Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 September 14

< 13 September	15 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Deckard

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

Doesn't seem to be notable, only sourced to IMDB. Largely edited by the subject Jac16888 ^Talk 23:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The correct name of this article is Scott Tatman. There is nothing to support the change of the article's name. Searchs to determine the notablity of this actor should be based on the correct name of the actor. I have added the appropriate tags for the article to be moved back to the correct location. ~~The editor who is claiming to be the subject is probably a hoax~~ - this user changed the name of the article to various new names in a single day - ~~it is unlikely to be the subject of this article.~~ Singularity42 (talk) 03:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search under the correct name reveals additional hits, but not enought to satisfy WP:NACTOR. Appears to have had a few minor guest/extra rolls on televeision shows. His stage performances do not appeaer to have had any significant coverage. Singularity42 (talk) 03:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article is discussed at Wikipedia:Help desk#please delete Scott Tatman. The multiple moves are odd but it doesn't sound so unlikely to me that the editor is the subject. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I have changed my above comments accordingly. Singularity42 (talk) 03:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A minor actor of no consequence, at least as far as WP:GNG goes; there's no reliable biographies of him, no significant writing about his life or work. Having a job does not make one notable enough for an article. --Jayron32 04:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - even tho' he saves the kittehs - he's not yet prime time. Bearian (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are no sources which prove the subject meets our WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG guidelines. Comment: there are a couple of remarks on this AFD that seem a little uncivil, especially given the possibility that the article subject is monitoring this proceeding. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 02:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails notability guidelines - nothing but minor roles. Edward321 (talk) 21:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jules Lund

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

~~Clearly non-notable person. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn. Clearly my skills at searching the Internet are in need on improvement (I think I might have actually got the name wrong). Black Kite (t) (c) 15:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not only is notability doubtful but the article as currently written includes some sarcastic digs against the subject, which raises WP:BLP issues. If reliable sources demonstrating notability can be furnished, the article will need to be rewritten to reflect the neutral point of view. I really doubt that this should stay. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Wow. Clearly you guys aren't from Australia. Ok, the article is crap shape, but that's a reason to improve it, not delete it. Lund clearly meets GNG. With Fifi Box he co-hosts the most listened to drive (4–6 pm) radio show in Melbourne and it's syndicated around the country. He is a regular face on Australian TV and has been a presenter for Getaway, "Australia's longest-running and most popular holiday and travel television programme" (from our article), since 2004. But I guess sources will be required, so here's enough significant coverage to pass GNG, and all from the first page of my google news search. Herald Sun (the highest-circulating daily newspaper in Australia): "Fifi Box and Jules Lund take over from Hamish Blake and Andy Lee", "Jules makes plans for second job", "Big boots to fill for new drive team", "Fifi and Jules hit the airwaves and interview Simone Callahan's new flame Toby Roberts", "Uncle Jules Lund hurt by theft of photos and footage", "Fox FM's Jules Lund rapped over buck's night tale", "More bad luck for Fifi Box and Jules Lund"; The Age: "Battered, bloodied and beaten: ice show melts", "Hole in the Wall big hit for Nine"; ABC: "Fifi and Jules replace Hamish and Andy". That's seriously all from the first page of my google news search. I would suggest withdrawing this AfD. Jenks24 (talk) 06:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per the sourcing found by Jenks24. -- Whpq (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A clear consensus that the subject meets notability guidelines. Reliable sources have been identified that can be added to the article which can now be improved by normal editing. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Henrietta Jane Green

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

Completing the AfD process for an IP editor who was unable to create the deletion-discussion page. I don't know what the rationale is, but the IP's edit summary when removing some information from the article was "This is a disgustingly biased - and unreferenced - article which I shall be nominating for deletion." I'm offering no opinion myself. Deor (talk) 00:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - singificant coverage here, and here. The Times has coverage as well, but not available to us cheapskates. See these search results, and note two article which have her as the headline: "Henrietta Green: market leader", and "Real Food Pioneer: Henrietta Green". -- Whpq (talk) 14:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She clearly meets WP:GNG as a "leader" and a "pioneer" in her field. Any issues about "bias" and "unreferenced" can be solved through the regular editing process. The IP nominee may not have read what to do before making a nomination, and may actually be prejudiced aginst the subject. Some editors have been making an effort to make Wikipedia more female-friendly. Bearian (talk) 17:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First things first, I am not impressed by an editor running with an AFD nom for an anonymous IP without really knowing why the anon IP wanted the article deleted. Second, as far as the article being "disgustingly biased", we have been provided with absolutely no evidence of such bias. Deterence ^Talk 10:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep - Very obviously meets notability guidelines. In light of this, and the fact that this was nominated on behalf of a user who provided no clear rationale, I would suggest we apply WP:SNOW. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Microsoft PowerPoint. (Since we're suggesting moveing some content over, the close needs to be merge, not redirect, for atttributions purposes) Courcelles 23:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death by PowerPoint

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

I would be happy with this being a redirect to Microsoft PowerPoint, with useful content merged there, but don't think that this collection of criticism should come under this heading. The term is one of several used to criticise the overuse of PowerPoint and, while I know that it's a fairly well known term, I don't see the need for a separate article and certainly not under this neologism. It is labelled as a stub right now and as such would be better served being part of the "Cultural impact" section of the main article or at the very least renamed as Criticism of Microsoft PowerPoint. violet/riga _^[talk] 21:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If the nominator would be happy with a merge, why is it here at Articles for Deletion? -- Whpq (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because I would accept a redirect doesn't mean that I wouldn't prefer it to be deleted. Others might feel one way or the other. violet/riga _^[talk] 15:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry for the confusion. When I read the nomination, I didn't interpret it as asserting any desire for deletion as an outcome. -- Whpq (talk)

