is not something capable of simple definition as though it were a geographical expression or defined a particular form of government. And whether the nominator likes it or not, it was not surprising that the Soviet Union for one resented the attempt in the US to claim the concept and the implication that other citizens were unfree - the contrast between individual freedom and collective interest was at the heart of the ideological divide. When a US president used the term Free World (as they frequently did) their audience implicitly knew what they were talking about and the very intangibility is the reason why an article rather than a dictionary definition is needed. Sourcing is difficult because it isn't likely to be done by Google search; it involves trawling through thousands of books and articles for discussion of the phrase as well as good examples of use. Articles on the Cold War and Iron Curtain already exist in WP but I do not think that they deal sufficiently with the political philosophical concepts behind the idea of the Free World. --AJHingston (talk) 19:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 03:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 03:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. DBhuwanSurfer (talk) 03:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The current state of the article is indeed "super flawed", but deletion is not for clean-up. Potential sources exist, even if few are cited at present. DICDEF does not apply, as even in its current state the article goes far beyond just a definition, and there is potential for historical, political, and sociological discussion of the topic. Editors and the closing admin should also note the recent discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leader of the Free World. Cnilep (talk) 00:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree, though I suppose I should clarify that my "prune" comment above was not to suggest that deletion was for clean-up, but to demonstrate that the article is salvageable. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Miskwito (talk) 05:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. But needs to be delimitated to US Cold War concept, and focused on that topic. But AfD is, as stated above, not the venue for cleanup. --Soman (talk) 12:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. And improve I suggest. The problem with the concept is that many ideologies claim to liberate people from what they define as states of being oppressed. A universal meaning therefore cannot be found. Different ideologies examine different aspects of human existence. They ensure the freedom of some aspects that can be only ensured at the expense of others. And they charge each other by being tyrannic for oppressing the other aspects. I agree with the criticism: sources are needed and NPOV should be reached. When I first started editing the article my intention was to make it less POV, less North American/First World POV. Before I modified the article it was ridicolously POV, a POV that is presented by the American media and what for this reason may be believed to be a universal viewpoint by people living in the First World. My parents lived behind the Iron Curtain before the Fall of Communism therefore I have first hand reports what that ideology considered important and what view it propagated through the media in its world, the Second World. My claims about it are only extraordinary for someone who never examined deeply a viewpoint other than that of the First World. What I will try to insert are references from communist media. Using a Second World history book will be the best. N.11.6 (talk) 22:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Track-It!

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

Promotional article written by a representative of the company, with no evidence of notability. The only sources cited are the company's own web site and a couple of promotional sites. No independent reliable sources. An unambiguous attempt to use Wikipedia as a free advertising service. (A PROD was contested by the author of the article with no reason given.) JamesBWatson (talk) 13:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain to me why Track-It! cannot have a page, but products like this one can. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ManageEngine_ServiceDesk_Plus. The references cited are to news websites, not promotional sites. Criscoff (talk) 13:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of another page about another product doesn't have much bearing on this discussion as those other pages may also be good candidates for deletion or merger. §everal⇒|Times 16:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable software referenced to a couple of press releases and the company website. It could alternatively be redirected to Numara Software? Theroadislong (talk) 14:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment if this is kept it should be moved to Numara Track-It!. Or alternately a delete for this should apply to Numara Track-It! as well Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I dunno, we redirect non-notable products to their originators/producers all the time. Doing the same here makes sense - and, note that the title already redirects to Numara Software. Now, if the company's article is deleted, that's a whole different thing. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like self promotion if anything merge with their company page( which really shouldn't be on Wiki either ). 68.106.218.221 (talk) 22:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of sources establishing notability. See also my comments on the redirect issue above. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for same reason as 68.106.218.221 suggested. Chris (talk) 23:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus exists that coverage of the event is sufficiently notable that it should have an article. I have moved the article to cover the event. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Le Hoang Hung

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

Non-notable journalist murdered by his wife, fails WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS. WWGB (talk) 12:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 13:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 13:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks borderline. North8000 (talk) 13:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Change to Keep and Move under Murder of Le Hoang Hung This entry is of interest to such Wikipedia Projects as Journalism, Vietnam and Crime, and while the case was in the news for a large period during 2011, including international news, interest in this case goes beyond recentism. While Le Hoang Hung was not murdered because of his reporting, which would have made him the first such Vietnamese journalist in 23 years, this case does tell us something interesting about the safety of journalists in Vietnam. The article gives background about other journalists, foreign and local, who have died while on assignment in Vietnam, which provides context. If a Vietnamese journalist were to be killed in the future, the Le Hoang Hung case would likely be brought up. It should be noted that Wikpedia at present tends to favor coverage of foreign journalists as opposed to local journalists, but the vast majority of journalists are local and they are also the ones who experience the majority of safety issues. Moreover, this is an unusual case surrounding press safety issues, which is another reason it should be a keeper. Here you have the police and NGOs believing the journalist was killed for his reporting and it turns out to be a sensational crime case. The CPJ is normally very conservative about labeling the motive in these cases as work related. Anybody who is interested in the press in Vietnam would want to know about this case. In addition, the article was the subject of a class project Fall 2011, and in the interest of full disclosure I am the instructor. Crtew (talk) 09:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was a simple case of mariticide of a non-notable reporter. His career and position as a journalist is completely irrelevant as his murder was totally unrelated to his occupation. WWGB (talk) 14:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, WWGB does not explain what he or she means by non-notable and shouldn't assume that this is self-explanatory. In fact, the article suggests the opposite. Hung's fellow reporters knew that he was doing important investigative reporting around the Ho Chi Mihn area, and secondly UNESCO explains that investigative reporters in Vietnam have actually pushed the envelope of criticism from within a communist, state-owned media system, which is a liberalization of sorts through the daily work of journalism. Second, even though he was murdered by his wife, the published photo of his burned bed raised concerns in Vietnam and abroad about what had happened to him and it focused the people from around the world on Vietnam press freedom and safety. Third, the case has a bizarre aspect to it that makes it memorable. Last, to be precise, the case wasn't matricide, but it is an interesting case of journalism and crime mixing in an atypical fashion.Crtew (talk) 02:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My typo corrected (mariticide) and, to be quite clear, notability requires no explanation; it is a Wikipedia guideline (see WP:AUTHOR). WWGB (talk) 03:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Murder of Le Hoang Hung, rewriting as necessary. While this looks like a classic case of BIO1E, the reaction to the 1E seems to be genuinely notable. PWilkinson (talk) 11:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with this as it brings clarity to policy, the nature of the event, and precedent.Crtew (talk) 12:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A work-related murder of an investigative journalist turning out being an ordinary domestic dispute about gambling and money. Not noteworthy. - DonCalo (talk) 22:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there appears enough impact in international press over a sustained period to address WP:GNG. One might argue the case against WP:BIO and so I would not be in a rush to move the article until there had been more improvement, in particular by trimming tangential material and then seeing if what was left still looked like a biography. --Fæ (talk) 14:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the international response was misguided, it still happened. I'm inclined to say keep. DS (talk) 14:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move to Murder of Le Hoang Hung. Even if the author himself may not meet notability criteria, his murder definitely does, based on the extent of both domestic and international media coverage and the involvement of Reporters Without Borders and the Committee to Protect Journalists. Although Le's murder is now believed to have had a different motive, it was still on the human rights radar for the better part of the year. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 18:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 16:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jayden Head

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

Junior soccer/association footballer who does not satisfy the requirements of WP:NFOOTBALL nor WP:GNG in that there is no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Likely WP:AUTOBIO. The-Pope (talk) 12:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. North8000 (talk) 13:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't come close to meeting GNG or NFOOTY (the stuff about being signed by Adelaide United looks made up). Almost definitely an autobio. Jenks24 (talk) 15:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only verifiable content is that he played for Albury, and that source isn't even secondary. Trying out for the youth squad of a notable team does not make you notable.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 05:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Heads up- threats from the COI on my talk. Yeti Hunter (talk) 04:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

Apparently I mis-interpreted. User suggests that Head may soon play in an A-league game. Suggest USERFY to User:JaYDawG_74 in case this proves correct.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 04:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Classic case of up and coming and no listed references. Ray-Rays 06:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 18:41, 31 October 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. WP:SNOW v/r - T P 01:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

World Marketplace

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

One of several attempts by the same author to promote his software company. No evidence of notability. Fails WP:SPAM, WP:GNG andy (talk) 12:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as with this user's other creations, this is WP:ARTSPAM. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PROMOTION. Yunshui 雲水 12:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was my bulk articles which I had never edit to the open Wikipedia space. They were in my working folder!!!