Redirect to Microsoft PowerPoint#Cultural impact. I don't see that the current sourcing is suitable for establishing a standalone article separate from the Powerpoint article. I'm not sure much of this material is worth merging. For example, the claim that "phrase was first coined by Angela R. Garber" is sourced back to an article written by Angela R. Garber in 2001. -- Whpq (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

redirect as per Whpq. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should stay the way it is currently and I believe the article can be improved, provided that it keeps being its own article. Wikifan21century (talk) 01:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A lot of the keep !votes claim that the list "can be improved" without describing how the scope can be appropriately limited. I am willing to userfy this article for anyone who is interested in getting it up to shape. Until then, this topic is simply too vague. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Formula One people

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE. An article subject which is so vague it could included almost the entire population of Europe and little or no context to the list has been provided. Falcadore (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the article provides a degree of context that Category:Formula One people doesn't provide. I think the article just needs a bit of attention - bring the "Team management" section up to date and weed out a few of the lesser lights who haven't played a significant role in Formula One (per the article's lead). Personally, I'd probably also ditch the "commentary and publicity" section (I've never understood the fascination for listing F1 TV commentators), except for possibly major figures like Murray Walker. DH85868993 (talk) 23:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Query - What though is the point of listing people who perform miscellaneous roles in Formula One? --Falcadore (talk) 23:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's useful as a navigation aid for people seeking to learn more about the topic. DH85868993 (talk) 03:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will readers realistically find an article with this title while navigating? When looking for team personnell they'd more likely start with team, broadcaster, List of Fomula One people seams a very unlikely search. --Falcadore (talk) 03:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was imagining people finding it via {{Formula One}}. DH85868993 (talk) 06:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is blatant recentism, not to mention all the really important people are (or should be) mentioned at Formula One...if they belong anywhere. The only reason to keep this is as a bad example. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have updated the article per my comments above. DH85868993 (talk) 03:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that it shouldn't be deleted, it just needs improvement, such as updates. Some of the content needs to be deleted (as DH85868993 has already stated, and some needs to be added, such as a more visible structure of the FIA/FOM. It should be more descriptive, but just include the more important people. If the article is brought up to standards, it would be a useful article (especially for people trying to learn more about Formula One. Editadam 11:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Comment. It isn't the lack of updates that is the problem, but its a collection of indiscriminate data with a very unlikely searchable name - list of people. Is it really encyclopedic? I refer you to WP:INDISCRIMINATE. --Falcadore (talk) 11:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This list fails to have clear inclusion criteria -- Whpq (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The criteria of the list is too indiscriminate. I could support a "List of Formula One managers" (perhaps in chart format showing their years active, driver/constructor championship victories) as that could be concise and informative. But this article, no. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 15:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think this is a good idea. A List of Formula One managers (or Team Principals) could be good, but I think you would only want to include Managers of Constructors Champions, or something such as that. Other managers would be unneeded, as you could look on team articles for minor managers. Editadam 12:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editadam (talk • contribs)

Comment - It badly needs proper inclusion criteria. What defines "significant"? It seems pretty random with no indicators of who to include and who to omit. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree with DH85868993 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.52.254.200 (talk) 12:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This list is so vague, literally anyone could be included. I've watched F1 before - am I a Formula 1 person? I would not be opposed to some sort of list existing, but it would require clearly defined limits as to who can be included and for what reasons. This list is far too vague to serve any purpose. I don't think it's worth keeping to improve, as improving it would require starting again at the very foundations of the list. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I agree with ItsZippy that the criteria for inclusion is very vague and the list is weak, focussing mostly on recent people. But I disagree that the article is beyond improvement. It needs to define its criteria, have better subsections (lumping all "Significant figures of the past" in one section is not good; better to have sections reflecting their roles: e.g. engineers, team founders, owners, etc.), and include many more historic people. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In that instance the article should also establish why these 'people' are noteworthy. Presently it does not, it is little more than a directory, which is covered I think by what Wikipedia Is Not. --Falcadore (talk) 23:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is a clear consensus that the subject is covered in reliable sources and meets notability guidelines. If it is still considered that a merge is appropriate then that should be the subject of a separate talk page discussion. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fox effect

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

Appears to be a neologism. The article cobbles together a few sources that use the words "Fox" and "effect" near each other, but it's unclear that the term itself is worthy of its own article. Any useful content can be merged to Fox News or one of its child articles. Oren0 (talk) 20:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BEFORE and WP:GNG - see [1] and [2]. Bearian (talk) 21:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Take a moment to click on the Google news archive search at the top of the AFD. I won't waste time copying link by link down here with its summary. You should be able to spot some obviously notable news sources commenting on it straight away. Dream Focus 23:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not doubting that the term is notable. I'm questioning whether this term is worthy of its own article, or rather if this is a larger issue belonging at Fox News and the related articles. Just because a term is used in the media doesn't mean it couldn't be a redirect to Fox News controversies. The article is useless in its current form, and every source you look at has a different definition of what the "fox effect" is (in the first few results I clicked, I saw definitions about making the country more conservative, promoting journalistic sensationalism, and increased panic). At a certain point, the article just becomes about accusations about what effect Fox News has had, which is a rehash of the Fox News controversies article. It's possible that these issues can be addressed and the topic can be discussed coherently, and I applaud the rescue tag, but I'm not sure how this article can exist with any content distinct from these other articles. Oren0 (talk) 00:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, it's worthy of its own article. (It already has others. The independent notability of this particular line of research should be the topic of this article.) DeliciousBits (talk) 10:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rain ISP