From: User: Interface Designer By education I am a philologist. I worked as an editor for several years, speak several languages. I am the author of many scientific works and think I would be useful for the Wikipedia. Now I need you urgent help, please. Some of my articles are marked as speedy deletion by the user who is not an administrator, has a very bad reputation in WIKIPEDIA (see his history) User:Andyjsmith and is acting as a Vandal: talk He does not appear on the wiki for years, then begins to remove all that he see on his way. That is called: Vandalism Take a look please at his history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Luthorsteele http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Andyjsmith&limit=500&action=history

This is my articles which he deleted without any talk with me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Hosting_Provider
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Marketplace

Please help me and block this user as he is acting as a Vandal

Thank you very much for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Interface Designer (talk • contribs) 12:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC) Interface Designer (talk) 12:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC) Interface Designer[reply]

I think you may be confusing User:Andyjsmith (who is in pretty good standing with the community) and User:Luthorsteele (who is a blocked vandal). The CSD templates applied to your other articles were absolutely correct, as evidenced by their subsequent deletion. Andy has filed this AfD discussion because, once again, you are adding unsourced promotional to Wikipedia, despite the numerous warnings on your talkpage. Yunshui 雲水 12:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Luthorsteele is a blocked vandal, and was appropriately warned by Andy for gross vandalism before he was blocked. I fail to see the relevance of your assertion. You are wandering into personal attacks on an editor who appropriately nominated what is clearly non-notable and borderline spam for deletion. Acroterion (talk) 13:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:PROMOTION. Creator also has an obvious COI and his only edits are Spam and accusing another user of Vandalism for nominating his articles for deletion. Vrenator ^talk 12:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero indication of wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 13:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not establish notability. Actually it doesn't even attempt to do so. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interface Designer added the comments below mine before I made this comment; I've put mine up here so that it wouldn't get lost. He used multiple subject headers of the two-equals-signs variety; I've reduced all of them to four equals signs so that they wouldn't cause section header problems with the AFD log. Nyttend (talk) 12:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed notes from article creator

Good afternoon, let me add few words in response to your strange accusations and group comments about me and some of my articles.

About the company

Before you put on the deletion it would be not bad to see what you are removing, and have a look in some original sources.

I will not enumerate all, but merely point out three things only:

Rated turn over of the company's World Marketplace last year was $ 1,427,000.000.00.
It owns 4 large global banks.
It operates simultaneously on 84 international markets.

Conclusion: World Marketplace hardly needs advertising in Wikipedia.

In general, people in this system involves a friendly attitude, an optimistic approach and a lot of completely free services ( for example: all money transfers are commission free to the bank or free hosting, free domain name, etc. )

About the article World Marketplace

In principle, it can be removed, if you want to do it. I do not care about that.

Just one thing I would ask you to do: please make removement as soon as possible.

It is very desirable to look at this page now. Since the terrible inscription "This article is being considered for deletion ..." can not decorate such respectable System like Wikipedia.

It's not just my opinion. If you decide to leave this article, by adding a few lines, I think, the World will be very grateful to you.

About me

I wrote a few words about myself. Something will have to be repeated. I'm not a young boy. And Wikipedia is not for money (I have enough money, thank God), and not because I need a career (I've been once working as an editor of a prominent journal, but it's long past time ago. I do not think to move back to this stage).

In fact now I have, unlike many people, free time and I can afford to publish some of my useful life ideas. I think they can bring tangible benefits to mankind in various fields: from micro to macro space, from small to large businesses, from microbiology to medicine. This is one reason why I'm in Wikipedia.

The second reason: I'm more and more attracted by all positive, constructive and, at the same time, disinterested things. In all this lies a gigantic power. At the biggining Wikipedia was also disinterested.

General opinion

I'm just 24 days in Wikipedia. In that short time I have seen here a lot of interesting ideas and met nice people.

I can not say about everyone, but about some patrols can say this: behind the mask of an instantaneous speedy removals of articles with unselfish in words, lies hidden vandalism and as always happens in such cases: someone's serious interests, visible by the naked eye.

People here tend to operate in pairs user (User talk:Andyjsmith) user's administrator who help him (User talk:Nyttend), and sometimes catching up friends (User talk:Yunshui) to solve some of there questions.

It's not a secret that all around and even inside Wikipedia industry is making money, but to the outside observer it looks quite good and free. If a person works for free there are only two choices: he is a complete idiot, or he has enough money to afford it.

With your permission, I can put on the Wikipedia a couple of dozen different sources as well as where you can earn money in Wikipedia and on Wikipedia with whom and how. Although I think this is not interesting, because everybody knows it. I would not want to be like those comrades who misrepresented me and my first articles in the Wikipedia, but I want them to read this lastly. User User:Andyjsmith his administrator User:Nyttend there fried User:Yunshui

All those who destroy, remove, and does not create, support or help people - is causing harm to himself a thousand times bigger than that which they have caused to the person offended or insulted by their destructive actions. This is an energy law. And it works everywhere 100%. The more you'll destroy the worse it will be to you on all levels, that's for sure and certain. One of your friends, by whom I was attacked User:Nyttend, is engaged in Aikido and he knows all these laws.

So he did the right thing to resolve the conflict immediately. He is a very good person I think.

An interesting point: if a man or a destroyer in your case the vandal (this is the one who destroys without thinking about the consequences and doing it without any warning) - if the vandal will learn over time to reflect negative energy attacks, destroying all his life (health, life, strength, brains, and so etc.), it is completely unknown why all negative energy somehow spreads to his relatives.

A very strange fact. A sad example: physicians surgeons. Look at them and their families. 90% of unhappy people - although they do seem quite good things. My advice: until you have at least some chance to get away from vandal way - get out and start helping people, do not try to kill them!

Have a nice day! And good luck! Interface Designer (talk) 12:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC) Interface Designer[reply]

Comments by other people

Delete no evidence indication of wp:notability present in article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable company and software; bluster and inappropriate accusations do not make the subject meet inclusion guidelines. Acroterion (talk) 13:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability, but we have evidence that this user is spamming. Please note that the content has been saved to User:Interface Designer/drufts/World Marketplace. Nyttend (talk) 14:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Em.. I can't remember - isn't the usual process to MFD attempts to do an end-run around the AFD process? --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think so, but let's wait until this one concludes: that way, we'll be able to argue that it's an attempt to preserve deleted content. Nyttend (talk) 14:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good thing we didn't do start an MFD; that page, along with two others in his userspace, have been deleted as spam, since he's now indef blocked for spamming. Nyttend (talk) 22:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Welfare State ‖ 16:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, author of isbn:9783843373272 "is course leader for Fashion Studies at the Arts Institute, Bournemouth, U.K. He has worked as a fashion designer for labels such as Jaeger and Burberry and is engaged in research into sustainable design", so his book could not be considered as a reliable source for software framework, Bezik (talk) 08:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, zero indication of notability, no WP:RS found. The soapboxing at this AfD was good for a couple of lulz though. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 16:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kameelion (musician)

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

Not notable . Fails Notability guidelines. Previously deleted at AFD and no new notability established. Refs are blogosphere, dead-links or self promotion Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This one is really stretching. Lists "spotted on YouTube" as news about the artist. North8000 (talk) 13:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Signed to a major label and has singles released. (talk) 19:84, 28 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.217.15.201 (talk) [reply]
Delete Only go by what he has done and not what he might do. So, he hasn't done a thing to be notable as of yet. Even if he releases a couple of singles, that still doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO. Bgwhite (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete isn't even famous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.61.113 (talk) 20:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 08:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glossaries of Christian and Jewish terms

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

Not a Disambiguation, not the same title, page not needed Saladacaesar (talk) 11:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. And, this page just ""disambiguates" between two terms/lists which IT combined. Makes no sense for this to exist. North8000 (talk) 13:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a proper disambiguation page. Carrite (talk) 15:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I could see a use for it if it was a glossary of Christian and Jewish terms that are used by both but have different meanings. Ravendrop 23:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't see how this serves a valid disambiguation purpose or any other valid purposes. I could see an index page being used like this (e.g. "List of ___" being simply a link to two different pages if the original list had to be split into two pieces), but even if space weren't an issue, we wouldn't combine the lists of Jewish and Christian terms. Nyttend (talk) 13:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 16:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain Underground District Music Group

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

Contested PROD. Concern was "non-notable record label". Also quite a COI. Eeekster (talk) 22:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In addition to being spam, there is also no coverage whatsoever for this record label established in 2011. -- Whpq (talk) 16:18, 24 October 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, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like an artist (Young Perry) who created their own "label" which has only "released" his songs. "Release" seems to mean sending them to itunes. Plus the "references" are as follows:

Their website "under construction"
Their facebook page
Page on Young Perry's web site
Log in screen for the web service which Young Perry's web site uses.
Page on Young Perry's web site
itunes sales page for some of Young Perry's music
itunes sales page for some of Young Perry's music
Young Perry's web site

North8000 (talk) 13:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per North8000. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Azeztulite