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

Fails WP:CORP. There are no sources, at least not in English, that discuss this company in an encyclopaedic context. It appears to be a localised ISP, not a national one, and is simply a reseller according to the article. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 20:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom and WP:Advertising — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantaloupe2 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Having the arabic name to search for sources might have lead to a different outcome. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, "Rain" is not a persian word. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 10:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maxnet

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

Fails WP:CORP. There are no sources, at least not in English, that discuss this company in an encyclopaedic context. It appears to be a localised ISP, not a national one. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 20:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Having the arabic name to search for sources might have lead to a different outcome. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I couldn't find any notable sources in English aside from this small mention here which wouldn't be sufficient for the article. The article has been existing for over two years, and yet no sources have been added in that time. SwisterTwister talk 04:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 10:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Training hypothesis

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

The article is a neologism not in usage in in the field aprock (talk) 20:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The term is introduced and defined in the Gottfredson source: "Both reflect what might be termed the training hypothesis, which is that, with sufficient instruction, low-aptitude individuals can be trained to perform as well as high-aptitude individuals." (see pg 86 of [3]) and is only used once after it is introduced. Other sources listed use the different term "on-the-job training hypothesis". Searching for the term "training hypothesis" on the web yields many links to the wikipedia page or mirrors thereof. On google scholar the search yields links to the variant "on-the-job training hypothesis". There appear to be no secondary sources giving either variant any notability. Judging from the history, the topic is utterly moribund with no edits for three years and no other articles linking to it. aprock (talk) 20:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 14:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or selective merge with practice (learning method). I'm not seeing the difference. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator. aprock (talk) 15:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 23:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Hope for Home

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

does not meet the notability criteria for bands Dartroom (talk) 19:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A Hope for Home does in fact meet the notability criteria for bands, item number 5 of WP:BAND. They have realeased two albums on the record labels Facedown Records and Strike First (the imprint label of Facedown Records) "an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable"

http://facedownrecords.com/2009/11/02/a-hope-for-home/

http://facedown.merchnow.com/products/97826

Facedown Records has a history of more than a few years, and has a roster with many notable artists that also have wikipedia articles (A Plea for Purging, Hope for the Dying, In the Midst of Lions, War of Ages).

They also meet item number 1 of the notability criteria for musicians and ensembles, in that they have album reviews and interviews here:

http://puregrainaudio.com/interviews/interview-with-a-hope-for-home-guitarist-and-vocalist-matt-ellis

http://thrashmag.com/interviews/content.aspx?id=2649

http://www.indievisionmusic.com/2009/01/21/a-hope-for-home-the-everlasting-man-review/

http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?t=1618762

http://www.sputnikmusic.com/review/36913/A-Hope-For-Home-Realis/

http://www.jesusfreakhideout.com/cdreviews/Realis.asp

MatthewCJones (talk) 19:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:BAND, having released multiple albums on a major label. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 20:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Appears to meet WP:BAND. The nomination does not indicate why the nominator believes the band does not meet WP:BAND. Rlendog (talk) 00:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. We've got a bit of a mess here, no doubt. Four relists, a reverted close, changes to the article while discussion was underway that do not seem to have been considered, but in the end very little back-and-forth between the participants over all that time. I see no option but to close this as a keeper. Consider a "weak keep" if that makes you feel better about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Manikfan

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

Apparently non-notable individual who devised a lunar calendar. Sources to establish notability are all to the individual's page promoting use of the calendar. PROD proposed, but removed by the editor who created the article. TJRC (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Besides it being self-promotional to the point of being offensive (How big does your head have to be to label yourself a "living legend"?), the only claim which I think may give him enough notability for an article is that he designed and built Tim Severin's boat, and that is supported only sketchily. Found this source, but it doesn't say what role he had in the project aside from that he directed a "team of carpenters". Also, it seems a sketchy source, since it claims to be the official website of the Maldives royal family, yet it is based in New Zealand. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 16:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The last King of the Maldives died in 1969; I think we have a slight failure of WP:RS here. -- 202.124.73.162 (talk) 13:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trim and merge to Islamic calendar. I am prepared to accept that this individual might notable, but the present article relies almost entirely on unreliable sources, leading to WP:BLP problems, and other sources in English are very thin. The material on the calendar is certainly notable, but logically belongs in Islamic calendar. -- 202.124.73.162 (talk) 12:53, 3 August 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) 00:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- The sad aspect of wikipedia that users who dont know the person/topic, they simply say non-notable. I have cited more than two third party sources , from the hindu daily, maldieves royalfamily website etc. If we didnt get enough online source should we consider the person/topic is not relevent.

The malidivesroyal family website is not run by alimanikfan, thus we cannot consider he is self promoting himself.