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

Neologism/pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo that doesn't appear to have any actual sources to support the claims it makes. —Ryulong (竜龙) 10:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also stubbifying doesn't help it at all.—Ryulong (竜龙) 10:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and possibly merge whatever useful information was in there.--Atlan (talk) 12:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with enormous regret. There are print sources discussing it in the field of alternative medicine, such as Stones of the New Consciousness, 101 Power Crystals and The Encyclopedia of Crystals. This sort of nonsense doesn't belong in the Quartz article, so an article devoted to Azeztulite is, unfortunately, necessary. Yunshui 雲水 13:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC) *cringing in horror at his own !vote*[reply]
- You may not have to have your wikigland shrivel away due to the fact that all of those publications are new age bullshit books that couldn't possibly be reliable sources. :P—Ryulong (竜龙) 18:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are references to this stuff in books published by more reputable publishers - Hachette and David & Charles have both cashed in on the hippy dollar - but nothing I'd call in-depth. I'm quite glad to see this AfD going against me... Yunshui 雲水 20:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge The fact that snake oil people gave quartz this different name can be covered (as such) in two sentences in the Quartz article. Good little piece of info (snake oil warning) that is not enough for an article. North8000 (talk) 14:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as it stands, the article is far too mired in non-neutral wording, even as a stub. It would require a complete rewrite, and sufficient new material to move it out of the "stub" stage, before it would meet WP:GNG. Had I come across this article in a WP:CVU or WP:NPP sweep, I probably would have put it up for speedy deletion as an attack page. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge per North8000 8.14.165.3 (talk) 16:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article needs deletion subject only used in crystal healing, metaphysical names for minerals do not belong on Wiki. If they do, there are hundreds more to be added. A major acceptable rewrite was attempted by (BLACKcrow7) but was deleted and it comes back to the UNWiki article again. In light of the difficulty to fix this article or add anything besides the POV of a commercial website advertising mineral dealers, there is no rewrite possible. Zoomedia9 (talk) 18:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- — Zoomedia9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. —Ryulong (竜龙) 20:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough substance to merge. All attempts to rewrite are reverted to what it is now or close to this scam/con article, non NPOV. Heated Controversy over including other sources, like crystal healing books ( mentioned above by User: Yunshuior,) would be helpful in a sense but even Documented trademark info, history or origin of the name is not "allowed" with blocking of new additions so rewriting this article it is NOT an option. BLACKcrow7 (talk) 19:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- — BLACKcrow7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. —Ryulong (竜龙) 20:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ATTACK page no substance or merit to it. 68.106.218.221 (talk) 22:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- — 68.106.218.221 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. —Ryulong (竜龙) 22:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see this discussion regarding the ivotes by 68.106.218.221 and Zoomedia9 above. Vsmith (talk) 02:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - Of course the POV language needs to be toned down in the process. Carrite (talk) 02:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not much worth merging, but perhaps a redirect to either charmstone or crystal healing. Seems it's simply a commercial term invented to sell milky quartz at inflated prices to the gullible. Not notable by itself and lacking reliable soures. Vsmith (talk) 02:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Quartz or Crystal healing. This made-up name is not a topic, it's an aspect of another topic. Binksternet (talk) 07:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources discuss this in any manner supporting WP:GNG—it is clearly not a notable topic in its own right. While it might be replaced by a redirect, it's hard to see where, and the target should really mention the topic if such a redirect were used. Just mentioning the topic is to give it an undue importance unless someone finds suitable sources to write an article on commonly available products with made-up names that sell for inflated prices. Johnuniq (talk) 07:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Quartz#History. Yes, the topic is not independently notable, but Wikipedia ought to provide some information about this scam as a public service. Right now a Google search for "Azeztulite" provides as the first result the Wikipedia article that warns about the scam, followed by a bunch of faith-healing and forum stuff. Sandstein 07:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 16:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Butcher

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

Contested PROD: the primary author of the article is the subject of the article. The sources listed don't go to establish notability per WP:CREATIVE, but rather hint that he may be notable only as WP:BLP1E (namely, that he won a prize for 'bad paintings'). —Tom Morris (talk) 09:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. His got a fair amount of references, especially for being the Australia worst artist. Ray-Rays 07:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete. I usually lean on the side of inclusionism, but this? You've got to be kidding me. Of the half-dozen references on the page, only one is reliable and secondary (The Herald Sun, predictably enough), and even then, clearly written with tongue firmly in cheek. Most of the others don't even get past "trivial coverage". That's a fail of WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in multiple secondary sources. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Yeti Hunter. That analysis of the sources is dead-on; I'm not finding the coverage we would need to keep this one. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Yeti Hunter. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isha Edwards

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

No evidence of notability, and also rather promotional. Article was proposed for deletion by Bgwhite, with the reason given as "A promotional article with a conflict of interest. No reliable, independent sources WP:SOURCES to back any claims or that I could find." That was contested by the author of the article. The article contains 12 external links, evidently intended as sources to show notability. However, most of them do not give substantial coverage to Edwards, but give something between a brief passing mention of her and a couple of quotes from her. Some of them are merely links to lists that mention things she has written. The couple of links which do say more about her are on sites which are not independent reliable sources. For example, there is a page on upstartsmart.com, which appears to be a promotional site, and describes itself as "a resource for small business owners". I have not found any evidence of the sort of substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent sources that are required to establish notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any references that were about her that were reliable and that wasn't PR. There was a bio at Emory University that stated she was an instructor there. Majority of External links in the article were written by her or were PR interviews. Bgwhite (talk) 22:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG. Purely promotional and likely COI. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:13, 4 November 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. There does appear to be a consensus to keep these, but there's also a number of comments that mention redirecting and merging, apart from the delete votes. Given this and the fact these two probably shouldn't have been bundled together, closing as No Consensus. Black Kite (t) 01:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Occupy Ashland

If you came here because of Occupy Ashland's facebook page, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

WP:NOTNEWS, there is nothing notable about this compared to the hundereds of other "Occupy" protest. If it doesn't have national or at least regional news and only has local news, it isn't notable enough for a page. CTJF83 09:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. North8000 (talk) 14:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No major national media coverage. Ashland has a population of 20,000, Eugene has 156,000; these can barely be called "major cities," even, so there's absolutely no justification for the existence of these articles. A merge to a main "occupy" movement page could be a good idea. /ƒETCH COMMS / 14:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Occupy Eugene, though I am indifferent about Occupy Ashland. I believe the Eugene article could be expanded and I intend to do so when I have the time. --Another Believer _(Talk) 14:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to coverage in multiple reliable sources and ongoing relevance of subject. At worst, we would redirect, but no pressing need to delete. --131.123.123.124 (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both - The cycle is predictable... There is a news event, someone creates a page, someone else nominates the page for deletion on the basis that Wikipedia is Not News. Well, yeah, that's true. The thing is that some of these events are notable in Wikipedia terms, the information from some of them needs to be merged into larger articles, and some of them are not notable at all. The problem is, if things are deleted now the information will be lost, making it unlikely that the "larger compilation pages" will be as good as they might be. Why the rush to delete? There should be none... Keep for now, separate the sheep from the goats at a later date, after the termination of these events.

That said, I'm from Oregon and have a pretty good notion how this should ultimately shake out. Occupy Portland is 100% clearly and obviously notable. There's (another) large Oregonian editorial about it today. That's a free standing article. Occupy Ashland, Occupy Eugene, Occupy Salem, and presumably matter on Occupy Bend and Occupy Corvallis, should it emerge, should be merged into a piece called something like 2011 Occupy Oregon protests. Each of those individual names should be converted to redirects to one piece which coherently ties the story together. That piece isn't ready to write yet. For now: cool the deletionist jets; close as No Consensus and things will fall into place at the appropriate juncture in the not too distant future. Carrite (talk) 15:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Occupy Oregon would be a good idea. I just don't see why these 2 and Occupy Salem are notable in anyway from the hundreds of other protests that receive no national news coverage. It would be ridiculous to have 100s of "Occupy" articles. CTJF83 19:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it ridiculous to have hundreds of Star Trek related articles? I didn't think that was the way WP notability worked, by some arbitrary yardstick of how many articles a topic should have.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a poor comparison. CTJF83 23:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it? Q (Star Trek) has pages full of in-universe content with three references total (one of which is independent of the topic). If that was the protest article that had paragraphs of content with no citations, it would be removed outright. Then the page would be deleted for original research and not being notable. — Moe ε 05:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per GNG and Carrite above. Undoubtedly there will be some restructuring of the 'Occupy' articles at some point, and Carrite makes some good suggestions, but deletion is clearly not the right approach and this is not the right forum to discuss an over-arching restructuring of the many 'Occupy' articles. It is probably also the wrong time for such a restructuring to take place. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They're all "Occupy Wall Street", and we're not the news. Drmies (talk) 18:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both Occupy Ashland and Occupy Eugene - These topics have encyclopedic value, and will into the future. It's premature to delete these articles while occupy events continue to occur, locally, nationally and globally. Also, both topics pass Wikipedia's general notability guideline for topic notability. While Wikipedia is not a newspaper, these topics are suitable for inclusion in a digital encyclopedia, in part due to the lasting, ongoing nature of the Occupy protests, which strongly correlates with the likelihood of enduring notability, and as a reference for these respective topics. Outright deletion of these articles would be overly-hasty and brash in terms of building a comprehensive, digital encyclopedia. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There was an extensive and illustrated Associated Press article on Occupy Ashland on page 2 of my local paper, the Corvallis Gazette-Times today (Oct. 28, 2011). We're 150 miles away or something, this is not local coverage. Carrite (talk) 02:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: instead of deletion/keeping, the real issue is how to best organize the content on all the different OWS protests, which are clearly a notable event. we don't need to be picking off some and not others in a random unthoughtful manner.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 06:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not an unthoughtful manner, I nominated the 2 pages with no national coverage. Anything beyond keep/delete is not for this page, that is for a separate discussion. CTJF83 11:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying your nom was without forethought, not at all. Just that the entire project's coverage scheme of the protests should be, ideally, thoughtfully arrived at as a whole. My !vote, then, is to keep content, but not necessarily in these articles.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Occupy Eugene article Although not all of the Occupy protests are notable, I think this one is. The WP:EVENT guideline says that the notability of an event can usually be determined by whether or not it meets WP:GNG, which it does. There is enough coverage in reliable sources non-affiliated with the protest. The Occupy Eugene article currently has a good start of sources, and based on these ones, the protest is notable. Jsayre64 (talk) 02:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Occupy Ashland had 15 people participating. [42] How many people participated in the other one? Dream Focus 11:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Both topics have national coverage, from the Associated Press (AP) – "Small town version of Occupy Wall Street has its own impact" (Ashland, Oregon) and "Eugene council OKs Occupy park camp until Dec. 15" (Eugene, Oregon). (Note: Refer to the source of the articles, not the publishing newspaper itself; both are AP.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Second one is from the local The Register-Guard CTJF83 15:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Eugene Register-Guard is a major newspaper in the state. Eugene is the second biggest city in the state, I think -- it's really close between Eugene, Salem, and Bend, in any event. In any event, the fact that the coverage is local is neither here nor there, so long as it is substantive, independently published material. Carrite (talk) 02:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP, Eugene is the 2nd largest city in the state... Carrite (talk) 02:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The second source commented about above [43] is published by the Associated Press (AP). Reports from the Register Guard are included in the AP report. However, the statement above that "Second one is from the local The Register-Guard" is entirely false. The article is sourced from the Associated Press. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' National coverage makes it notable. They are officially part of the revolution. Dream Focus 15:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As long as the article appears to be objective and balanced and cites reasonable sources, I think it is important to keep it. Wikipedia is providing a valuable service as a central place to which the public and researchers can go to better understand the similarities and differences of the Occupy phenomenon in different locations. I know of no other place to find this kind of information, with the confidence that both supporters and opponents can edit the text to achieve a balance. DavidMCEddy (talk) 00:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Yet another reason why we need an article for Occupy Eugene and perhaps Occupy Ashland is because Wikipedia just might be the only place on the Internet where readers will be able to find neutral coverage of these protests. Jsayre64 (talk) 02:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - AP national news is clear evidence of notability. --Robbie.lindauer (talk) 17:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Editors first couple of edits as of this message. — Moe ε 23:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an unbiased, clear account of a notable movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunriver1 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Editors first and only edit as of this message. — Moe ε 23:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Extensive references clearly show this is notable. Jfricker (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It has received AP coverage as a town of 20,000. An AP article which focused on the importance of small town occupations and how rural spread of the occupy movement has changed the face of the movement in important ways which go unnoticed by focusing only on large cities. It would be ironic if it was deleted because it is a small town (i.e. its not Portland). — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmeryKWay (talk • contribs) 18:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Editors first and only edit as of this message. — Moe ε 23:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The AP argument is redundant.. The AP covers everything. There is absolutely nothing significant about this page. Oregon has more occupy articles on here then any other state and is near the bottom in terms of population. These movements, other than the Portland one, are not more significant than other movements that don't even have a page. Ashland?? I mean come one seriously?? Next there will be an Occupy Maupin page. This is really unnecessary and only applies to a insignificant amount of Wiki readers. Waste of space. Jakobees (talk) 19:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Near the bottom? Oregon has more population than a dozen states. Just sayin' Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 16:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Occupy Eugene. This article seems to be off to a decent start. I'd say give it a couple months and see where it is. The Occupy Ashland article seem a bit more lacking, but I would mind leaving it for a little while either. Kaldari (talk) 02:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Another nationally-published article, from AP (link to The Oregonians reprint here), for Occupy Ashland:

Associated Press (November 2, 2011)."Occupy roundup: Ashland group votes to cut back; Occupy Seattle march on Chase CEO." The Oregonian.

— Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep: Ashland and Eugene should not have been AFDed together; they have much different circumstances. Eugene should be keep, and another AFD started that is only Ashland Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 16:23, 6 November 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 that this is not worthy of an article, no consensus to redirect. Sandstein 07:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beer rebates

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

Unable to find any coverage of this particular phenomenon in reliable sources. Fails verifiability and notability. Unless significant rationales are offered here, I oppose the creation of of a redirect as there is no significant coverage of the subject in Rebate (marketing), nor ought there to be given the lack of coverage in reliable sources. ^Bongo_matic 07:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I honestly can't think of any real reason to have this redirect to rebate. It's not like there's a redirect for phrases such as "food rebate", so why would there need to be one for "beer rebate"? Anything that's covered in this article is pretty redundant since it's the same thing that's generally covered in rebate but with beer terms added.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
- Even terms such as "merchandise rebate" and "electronics rebate" don't redirect to anything and they're more likely to be searched than "beer rebate" will be. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect It sounds plausible, but there's no indication that that there's anything significant about these rebates, as opposed to any other kind of rebate. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 10:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rebate (marketing). While the blog post is not a reliable source, I think it does indicate that "beer rebate" is a plausible search term. That other possible search terms are not already redirects does not mean this one should not be. (Maybe some of them should exist as well.) LadyofShalott 12:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect & merge to Rebate (marketing). This is one of thousands of rebate types, should not be an article. North8000 (talk) 14:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A couple blog posts don't constitute anything remotely resembling notability and there is no precedent for a limitless number of ("product rebate") redirects to rebate. No sofa rebate, coffee maker rebate, television rebate, stereo rebate, tire rebate, salsa rebate, swimwear rebate, cookie rebate, dog toy rebate, ad infinitum. So this is a straight delete, to my way of thinking. Be advised that I have nothing against either beer or rebates... Carrite (talk) 15:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It sounds like a great offer. However WP can't have an article on every marketing campaign that happens. Also this one might not last too long. Borock (talk) 22:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. LibStar (talk) 02:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Presbyterian Theological Centre

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

fails WP:ORG. no signficant indepth coverage. gnews reveals passing mentions in press [44]. doesn't even get anything in a major Australian news site [45]. all it is is a small theological that gives out degrees in divinity, not a wide range of degrees like a major academic institution. LibStar (talk) 06:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. I don't recall ever seeing an accredited university nominated before. Certainly, WP:UNIGUIDE, although an essay, says that all colleges are notable. (Indeed, high schools are usually regarded as being notable.) But a glance at Google Books shows that this is a very poor nomination. St Anselm (talk) 08:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

gbooks contains almost all passing mentions like person X attended the centre. Not significant in-depth coverage. LibStar (talk) 09:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. This is in accredited institution in a country where accreditation is not given lightly; it offers recognised bachelor's and master's degrees. Lots of Google Books references, as StAnselm points out. -- 202.124.73.114 (talk) 08:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. Degree-awarding body. Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

there are many small private or religious colleges worldwide that award degrees, that in itself does not guarantee notability. LibStar (talk) 09:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, it has generally been held that it does. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please give examples. LibStar (talk) 12:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I really can't be bothered to go back through old AfDs to find examples of something that should be obvious. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Universities seem notable to me. I assume if you poked around Trove, sources would show it meets GNG. --LauraHale (talk) 09:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it's not a university. Trove shows mainly passing mentions and primary sources. LibStar (talk) 09:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 202.124.73.114 (talk) 08:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as a significant religious institution. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

not significant, fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 11:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Universities are inherently notable. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 10:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

not a university, not even listed on the official Australian government website for universities. http://www.studyinaustralia.gov.au/en/Courses/Universities LibStar (talk) 11:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like I posted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Smith (minister), it is clearly a university. I'll quote myself here for the benefit of those not watching the other page. "It's a seminary. It grants post-high-school degrees. That makes it a university. I mean, it even grants a doctorate, for crying out loud!" --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 11:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The appropriate official Australian government website link would be here. -- 202.124.74.103 (talk) 11:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which says it's a theological college in the broad category of "university/higher education" but not precisely a university. 12:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by LibStar (talk • contribs)

It offers government-accredited higher degrees, including doctorates. That's university-level. It is audited by the Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA). -- 202.124.72.198 (talk) 13:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Can't see why this was nominated. North8000 (talk) 14:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG, I really dont see why this was nominated there are a lot of Presbyterians out there whom might find this article usefull. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CodingTeam