He is not only lunar calender expert,but a shipbuilder, ecologist and mulitliguistic .--Vicharam (talk) 20:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Vicharam is the creating editor of, and primary contributor to, the article. TJRC (talk) 21:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The so-called "Maldives Royal Family website" appears to be an elaborate joke. It's certainly not a WP:RS. -- 202.124.72.108 (talk) 01:33, 12 August 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, BusterD (talk) 10:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (do not merge). Non-notable individual with no independent coverage; the minimal coverage his calendar has received does not elevate it to enough significance to put in an article on a calendar that's existed for centuries and that people actually use. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, put some more templete to this article!!!. Dear poor wikipedian users, Thousands of wiki article i can list , which do not relevent than this article. some users simply judge ali manikfan is non-notable .Hidden reason behind this mentality is he is a muslim scholor. --217.165.163.202 (talk) 09:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If he is in fact notable, please update the article to indicate that. We do not want to delete articles on notable people; but at the moment, the article does not reliably indicate notability. TJRC (talk) 16:44, 15 August 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, — Joseph Fox 17:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (but clean up). I found another independent mention in a reliable source, the Journal of the Marine Biological Association of India: "We have great pleasure in naming the new species after Mr. Ali Manikfan of this Institute who collected the above specimen, in appreciation of the extensive collections of fishes he had made from the Laccadives." --Lambiam 19:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ali manikfan is notable person as far as india is concerned. --Apibrahimk (talk) 04:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC) — Apibrahimk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I originally closed this as delete with the following comment The result was delete. The test for inclusion is the GNG that requires at least two detailed independant reliable sources. I am excluding votes that cite no policy based reasons so arguments to keep based on assertions and mentions do not cut the mustard. The bottom line is that the sourcing has been rubbished and the keep side hasn't refuted this effectively. Spartaz Humbug! 5:40 pm, 29 August 2011, Monday (16 days ago) (UTC 4) Since then, I have been asked on my talkpage permalink to consider the sources again. I don't think this was a completly open and shut close and the request is reasonable so I have undeleted the article and relisted the discussion to garner further opinion on the sourcing. In particular, further comments on the reasons why the sources are reliable and/or detailed enough would be very helpful to the closing admin. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let me explain in detail why the subject of the article is notable, according to our general notability guideline. It was asserted that all references are to the website of the subject of the article, but actually the article contains several references to independent reliable sources:
- a fairly detailed article in The Indian Express;
- a source in Malayalam, which I can't read, but since it is an encyclopedia entry, it may well be detailed;
- an article in The Hindu, less detailed but more than a passing mention;
- a quite detailed article by Xavier Romero-Frias.

The Maldives Royal Family website where this latter article was found may itself not count as reliable, but the author, Xavier Romero-Frias, is a recognized authority on issues regarding the Maldives, and so this article still counts as a reliable source, according to our reliable-sources guideline. (Additionally, the same article can be found on the Maldives Culture website, perhaps also not strictly a reliable site, but a serious website whose main editor, Michael O'Shea, is also a specialist in Maldives issues and a member of the Dhivehi Observer editorial staff.) Altogether this is enough to establish notability. Several of these references link to copies of the articles on the hijracalendar.com website, but that does not make them dependent. In the meantime, I've found one more non-trivial independent reliable source:

P. K. Abdul Ghafour (November 23, 2005). "OIC Summit Urged to Adopt Unified Islamic Calendar". Arab News.

--Lambiam 19:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Purple Forge

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

Delete. Non-notable company -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: ...provides mobile "Apps as a Service", which is a variant of Software as a service. Purple Forge services are Cloud computing based... Yes, you dropped the buzzwords in, but what does it make or do? At any rate, awards for "Innovation" and being included on somebody's list of "startups to watch" do not make a case for long term notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wildebeest (comics)

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

Non-notable fictional character. Simone (talk) 18:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He appeared in two episodes of a popular cartoon series and also appeared in a video game. SL93 (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The fictional characters do not meet the general notability guideline since there is no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Without reliable secondary sources that make analytic or evaluative claims about the fictional characters, the article can only be a summary-only description of a fictional work with a trivia-like section of appearances in other media. The content of the article itself is only referenced with primary sources, so it doesn't show why the fictional characters are notable or deserve a stand-alone article. A search engine test doesn't show anything to presume that the subject of the article is appropriate for Wikipedia. Jfgslo (talk) 05:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the general notability guideline due to lack of sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 23:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Szusterman

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

Per apparent consensus at the mass nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Szusterman, I am restarting an individual AfD for every stub created by Hunter Bradley (talk · contribs) for actors of dubious relevance. All of these stubs were created with only an IMDB entry as a source, and only minor roles in Power Rangers Samurai are asserted. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Jeff Szusterman article now asserts more than just one voice role. And now seen doing more that just voice work, he appears to be pushing at WP:ENT [4] and seems to have decent enough coverage in New Zealand.[5] Article is improvable and this one does not require deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think it is borderline, but there is a fairly good interview of him and his wife [6], and some reviews for 3 plays he's directed [7] [8] [9] [10] (also, the Drammy award mentioned on his website can be confirmed here) — frankie (talk) 18:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been expanded and sourced accordingly. While still awaiting an article, the Drammy award can be considered as notable to New Zealand theater as a Tony or Obie or Drama Desk Award would be to the United States. That would have him pass WP:ANYBIO. Nice research, by the way. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Not the most notable of entertainers, but I suppose it is good enough. Moogwrench (talk) 01:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Moogwrench. Sb617 (Talk) 10:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hector David, Jr.