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

No third-party verification of importance. Does not appear to meet notability guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

replied on the talk page of this article, I added sources on the article... If you want to remove my article, deplace to my user profile /CodingTeam — Neustradamus (✉) 11:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe what Neustradamus is requesting is that if the consensus is to delete he would prefer to move it to a sub-page in his name space. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There are some references cited that appear to be from professional web publications, but they all seem to date from CodingTeam's launch four years ago, or to be cursory directory-type listings. I don't see any evidence that this software has gotten significant usage. Yaron K. (talk) 23:38, 17 October 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, 21 October 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:49, 28 October 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 List of All My Children characters. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Cortlandt

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

Character in not notable suggest merge to List of All My Children miscellaneous characters or delete Wlmg (talk) 02:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:39, 14 October 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) 00:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia should not be used as substitutes for websites that dedicate to soap operas, especially defunct official sites from ABC.com. The article's subject does not meet WP:N; there were no news coverages of this fictional character outside soap-opera periodicals. I see articles of actors in soap-opera periodicals, but I believe: this character may have been mentioned in recaps, and recaps, even if helpful, are irrelevant to this character's notability. ~~--Gh87 (talk) 21:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)~~ "List of All My Children miscellaneous characters" is gone per WP:G12; redirecting to List of All My Children characters, a list that describes just names and very short abstracts, is possible but not recommended until history logs are gone. --Gh87 (talk) 21:49, 22 October 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – to List of All My Children miscellaneous characters. Zero Google Scholar and News hits. One hit here [46] in Google books. Isn't meeting WP:GNG. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:52, 29 October 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. Article has been expanded and the references have been improved - consensus to Keep (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Smalltalk

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

PROD was removed but rationale didn't address the issue: as far as I can tell, this is a non-notable application. There are no reliable independent references attesting to it, which isn't surprising given how new it is. Drmies (talk) 18:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't meet WP:NSOFT criteria. I've not found any reliable sources on a Google search and "unreliable" sources seem to focus on the release announcement (WP:ROUTINE). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 11:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - neet to also search under former name: JTalk. This appears to help establish notability. --Kvng (talk) 14:15, 18 October 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article has incorporated the independent InfoQ article by Werner Schuster, and text has been added putting the project in greater context. This project is receiving a great deal of attention in the Smalltalk developer community, and is the most actively worked on implementation of Smalltalk in the web browser. As such it is likely to be influential in significant ways as it is worked out how to develop web applications using Smalltalk on both the server and on the client browser in a single web application framework. If the article is deleted, it will undoubtedly be recreated.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete - the short InfoQ article is only a single source and JTalk isn't the main topic of it, so is neither significant coverage nor multiple sources as expected for general notability.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 10:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a derivative of the Amber language developed by Amber GMBH. Third-party references can be found, here is a hasty, short and far-from complexe list that should be added to the article to rescue it. leave this to the author:

* [47]

* [48]

* [49]

--GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 09:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- comment none of those references say anything about the topic, not least as it is only a few months old while they were written many years ago.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Agreed. The three blind links are to ancient publications, that have no relation to the particular topic at hand. Two long-ago publications are about Smalltalk generally, and the link to "Amber Language" is derived from ML (programming language), not related to Smalltalk, or Amber Smalltalk. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think WP:GNG is just met here, and as mentioned more citations can be easily found. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:GNG is met here, per – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) and more information and inline citations are being added. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do desire to keep the article, as indicated further above. In seeking out additional "journal-like" references, I did a search on google, using quotations to require pages that have all three terms "amber", "smalltalk" and "jtalk", there were about 1900 results, but after inspecting the search -page results for the first 200 items, those results appear likely to all be blog postings (I note, some by respected members of the Smalltalk programming language community), or mail-list traffic and twitter mentions. Besides the InfoQ item, at this moment in time, there appear not likely to be found additional journal-like sources of a published or edited nature that seem to be desired. I have to wonder how many open-source programming projects would disappear from Wikipedia under the potential or apparent standard under discussion. In any case, should the article fail to survive, I predict that in six months time, there will be quite a few more 3rd-party sources.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 04:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I searched for its original name of jtalk. [50] seems like a reliable source with significant coverage. The Google translation is [51] Most coverage of this seems to be in other languages. Harder to sort through. Dream Focus 12:16, 29 October 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. While systematic bias is always a concern, as was pointed out this is not the primary orchestra in Hong Kong. While that is not a reason for deletion, it does provide a point of comparison in assessing how reasonable it is to expect proper sourcing. The consensus here is that this organization did not meet that standard, no prejudice to undeletion/recreation if proper sourcing appears. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong North Philharmonic Orchestra

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Sp33dyphil © • © 07:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Resources are relatively scarce, also per Sp33dyphil. hmssolent\Let's convene 07:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 13 October 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 - T P 14:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Orchestras in cities of this size are sometimes notable, as demonstrated by newspaper and magazine articles, tours, and recordings, especially if they are the number one orchestra of the city. Was this the most prominent orchestra, or an also-ran? Has anyone checked the newspaper archives of the host city, the region, and the country in the native language? Notability is not limited to coverage in English. Edison (talk) 19:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - As noted, cities of this size tend to have notable orchestras, and a search for Chinese-language sources should be done before deletion is considered, as it is a near cinch to turn up reliable sources. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't believe this is the leading orchestra of Hong Kong. See Hong Kong Philharmonic Orchestra for comparison. If the HKNPO is notable, more evidence of that will have to be provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete this has been listed for a while and no one has come up with Chinese sources. I'm not thinking that WP:MUSTBESOURCES is a reason to keep. Nothing in gnews and you would expect some coverage in English given English is an official language of Hong Kong. LibStar (talk) 13:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent sources have been provided. Of course, this deletion should be without prejudice to re-creation if sources are found later. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Tim Tebow. In shortened form. Sandstein 07:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tebowing

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

WP:NN neologism with ~~purely local and~~ temporary notoriety. Failed prod when sole author objected Toddst1 (talk) 05:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find no international sources though there is some mention on GNews archives in uncritical articles about Tim Tebow. There may be grounds to merge some of the information on his popularity with fans to that article. --Fæ (talk) 05:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found these: [52], [53], [54], [55] . 11coolguy12 (talk) 09:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You will note, these are all dated October 27th 2011 and all sources are USA specific, probably a slow news day. Please see WP:RECENTISM and WP:BIAS; if national newspapers are reporting it as an "internet phenomenon" in a week's time there may be an argument for impact on the historic record. --Fæ (talk) 09:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is an excellent point. However, please note that I did not vote for a keep, I was simply pointing out the status of the availability of independent published sources. 11coolguy12 (talk) 10:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Non Notable Neologism. Tebow is the flavor of the hour in the NFL. He didn't invent demonstrative public praying during NFL games (it has been around for decades) nor is that sort of exhibitionistic behavior regarded as "Tebowing" to a wide public. Urban Dictionary is thattaway ------> Carrite (talk) 15:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a sentence or three to Tim Tebow. I'm seeing a bunch of stuff about this meme right now in legitimate sports media. However, I agree that it may be transient, and I don't see the need for a separate article, especially since there is an obviously better place to put a few sentences of reliably sourced information about the meme/fad/whatever. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with suggestion of merging this into the Tim Tebow article proper. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Tim Tebow. Suitable for a paragraph/section in the bio; the fad has gotten a good bit of media attention (NYT; Wash Post & Wash Po again; AP; Guardian) but not enough to warrant its own article. Neutrality^talk 04:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not an internet craze. --Cox wasan (talk) 08:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: It most definitely is an internet craze. Articles from ESPN, [56], Fox Sports [57], Time [58], USA Today [59], and The Bleacher Report [60] all confirm this. It has received plenty of mainstream media coverage. I don't believe it merits its own article at this time, but the content should definitely be merged into the Tim Tebow article. Cyrus Andiron 14:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect - Stick it in that "In the media" section, but more than 2 sentences would give undue weight to this single storyline. I've started to see sources which move towards the threshold of notability per WP:NEO, but as that guideline suggests, it's still way too early for this article. LoveUxoxo (talk) 10:35, 4 November 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 List_of_Dungeons_&_Dragons_4th_edition_monsters#WTC_21720_-_Monster_Manual_(2008). There is no clear consensus as to what content should be merged, so I'll leave that to the contributors of the articles to decide, which can be done from the history of the article. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Banshrae

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

No evidence of notability, no secondary sources. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as significant creature in the 4th edition Monster Manual, or merge and redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 14:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer a merge and redirect approach here, as the amount of information presented is small, and an article can be reconsituted if additional information becomes available. However, the suggested target list does not provide for a great deal of information to be retained. Perhaps it needs to be made into something more intermediate. bd2412 T 16:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per convincing argument by bd2412 T. Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Davewild (talk) 16:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Yard Went On Forever

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

there is not any information regarding the chart. not meet notability criteria Coekon (talk) 05:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable artist, deletion brings no benefit to the encyclopedia's coverage of late-60s pop music, sufficient coverage of this record can be found at GBooks[61] and GNews[62], such as [63][64][65][66] --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject does in fact meet the criteria for notability. If the above links are not sufficient, I can produce more. In addition to being an innovative pop album from the late sixties, it reflects an important phase in the early career of songwriter Jimmy Webb, who wrote the songs for the album. He also produced and arranged the material. I'm planning to expand the article. Rjaklitsch (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Keep Article should either get material and references added, or be condensed and merged into the artist's article. North8000 (talk) 14:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per arguments of North8000 and Rjaklitsch. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it's a brilliant album! Sorry, I mean it's a notable work by two notable artists. And it's a very new article which could be developed. I'd be quite happy to do some work on this.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Someone left an AFD out in the rain . . . . Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources added to article; the album also peaked at number 27 on the Billboard 200 chart. Taking everything into account, subject meets WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 03:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Erick Lozada

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

Non-notable (according to Wikipedia's definition of the term) writer who was heavily involved in creation of the article and has resurrected it after previous deletions. Users and IP's editing this article have also inserted links to this entry into other entries (such as Notable People from Quezon). Also appears that several users and IPs are socks for the author, which is the subject of the entry. ɳorɑfʈ^Talk! 02:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the merits. The sources indicated either don't refer to the subject at all or confirm facts about the subject - he is a blogger, for example - but none of them actually offer the kind of coverage we require to show notability. There are no sources offered, nor can I find any, that actually talk about the subject himself. This may be a case where the Usual Caveats apply, as the subject seems to be early in his career; if he publishes notable work, or if he finds himself covered in reliable sources as required by WP:GNG, then an article may become appropriate. But not yet. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references given are either not independent, or not significant reliable sources, or do not actually mention the subject. While you are at it I would recommend you also nominate for deletion the article about his blog, Pinoy Gossip Boy, for the same reasons. --MelanieN (talk) 23:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K-1 Japan '98 Kamikaze

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/K-1 Japan '98 Kamikaze

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

also nominating:

another useless series of non notable qualifying results that fail WP:SPORTSEVENT. no long term notability 13 years later. LibStar (talk) 05:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All. No GNews hits. No worthwhile WP:RS Ghits. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSEVENT. The "also nominated" events are all unnecessarily specific redirects to List of K-1 events, where they are not listed at all. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 17:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All Delete article as being not notable per WP:GNG and delete the redirects as not being useful. --Odie5533 (talk) 08:04, 21 October 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Procedurally relisted, as none of the "also nominating" articles had been tagged for AfD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: All but one of the "also nominating" articles had been redirected to List of K-1 events. So I've struck them from the above, leaving the one that wasn't. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've realised that the redirected articles were blanked and redirected out of process. I will be restoring, tagging, and relisting this AfD procedurally in just a moment. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:03, 28 October 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - WP:GNG, WP:SPORTSEVENT , fail, fail. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to K-1 Grand Prix '98 Final Round, the top K-1 event for that year. Please note that the current redirects were all improperly done by a single K-1 fan. The Steve 01:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Notability not established under the GNG. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominator withdrew nomination, no delete !votes. Merging/redirecting can be done through non-AfD processes. Also, Please try not to nominate an article for deletion two minutes after creation. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor of Fair Lawn, New Jersey

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

Non-notable list of politicians containing incomplete and and unsourced information. Smartyllama (talk) 02:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How are they exactly non notable if they are mayors? You are confusing the rules for biographies with the rules for lists. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - One would like to see a better effort, but that's not grounds for deletion. Potentially useful list. Carrite (talk) 02:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Note I made this proposal when the list only had two mayors on it. I wasn't sure if those were the only mayors Fair Lawn has had or not. Seeing now as it is not, I will retract my original Proposition. Does this mean this gets closed? If so, I don't know how to do it. 02:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Whoops That was me Smartyllama (talk) 02:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Fair Lawn, New Jersey. it's essentially a list and could be easily put in town article. LibStar (talk) 02:50, 28 October 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. Bizzarely, the "main" article here was also listed in another AfD and already deleted... The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K-1 Revenge Oceania

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

also nominating:

Another useless series of qualifying results that do not meet WP:SPORTSEVENT. LibStar (talk) 14:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC) LibStar (talk) 14:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 15 October 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, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Two of the "also nominating" articles were also listed at another AfD; I have removed them from here. The other two (the ones that remain) were untagged, and were blanked and redirected. I have reverted the blanking/redirecting, tagged them, and will be procedurally relisting this AfD in just a moment. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:01, 28 October 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Routine sports coverage of events fail WP:SPORTSEVENT and lack independent sources. Papaursa (talk) 23:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all These articles are just routine sports coverage of events that lack independent sources and don't show notability. Astudent0 (talk) 18:09, 2 November 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 as a hoax. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lisbon bid for the 2020 Summer Olympics

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

There is no Lisbon bid for the 2020 Olympics. They talked about it, but missed the September 1st declaration date set by the IOC (confirmed here). The only ref on this page is a blog that quotes a 2005 news article that simply says Lisbon was exploring a bid for either 2016 or 2020. This is borderline a speedy for a hoax (note the claim of a 9million seat main stadium), but bringing here to be on the safe side. Finally, the fact that Lisbon explored the possibility of a bid is already mentioned on the 2020 Summer Olympics page and a redirect from this title to that page would be misleading as Lisbon did not submit a bid. Ravendrop 01:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and then redirect to 2020 Summer Olympics#Bids which did not go to application. There was no Lisbon bid, and the purported bid described in this article purports to have been launched more than a month after the deadline to submit a bid. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there was no bid, why is there an article about a bid? And Adoil Descended (talk) 11:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a hoax. This wouldn't be the case if it was an old article, but the fact that it was recently created shows that it is at best wishful thinking. St Anselm (talk) 01:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

speedy deleted, stadium seating 9500000- people, I don't think so. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:19, 29 October 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 Ottawa-Carleton District School Board. I have redirected to Ottawa-Carleton District School Board as the only target specifically mentioned, but anyone can change the redirect if consensus favours a different article. Davewild (talk) 17:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elmdale Public School

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

Elementary school that has no claim to notability, only ref is an old article about how they are getting new windows. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per long-established precedent that elementary schools are not intrinsically notable Mangoe (talk) 01:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per standard practice for non-notable elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 02:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to to locality as per long standing precedent for primary schools. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Ottawa-Carleton District School Board, to which this school belongs. The precedent in Canada is to redirect non-notable schools to their respective School Board article. PK T(alk) 20:06, 29 October 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 ITT Corporation. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ITT Avionics

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

~~Delete~~ Redirect, nothing to merge This sub-organization does not have "significant independent coverage". The current sources are either local newspaper articles ("attention solely from local media...is not an indication of notability" (WP:CORP)), and the NY Times article doe not discuss the company but rather one facility, and falls under "notices of facility openings or closings".

Concerning other hits on Google News, they are almost all mentions of contracts awarded to this particular division of ITT Corporation, and they do not establish a basis of notability separate from that of the parent company. See "Local units of larger organizations".

Ohspite (talk) 21:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

After reading the points below I think that it would be good to redirect to ITT Corporation (or maybe Exelis when that page is made), but I have the same doubts about merging any content. What content currently exists on this page is routine business news. If the parent article included an organization section (maybe something like Aerospace_Corporation#Organization) it could be included as a former division, but that would require a another level of depth in the organization tree to include a division without notable products or history. Ohspite (talk) 05:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 21 October 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Keep. ITT avionics has plenty of New York Times, Sun , etc. third-party coverage. I leave it to the author to incorporate the links I provide here to the article.

* [67]

* [68]

* [69]

* [70]

* [71]

* [72]

* [73]

* [74]

Do not confuse your own lack of knowledge on a topic with non notability at large. Cheers --GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 09:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You simply have to stop making comments like this. It is uncalled for, inappropriate, and undermines your arguments. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge/Redirect to ITT Corporation. The sources GPF supplies above are, in no particular order, press releases, photo captions, a mention in a wedding announcement (seriously?), and a very brief 1993 paragraph in the NYT about layoffs. If anyone finds more substantial coverage not sourced directly from the company, or not incidental in nature, then sure, keep, but until such time, no. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reliability in sources. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones? I'm curious. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you are doing is mocking the details to discredit the whole. This is but an attempt to reinforce a Confirmation bias. You asked for it, so I added a list of reliable notable third-party sources. Cheers --GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 10:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Politely asking someone to support their argument does not constitute mockery or an informal fallacy. Labeling it as such in order to dismiss the question, however, does. Ohspite (talk) 05:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I won't feed you. over and out --GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 13:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per the actual evaluation of the sources by ginsengbomb, as opposed to a blind faith "there are sources" Yaksar (let's chat) 23:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to ITT Corporation. The Steve 01:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Zounds. Duh. Obvious. Thank you. Modifying vote. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage has been found and presented that they got a $24.9 million contract from the US military for a project, plus other activities of the company. Dream Focus 02:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to this, please note that that appears to be a picked up press release. The source is listed as "ITT Industries," and there is an "About ITT Industries" section. Additionally -- and this is perhaps the most important point -- the press release is essentially about ITT Industries. It mentions that their "Avionics Division" will perform the contract.