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

Per apparent consensus at the mass nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Szusterman, I am restarting an individual AfD for every stub created by Hunter Bradley (talk · contribs) for actors of dubious relevance. All of these stubs were created with only an IMDB entry as a source, and only minor roles in Power Rangers Samurai are asserted. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hector David Jr. as minimal career[11] fails WP:ENT and lack of coverage fails WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no significant coverage. I could only find this interview [12] — frankie (talk) 19:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany Anne Pirtle

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

Per apparent consensus at the mass nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Szusterman, I am restarting an individual AfD for every stub created by Hunter Bradley (talk · contribs) for actors of dubious relevance. All of these stubs were created with only an IMDB entry as a source, and only minor roles in Power Rangers Samurai are asserted. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Brittany Anne Pirtle as career[13] fails WP:ENT (requires significant roles in multiple different productions) and lack of coverage fails WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no significant coverage — frankie (talk) 19:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ENT and WP:N. SL93 (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erika Fong

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

Per apparent consensus at the mass nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Szusterman, I am restarting an individual AfD for every stub created by Hunter Bradley (talk · contribs) for actors of dubious relevance. All of these stubs were created with only an IMDB entry as a source, and only minor roles in Power Rangers Samurai are asserted. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Erika Fong as minimal career[14] fails WP:ENT (requires significant roles in multiple different productions) and lack of coverage fails WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no significant coverage — frankie (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 23:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steven A. Davis

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

Per apparent consensus at the mass nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Szusterman, I am restarting an individual AfD for every stub created by Hunter Bradley (talk · contribs) for actors of dubious relevance. All of these stubs were created with only an IMDB entry as a source, and only minor roles in Power Rangers Samurai are asserted. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Steven A. Davis. Doing more that just voice work, he appears to meet WP:ENT [15] with such as his lead role in This Is Not My Life, and seems to have decent enough coverage in New Zealand.[16] Further, Davis may been seen to meet WP:FILMMAKER as his work The Fanimatrix has been the recipient of independent critical commentary and review in secondary sources.[17] I have added that information to the article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, also a borderline case, but has done a fair amount of work, and given the role on This is not my life I think it is reasonable to expect further notability in the future — frankie (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Frankie. Would probably barely pass the criteria, imo. Sb617 (Talk) 10:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jacinda Stevens

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

Per apparent consensus at the mass nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Szusterman, I am restarting an individual AfD for every stub created by Hunter Bradley (talk · contribs) for actors of dubious relevance. All of these stubs were created with only an IMDB entry as a source, and only minor roles in Power Rangers Samurai are asserted. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Jacinda Stevens as minimal career[18] fails WP:ENT (requires significant roles in multiple different productions) and lack of coverage[19] fails WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no significant coverage — frankie (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete may possibly meet WP:CSD#A7 and as per reasons stated by Schmidt. Sb617 (Talk) 10:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Felix Ryan

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

Per apparent consensus at the mass nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Szusterman, I am restarting an individual AfD for every stub created by Hunter Bradley (talk · contribs) for actors of dubious relevance. All of these stubs were created with only an IMDB entry as a source, and only minor roles in Power Rangers Samurai are asserted. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Felix Ryan without prejudice per WP:NotJustYet. His role in 21 episodes of Power Rangers Samurai is the most significant role so far, but this and his earlier collection of minor acting roles[20] do not push enough at WP:ENT. Lack of coverage fails WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no significant coverage yet — frankie (talk) 19:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ENT and WP:N. SL93 (talk) 22:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bede Skinner

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

Per apparent consensus at the mass nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Szusterman, I am restarting an individual AfD for every stub created by Hunter Bradley (talk · contribs) for actors of dubious relevance. All of these stubs were created with only an IMDB entry as a source, and only minor roles in Power Rangers Samurai are asserted. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bede Skinner. While sourcable,[21] the short career[22] fails meeting WP:ENT. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no significant coverage — frankie (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Skyler

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

Per apparent consensus at the mass nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Szusterman, I am restarting an individual AfD for every stub created by Hunter Bradley (talk · contribs) for actors of dubious relevance. All of these stubs were created with only an IMDB entry as a source, and only minor roles in Power Rangers Samurai are asserted. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Steven Skyler. Other than the 11 voice artist episodes of Power Rangers Samurai, his live acting career has consisted of minor characters or descriptives. This fails WP:ENT. Lack of coverage for his work fails WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no significant coverage — frankie (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Najee De-Tiege

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

Per apparent consensus at the mass nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Szusterman, I am restarting an individual AfD for every stub created by Hunter Bradley (talk · contribs) for actors of dubious relevance. All of these stubs were created with only an IMDB entry as a source, and only minor roles in Power Rangers Samurai are asserted. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Najee De-Tiege. While sourcable,[23] his only acting role ever was his voice work in Power Rangers Samurai[24] Fails WP:ENT. Lack of coverage for anything else fails WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no significant coverage — frankie (talk) 19:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is a strong project-wide consensus, reflected in WP:V#Notability, that we do not have articles about topics that have not received substantial coverage in reliable sources. That is especially so for supposed medical phenomena that have not been the subject of scientific research. Sandstein 06:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because http://www.reddit.com/r/asmr/comments/kn1sv/wikipedia_article_on_asmr_is_marked_for_deletion or http://theunnam3df33ling.blogspot.com/2011/09/help-save-asmr-wikipedia-page.html, 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}}.