Regarding "other activities of the company," there are definitely mentions of other activities in some of the other sourcing above, which is why I think anything verifiable should be merged to the article on their parent company, ITT Corporation. I do note that the Bergen Record may have devoted a full article to a contract they received in 1991.

I'm not at all sure why we need a separate article on one division of a company, particularly given what is frankly pretty weak coverage. The division currently doesn't get a single mention in the article on the parent corporation -- which is a flaw of the parent corporation article that I suggest addressing via a merge and redirect. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 14:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to ITT Corporation. A few incidental references don't warrant an article. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Notability is a red herring; in this case the most logical place to cover a division about the corporation is in the article about the corporation; the article is not so large that it needs to be spun out at this time. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Brooklynne Kidd

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

Entertainer that doesn't meet our notability criteria in WP:GNG or WP:ENT. I declined a speedy because this article isnt promotional and I declined a BLPProd because it has a source. v/r - T P 01:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Monterey Bay (talk) 02:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only source is IMDB which is not considered reliable per Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites#User-submitted contents. memphisto 09:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The IMDb page apparently is about somebody else, or at least it makes no reference to the subject's name. The other links in the article tend to either be broken, non-reliable, or don't mention the subject. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failure of WP:ENT and WP:GNG. Search problems hampered by this actresses's use of multiple AKAs, as apparently the Alicia Kenney IMDB link appears a stagename for the article's other AKA "Alicia Lee Leo".[75] Lacking a reliable sources that links them all together, we have a major BLP problem that fails WP:V, no matter what names this youthful porn model/actress wishes to use. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

British Columbia Public School Employers' Association

AfDs for this article:

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

Organization survived deletion before, but not, in my opinion, for the right reasons--claims of notability were made but not proven. A couple of mentions in various sources do not add up to notability. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 21 October 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 6 gnews hits in 17 years of existence and most of those passing mention, says it all. I'm sure the inclusionists will say that there is coverage in Hindi or Urdu that isn't covered in gnews. LibStar (talk) 07:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Austerman

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

Singer-Songwriter. No reliable sources in the article or that could be found. Music is released on Sandcastle Music, which Mr Austerman and his wife own. Article states his biggest hit is, "Solitary Rose", which is mostly a blank on google. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Bgwhite (talk) 05:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 05:59, 14 October 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) 00:09, 21 October 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could find no coverage in independent sources. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:MUSICBIO. Monterey Bay (talk) 02:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find significant coverage for this musician in reliable sources; appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow ^Talk 03:24, 28 October 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. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

E · WORLD 83Tower

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

One line stub, with no evidence of notability. Buildings do not have a presumption of notability like human settlements. I could not find any discussion in news or scholar sources. The sister article on ko.wikipedia, though longer, also has no references. Article was prodded, but prod removed by creator. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:31, 14 October 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) 00:08, 21 October 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:53, 28 October 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/redirect. Consensus is to keep the main article and the 2 articles on the main draws, while redirecting the Qualifying articles to the main draw articles where the articles have already been merged. Davewild (talk) 17:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1999 Toray Pan Pacific Open

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

I could not find significant coverage of these in reliable sources. Delete per WP:GNG. Author of the pages contested the WP:PROD.

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Strong Keep: Firstly, I am not the author of the main section, I am merely the author of some of the side articles and the person who made the other articles more up to date and detailed. Secondly, I have made my views on this deletion proposal loud and clear in the discussion page. I could paste it here if that would make you feel better, but until I can actually get a reason for deletion that has a bit more common sense, there's little more I can say on the matter. Kapitan110295 (talk) 12:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I could not find any reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the Toray Pan Pacific Open. If you have such sources, please share them. Otherwise these articles fail to pass the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia. --Odie5533 (talk) 12:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I have said that the reason why you haven't been able to find any significant coverage in reliable source is because that the tournament took place in 1999. However, just because the tournament isn't covered significantly in reliable source doesn't mean it's any the less notable. Just take a look at WP:NTENNIS. It states quite clearly there that tennis figures are presumed notable if they have competed in a WTA tournament. The Toray Pan Pacific Open is one of the most prestiguous WTA touraments. Now, forgive me for using common sense, but I believe that if a player who has partaken in this tournament is presumed notable, doesn't that mean that the tournament itself is notable? Doesn't that make it as notable as the 2011 Toray Pan Pacific Open? I understand that there is a twelve-year gap between the two touraments, but that certainly doesn't mean that one is more notable than the other. Kapitan110295 (talk) 06:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A case should be made for each article as well. Are the Doubles Qualifying rounds notable? I think not. And I could not find any reliable sources for the tournament itself either. --Odie5533 (talk) 07:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't believe the tournament is notable? Here is some new coverage of it, and here is some more. The latter of which states quite clearly that "it is Radwańska's most significant win". This fact of a former and current Top 10 player, I think, does give the tournament quite a bit of notability. As for the Doubles Qualifying not being notable, may I ask why? Is it because they have a different scoring system? Or is it because they aren't used anymore? I understand doubles does have a lot less coverage of singles, but once again the Pan Pacific Open is a major tournament, and every section of it is significant in the WTA Tour. We have singles qualifying articles being created in this year's WTA and ATP Tours, and no one has contested them, so either there has been a major oversight on Wikipedia's tennis editors, or they are considered to be of significant notability. Kapitan110295 (talk) 07:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The two articles you linked to show me that the tournament should be mentioned on Radwanska's article and don't support the tournament itself. I singled out the "Doubles" because it is likely the least notable. I can't speak about the current WTA Tour articles, I have only looked up the ones for 1999. --Odie5533 (talk) 07:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE USE COMMON SENSE! If the tournament wasn't notable, then it would not have been mentioned at all, whether the article was more about the player or not! And I think you should look up the current WTA articles, since as I have said many times, time difference does nothing to notability other than making sources harder to find. Kapitan110295 (talk) 08:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it necessitates having 5 articles about an otherwise non-notable tournament just because a notable player participated in them. --Odie5533 01:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

You are indicating further and further that you know very little about tennis, and sports in general. I must say that the fact that you nominated a tennis article for deleting without the knowledge does frustrate me. Forgive me if this is rude, but you must see how frustrated I am getting, particuarly with all the work I have done with the tennis articles.

Now, to make my point a little clearer, I would like to say that if Radwańska won an ITF tournament, the ABC would probably not care. However, because she won a NOTABLE tournament, she got mentioned in the ABC. You should also take note that this tournament helped her gain entry to the WTA Tour Championships and the Top 10. Kapitan110295 (talk) 08:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Where do I, the original author of this article and of the singles and doubles articles as well, begin? The reason why this tournament - as well as any others in tennis - are not found in verifiable sources is because, as a rule of thumb, they are not well known. Basic information on modern tournaments can be found on the ATP and WTA websites - look them up - and though detailed histories of tournaments are not available on the open market - there are only a couple of general sources around which cover this sort of area - we do know about older tournaments through the main verifiable source of information for articles such as this one and some of the others you have nominated. This is the main verifiable source used for these articles, and it is mentioned briefly on this webpage about the main verifiable successor to it, The ITF Year.

In further, keep in mind that golf is similar in this regard, the only difference being that no-one has ever written an article about a certain year of a golf tournament, and also that it is very difficult to find detailed books on tennis history, both because they are expensive and because the sort of detail (seemingly) required is rarely seen in them. Totalinarian (talk) 15:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You just made a strong argument that the articles fail WP:GNG. Normally you would preface such an argument with the word "Delete" instead of "Strong Keep". You stated,

"they are not well known" "it is mentioned briefly on [...]" "the sort of detail (seemingly) required is rarely seen in [books]"

These are all arguments for deleting the articles per WP:GNG. What about your argument do you think is for keeping the article? --Odie5533 01:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Totalinarian. This kind of event is often notable, but if coverage is nonexistent, coverage is nonexistent. Nyttend (talk) 00:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~Strong Keep — You know there is a system for mergers instead of deletion. If its factual and not well known (not well known does not equate non notable.) it should be included in wikipedia, however it seems that until it has enough information for its own article it along with the other articles should be merged with Toray Pan Pacific Open Tennis Tournament. Pulmonological (talk) 04:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I should have reviewed all of the articles before spouting off changed to straight keep. Pulmonological (talk) 04:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even moreso; the entire category seems well placed and notable. Category:Pan Pacific Open Pulmonological (talk) 04:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain why you believe the Doubles Qualifying round of the 1999 Toray Pan Pacific Open is notable enough to warrant an article on wikipedia? And if possible, relate it to established consensus such as WP:GNG? --Odie5533 15:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