Autonomous Sensory Meridian Response

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

Does not appear to pass WP:GNG, could be a notable subject in the future after more research is done, but for now it appears to be a WebMD-style guide. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; there doesn't seem to be any legitimate scientific research into this. DS (talk) 17:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but remove the original research (most of the article). Right now, most of the article takes a lot of stuff that non-scientific communities have sort-of agreed on, and is stating it as fact. As written, it is not very accurate or useful. However, this is something that some people have known about for a while, and other people are getting curious about. Personally, I first heard about it when I read this post by a popular webcomic artist. I was surprised that there was no Wikipedia article yet. I think the current first 2 lines of the article are a good introduction, and I would rather see them stay as a stub with the rest of the content blanked out than see the page disappear entirely. If the article can accurately state the un-official status of the term, and give a new reader an understanding of what people probably mean when they use the term, I think it should be kept. ~ Josh "Duff Man" (talk) 18:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: JoshDuffMan (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The phenomenon may have been described by some people, but no serious research seems to have been performed to confirm its existence. PubMed has no mention (~10,000,000 medical research articles indexed). Neither does Google Scholar. Hence: pseudoscientific nonsense. JFW | T@lk 15:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it, I think. The article is useful and appropriately disclaim the lack of research and 'pseudoscientific nonsense'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfredmaul (talk • contribs) 04:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC) — Alfredmaul (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep this article as a reference for the colloquialism. It may need to be recategorized, but deleting it will end up with a lot of people hunting a reference that is missing. The article may need to be retailored to explain the nature of the entry, and document the origins of the term, instead of being focused on the term definition only. Envelopenomia (talk) 01:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC) — Envelopenomia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I think "neologism" is more accurate than "colloquialism." Introducing new terms is not what Wikipedia is about. Joja lozzo 12:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article. This is a great place for experiencers to add information that can attract interest so that serious scientific research can be done. Shaggypete19 (talk) 04:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC) — Shaggypete19 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Those of you defending this article, please read and understand Wikipedia's policy on original research; in particular, what counts as original research and why. DS (talk) 12:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is not scientific, and comprises entirely pseudoscientific claims. Wikipedia is not a place for original research or personal theories. AUN4 (talk) 01:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This phenomenon has received no scholarly attention of any kind. We shouldn't include this article until there's more support for it than blogs and opinion pieces in the news. Joja lozzo 03:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also WP:NEOLOGISM. Joja lozzo 12:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article as a reference it needs recategorising, but deleting it will end up with a lot of people hunting a reference that is missing. The article may need to be retailored to explain the nature of the entry, and document the origins of the term, instead of being focused on the term definition only. Without this type of reference you destroy the whole idea of Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.20.130.18 (talk) 23:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC) — 203.20.130.18 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Are you Envelopenomia forgetting to log in and voting twice with the same text?

In any case, I think you misunderstand this project if you think it should include all the rumors, ideas and notions that come along. I recommend you review the WP:Notability guidelines again. Joja lozzo 02:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, that wasn't me, it was somebody else voting in agreement without altering my statement, I'm guessing. I have not voted twice - I'm aware of the concept of voting and fair use of this system. Thanks. Believe it or not, I really want this article to be either appropriate content (which I think it is, though maybe not in the current form), or be removed in lieu of qualification for an entry at a later date. Envelopenomia (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although this is an interesting one. The article does appear to fail the test of verifiability from reliable sources, although much of the guidelines are clearly formulated with the verifiability of claims about established knowledge in mind. The guidelines may be less helpful in deciding on what to do with subjective phenomena that are still below the threshold where they become interesting to members of the scientific community. I am struggling to see the public benefit in deleting this article. Dejs (talk) 15:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you're !voting to keep the article, even though you know it doesn't pass any guidelines? Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am struggling to see the public benefit in deleting this article. I think that's why the vote is to keep - that is what Wikipedia is about, after all - providing information and answers to questions of the community at large. If someone wants to know what this 'ASMR' reference is they keep reading about on YouTube, this article helps explain it.Envelopenomia (talk)

Keep but change the article in order to reflect the fact that this isn't scientifically proven, but rather a notable internet phenomenon. --Segnicom (talk) 23:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC) — Segnicom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete this article as it seems to clearly violate Wikipedia's verifiability guidelines. I would also like to point out that "Autonomous Sensory Meridian Response" doesn't seem to mean anything. Anarchic Robocrat (talk) 06:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC) — Anarchic Robocrat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Anarchic Robocrat, I wanted to explain for you - you have a good point. I think this should also be in the article, if it is kept to document the term. Taking aspects of the experience, and applying something other than orgasm to the name helps avoid confusing this with a sexually oriented event. If you look up each of the words in the dictionary, you'll get a better idea of the intent. Autonomous - indicating the individualized nature, "not subject to control from outside", and from the biology definition and indication of the sudden, explosive quality, "spontaneous". Sensory - "of or pertaining to the senses or sensation", that one is pretty easy to get, since all the external triggers are based on sensory input, and in general it is a very sensory event. Meridian - admittedly, this could be confusing in reference if you don't know the definition of the word (or are on a witch hunt for what you assume are religious pseudosciences on the rise), "a point or period of highest development, greatest prosperity, or the like", an indication other than orgasm to indicate a peak of sensation, a climax... a meridian of this specific sensation (seriously, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/meridian). Response - yeah, a response to either an internal or external trigger, unlike, say the constant actions of uncontrolled events like human heartbeats (in those living) or the pull of gravity. Hope that helps. Envelopenomia (talk) 14:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Close the discussion? - Unless I'm missing someone, Josh "Duff Man" is the only one here opposing the deletion who is not using a single-purpose account (most likely canvassed on reddit) and even his position is equivocal. Perhaps it's time to close this discussion. Joja lozzo 03:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a Wikipedia policy against new users voting for or against an article?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Single-purpose_account

New editors should be aware that while courtesy and a warm greeting will usually be extended, they may be subject to more scrutiny in the early stages of their editing as other editors attempt to assess how well they adhere to Wikipedia standards.
Existing editors should act fairly, civilly, not bite newcomers, and remember everyone was new at some time. Care is needed if addressing single-purpose accounts on their edits.

Just help out us here, Wiki-veterans. It's not a battle. People who have found this entry helpful and are fighting against its deletion may be new editors, but they are also voicing a concern. If we need to be shown the specific guidelines, listing helps, but also explaining an actual, concrete example from the offense would go a lot further. For instance, the reference www.asmr-research.org is a primary source, and really should be removed. Likewise with the Facebook group listing. There are, however, third party sources listed, as well. Granted, the listing is not yet complete, and really needs more on the term usage, but giving these kind of specifics will help the newcomers (including myself) understand your position better. Thanks for trying to understand - this reference material has helped a lot of people in a short time (I don't think I can cite my own email and conversations, or specific Facebook threads, so sorry, no ref on that one, just the people showing up here as proof). I personally really do want to do this right, and will happily change my vote if it's shown that this simply can't measure up to the metric. It needs a rewrite already, so I'll do that straight away, and will have the notability list in front of me the entire time. Thanks for being diligent, too - as long as your arguments are clearly stated, with compelling specifics, it won't be hard to convince me. Envelopenomia (talk) 15:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, this is a new account, but I have been editing articles (small changes) for a long time and have also probably donated more money than most. I agree that this article needs a lot of improvement, but please don't delete it. A lot of people care about this topic. It is a unique sensation and it seems that everyone who experiences it is always thrilled to find out there is a working name for it. It's true that there is no scientific research on this topic, but that is because most people simply don't experience it and we haven't been able to find each other until the Internet came along. Youtube also helps by making it easier to share videos that trigger it. And it's also very hard to explain. Being scientifically minded, I am looking forward to research being done and would be happy to participate in any studies or experiments! Anyway, I am also willing to work on this article once a new direction is chosen. Jonathan2112 (talk) 04:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC) — Jonathan2112 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Your arguments for keeping this article do not reflect much knowledge about Wikipedia. If there are no reliable, third party sources, then the article doesn't belong here. If we had a thousand reddit meatpuppets come here and post "votes" - it wouldn't make this a notable topic. Please read the guidelines for WP:Notability. Joja lozzo 12:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notably, Jonathan is the ONLY person who has posted since that discussion happened. Please don't make that the foundation of your argument to delete the content here... He's not a "meatpuppet", and the other people who have voted aren't, either. Envelopenomia (talk) 15:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The canvassing post on theunnam3df33ling.blogspot.com was three days ago. Those who responded to those posts, came here, created an account, and "voted" qualify as meatpuppets. Maybe you have a nicer word for it (ballot-stuffers?) but it's still a violation of policy. Joja lozzo 21:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOTNEO and WP:OR, unless someone can add real references from some medical publications. Are the single purpose accounts of Alfredmaul, Envelopenomia, Shaggypete19, 203.20.130.18, Segnicom, and Jonathan2112 all sock puppets? -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Don't_be_quick_to_assume_that_someone_is_a_sockpuppet No, I'm not a sock puppet, and have not created any such accounts. I can't speak for anyone else, but please don't make baseless accusations - we're trying to stay focused on what this article lacks to reach notability, not fight with each other. Help us out here by maintaining maturity, and pointing out specifics, instead of trying to distract by making unfounded accusations. It would be the same as me accusing you of being a sock puppet for one of the editors requesting the article be removed. Silly, useeless, and doesn't get to the heart of the matter. The links to no neologisms and original research - much more helpful, though these have already been listed, and thanks. Envelopenomia (talk) 15:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meatpuppet is an appropriate term for those responding to canvassing. Their presence does not influence whether we delete the article or not. Single-purpose accounts with poorly expressed positions that do not relate to Wikipedia policies have little influence. Ideally some will dig in a bit, figure out the policies and find a way to contribute to the project in a manner that's going in the same direction as the rest of us. Joja lozzo 21:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to United States Coast Guard. Courcelles 23:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CG Red

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

Non-notable proprietary shade of red. The United States Coast Guard is undoubtedly notable, but their preferred names for corporate colours do not deserve separate stubs. bobrayner (talk) 17:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree per nom. Perhaps a segment in the United States Coast Guard article outlining the propietary colour selection ^Jguy_Talk^Done 21:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to United States Coast Guard#Symbols.--Pontificalibus (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge leaving redirect. Oppose Merge into United States Coast Guard because it is not specific to the Coast Guard. As a Pantone color, it should be merged into Variations of red. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into United States Coast Guard#Symbols. The color itself isn't notable.--Slon02 (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to United States Coast Guard. Courcelles 23:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CG Blue

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

Non-notable proprietary shade of blue. The United States Coast Guard is undoubtedly notable, but their preferred names for corporate colours do not deserve separate stubs. bobrayner (talk) 17:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to United States Coast Guard#Symbols.--Pontificalibus (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree per nom. Perhaps a segment in the United States Coast Guard article outlining the propietary colour selection ^Jguy_Talk^Done 21:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into United States Coast Guard#Symbols. The color itself isn't notable.--Slon02 (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Variations of blue given that it is a Pantone color and not specific to the Coast Guard. Oppose Merge into United States Coast Guard. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as copyvio. Non-admin closure. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor or engineer