As (seemingly) suggested by my previous post, if Odie feels this article should be deleted, then they should go ahead. But they should keep in mind that there are many, many articles which would be considered a breach of WP:GNG if it was strictly upheld - including, for starters, other tennis-related articles, but (probably) including others in other categories - but are retained because it would take a long time to pursue every article that failed GNG. Does Odie agree that this sort of problem can occur elsewhere, but nothing has been done about it yet? Totalinarian (talk) 13:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In further, it was inevitable that this argument for deleting pages of this sort would eventually appear, but if it must be so, it must be so. Totalinarian (talk) 13:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I definitely agree 100% that the problem occurs elsewhere. From sports, video games, companies, films, products, etc. There are a large number of articles in all sections of Wikipedia that are not notable by any standard we have (such as the GNG). By the standard of the GNG, these articles should all be deleted unless special circumstances can be shown. The only reason I have singled out this tennis tournament is because I am only one person and can't look through everything out there. I don't think the Doubles Qualifying round of a tennis tournament held in 1999 meets any standards for notability and is not a special circumstance. --Odie5533 15:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Clear Keep Considering they have all the preceding and successing years, deletion of the 1999 one would leave a confusing gap, I vote keep. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So your argument is that if all the other pokemon have an article, then these pokemon should too? Sorry, I meant tennis qualifying rounds, not pokemon. --Odie5533 15:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep 1999 Toray Pan Pacific Open at least. Has anyone on either side of this discussion checked Google News archives from the period for articles on the tournament? I have, and I've found quite a bit of coverage. We have articles on the final, semifinals, quarterfinals, and a little on the second round. I'm not sure how many articles we need to have on one tournament, but it seems clear to me that there's enough coverage to justify the main 1999 tournament article. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - you have to be kidding right? This was a million dollar tournament played by the highest ranking women in the world. It is absolutely notable by our own tennis notability rules. Even the qualifying is notable in this event. Tier 1... right below the grand slam tournaments in prestige. This is open and shut. There is a tennis project task-force assigned to creating yearly tournament pages and their draws. However, as has been shown in past articles, the qualifying draws by themselves are not notable. They should be retained but placed on the same pages as the main draws. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added the qualifiers to the main pages. I of course did not ask for a deletion of the qualifier pages because they are under afd determination. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 1999 Toray Pan Pacific Open, merge and redirect the others to that. The Steve 01:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

InTurn

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

No notability is established, the whole article resembles a fansite of the soap opera As the World Turns more than of InTurn, no citations are present, including third-party sources, and there is still room for improvement. Merging is out of the question as it is already mentioned in the article of a soap opera; the context discusses the Internet reality show for contest to be an actor of the then-running As the World Turns. ~~--Gh87 (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)~~ I did my best to search this Internet series online. However, no news have covered it for lifetime. Therefore, to prevent future unreasonable re-creations, I support delete. --Gh87 (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of WPGNG.--Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:11, 20 October 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 - T P 14:36, 20 October 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems less than notable. - Haymaker (talk) 12:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Howard (baseball coach)

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

Non-notable minor league baseball figure. Nothing in his article would suggest he is notable. Fails WP:BASE/N and WP:GNG. Alex (talk) 16:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep afaik, Dave Howard is the Executive Vice President of the New York Mets. He was drafted by the Mets in 79, and appears to be the same person. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 19:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid WP:Don't build the Frankenstein, can we get a source that links the minor league and the exec as the same person.—Bagumba (talk) 19:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you may be right after all. I thought they were connected, but I just wasted 20 minutes trying to further link the two and couldn't find another connection. no vote. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 19:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to meet WP:GNG with multiple sources of coverage cited inside the article. Source dedicated to him include: [76][77]. There are also multiple sources of smaller coverage. This is just what is available for free. There seems to be quite a bit of subscription only hits on Google making me confident there is enough information out there either paid or offline to further expand this article.—Bagumba (talk) 01:00, 22 October 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:GNG, WP:GEOSCOPE concerns. Routine "so-and-so was hired" columns in the local paper do not establish sufficient notability. Tarc (talk) 16:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:BASE/N. Minor league players and coaches are generally not considered notable. The sources are weak and really don't show how this coach is any more notable than the thousands of other coaches that also don't have articles. Trusilver 17:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Carter (infielder)

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

Non-notable minor league baseball figure. HE spent some years at AAA, but as far as I can tell he was never a phantom ballplayer. He has never held a big league job, so he fails WP:BASE/N. He won a Manager of the Year Award, but I don't know if winning that in such a low-level minor league is entirely notable. Alex (talk) 17:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to Manager of the Year award. Spanneraol (talk) 17:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete low-level minor leagues after more than a decade. I imagine most managers of league champion teams are named Manager of the Year so that doesn't impress me much. If he won an award that signified he was a major factor in the organization, that would be another thing. But then I suppose he wouldn't still be at the A and Rookie league levels if that were the case. Wknight94 ^talk 17:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as being the Appalachian League Manager of the Year is sufficient to convey notability per policy, whether or not that achievement impresses any individual editor. - Dravecky (talk) 20:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other winners of that prestigious award which are red links or make no mention of the award: Mike Shildt, Paul Runge, Rob Mummau, Ray Smith, Nick Leyva, Bruce Crabbe, Nick Capra, Steven Turco, Jorge Orta, Julio Cruz, John Gibbons, Joe Cunningham. Also, can someone explain how Carter and Bruce Crabbe both won that same award in the same year? Wknight94 ^talk 22:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to Baseball Cube, Carter won it in 2000 and Crabbe in 1999. Spanneraol (talk) 22:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The woeful incompleteness of stubs like Ray Smith (baseball) have no bearing on the notability of this article. The point you raise should encourage motivated editors to expand the stubs to which you've linked, not delete this article. - Dravecky (talk) 17:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But as I said at the AfD for Bruce Crabbe, Appalachian League MoY does not, in my view, make one notable on that basis alone. It can contribute to notability, but Carter and Crabbe don't have enough other details to establish notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Dravecky, my point is that the only point raised by Keep voters here and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Crabbe is that they won an award which was so obscure that the articles of most other winners make no mention of it. To me, that is quite telling. Wknight94 ^talk 18:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable minor league manager. No consensus that MoY awards at any level make one notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 23 October 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Acheivments. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Achievements that aren't notable? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin The only reason for keeping provided is the same as used at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Crabbe, which closed as delete. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endmark

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

I declined the G11 speedy, and considered PRODding it but as it's been around since Dec 09 figured AFD is the best route. I had a look through gnews/scholar/books and a broad google search and couldn't find much to assert the articles importance as required with WP:CORPDEPTH. As a German company there may be news articles in German but I couldn't find anything. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a naming agency that focuses on naming brands, companies, products, and services. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Semenikhin

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

Not notable? Gaijin42 (talk) 21:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - No claim of notability (A7). As we've already at AfD, the subject produces no Google Search hits and a Google News Archive search produces one article that seems to be about someone else with the same name meaning he fails WP:GNG. Also fails WP:ARTIST and all of the rest of WP:BIO. It is possible that, as he's Russian, articles could be found in Russian that would satisfy WP:GNG. OlYeller21^Talktome 21:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Searches in Cyrillic without and with the patronymic: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, and there is a deletion discussion at Russian Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:47, 22 October 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could find [78] (which might be a mirror of the Russian Wikipedia article), and [79]. It's clear that this guy fails WP:ARTIST. The article sites no sources other than what I can only assume is the artist's website, which I can't access. Of the two links I managed to find that refer to him, neither is enough to establish notability.--Slon02 (talk) 22:30, 2 November 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 Moved to Articles for Creation. The article is clearly a missplaced Articles for Creation submission. Per the tag, "This is a misplaced articles for creation submission. If it is not yet ready for article space, please consider moving it to project space rather than marking it for deletion" (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 01:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IAMMEDIC

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

Already speedy deleted once, has lots of references but all are either blogs, facebook, the equiv. of press releases or by their new label. None appear to be reliable sources. The article clearly claims they are new, up and coming. wp:toosoon Dennis Brown (talk) 00:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clark/Mabalacat railway station

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

May have been speculation, no sources available. - GMA Northrail project is stalled, and could possibly continue in the future. But if so, it will be renegotiated and likely have different stations. A cancelled proposition for a railway station is not relevant. Utnog La (talk) 23:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is unsourced, and the specifics on the proposal are far too vague to provide a basis for a meaningful article. "This is one of the stations which has no specific location at the moment and could be constructed in Angeles or Mabalacat, Pampanga." indicates that the proposed location is not even settled, nor is it settled that the station actually will be built. WP:CRYSTAL seems relevant in this instance. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:55, 24 October 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete Stations that aren't even a hole in the ground yet are NN per WP:CRYSTAL. Mangoe (talk) 02:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dau/Angeles railway station

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

May have been speculation, no sources available. - GMA Northrail project is stalled, and could possibly continue in the future. But if so, it will be renegotiated and likely have different stations. A cancelled proposition for a railway station is not relevant. Utnog La (talk) 23:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nomination, otherwise same argument as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clark/Mabalacat railway station. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:57, 24 October 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete Stations that aren't even a hole in the ground yet are NN per WP:CRYSTAL. Mangoe (talk) 02:01, 28 October 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.