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

It looks like some fiction, moreover the topic is factious. Day000Walker (talk) 16:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. Probably a Speedy candidate. Several Times (talk) 17:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my original PROD, WP:NOTESSAY.Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 17:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete: An essay. SL93 (talk) 22:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Personal opinion masquerading as an article. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a blog. (I really wish there were a CSD criterion for this sort of thing.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged it for speedy delete as a copyright violation. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NGOs in Cambodia

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

I think there is an attempt here at an article, but there is little more than a list containing two extensive but non-neutral (even promotional) entries on NGOs, one of which certainly doesn't appear to be notable in its own right. Drmies (talk) 16:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete articles are complete WP:COPYVIO. LibStar (talk) 14:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Encourage editors to use a category instead. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Stuartyeates. JFHJr (㊟) 07:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 17:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Horia Crişan

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

This player has never appeared in a fully-professional league, and fails both WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 16:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He fails WP:GNG, and he is yet to make an appearance in a fully pro league, meaning he fails WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 18:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no signficant coverage, no professional appearances, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTY criteria. Deserter1 talk 14:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 19:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We Want Blood!

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

Original AFD was challenged at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 14. Given the somewhat poor quality of the !votes there, and the incredibly low participation it would be better for a fresh discussion to occur. This nomination is procedural, and not a !vote either way. Courcelles 15:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 16:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 16:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NALBUMS, no independent notability, no charting, not described as culturally significant by reliable sources, there is simply no reason to list this album in its own article. --Cerejota (talk) 19:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I was the one who pointed at the google results. Since its restoration I started to add some more material and references. Frankly I am not familiar with WP:NALBUMS. This is the first article about an album I have worked on, and wonder whether those who cite this section of the guideline will consider clarifying how it is interpreted. The references I found were to Dutch language publications tossed up by google news. So, how would I know whether these references would be considered RS? How does one look up where songs ranked on hitlists? On foreign language hitlists? Geo Swan (talk) 23:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Geo Swan's google search brings a good number of reviews of the album, and of the band in the context of the album. It clearly meets notability — frankie (talk) 00:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly none of them in reliable sources.--Cerejota (talk) 15:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. If I understand you, while most of the references google news found should not be considered RS, you think a limited number could. As a courtesy, to save me or someone else wasting everyone's time citing references you don't consider RS perhaps you could either list one or two you would regard as RS, or explain how you determined which were and weren't RS, or point us to an existing guideline or discussion where we could read that for ourselves? Geo Swan (talk) 18:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems that RSes do exist --Guerillero | My Talk 22:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The unwritten law here is that albums by notable bands are notable by default. There are 63,000 Google results for "We Want Blood" "Peter Pan Speedrock", so there's no shortage of independent sources confirming the album's existence as well as the correctness of the information contained in this article. Contrary to what Cerejota is asserting above, albums don't need to chart, nor do they need to be "culturally significant" in anyone's judgment, in order to have an article on them. Disclosure: I came here purely by chance and had never heard of this band until now. --Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 16:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such unwritten rule. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The relevant policy for sources is WP:RS, specifically WP:USERG. Generally blogs are not considered reliable sources, although there are some exceptions. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Super Kid Icarus

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

Not notable, reads as an advertisement, and uses low-level blogs and forums as sources, which do no meet standards for reliable sources. Also note that search for news sources of "Super Kid Icarus" returns no results. AndrewTindall (talk) 15:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Super Kid Icarus Notability Analysis

Super Kid Icarus is notable because it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject thus it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.

"Significant coverage" - Idealsoft, a popular Italian gaming blog wrote an entire article about the game. The article address the game directly and in detail and no original research is needed to extract the content. The entire article is about Super Kid Icarus. The game was chosen as an editors pick on Games for Gamers.
"Reliable" - The sources are reliable and under Wikipedia guidelines may encompass published works in all forms.
"Sources" - Has multiple secondary sources and sources are not required to be in English.
"Independent of the subject" - Page does not contain any self published content and includes verifiable links to sources.
"Presumed" - Per above, the article is presumed to be allowable for inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterAmbrosia (talk • contribs) 15:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC) — PeterAmbrosia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Overview of the AFD deletion process

All text created in the Wikipedia main namespace is subject to several important rules, including three cardinal content policies (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research) and the copyright policy (Wikipedia:Copyrights). Together, these policies govern the admissibility of text in the main body of the encyclopedia, and only text conforming to all four policies is allowed in the main namespace.

You are proposing a deletion for a reason other than stated above for which the article is in compliance and a AFD was not appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlbertSanchis3 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC) — AlbertSanchis3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I dispute that the sources are reliable as defined by wikipedia, I also assert that as a spam-style article for a flash game, the article indeed fails to meet notability guidelines which is a reason for deletion.--AndrewTindall (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is a perfectly fine reason for deletion, there is no requirement that an article can only be deleted if it fails compliance with the above policies. Of course, as it is difficult to prove a negative (that sources don't exist about the topic as the nom has outlined), we have that open for discussion at AFD. --MASEM (t) 17:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Searches for "Super Kid Icarus" return an entire page of results..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueBlaze2009 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC) — Blueblaze2009 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Advertisement Concerns

In reading the Wikipedia article for advertisement, Wikispam articles are usually noted for sales-oriented language and external links to a commercial website. Could you help us understand where you see "sales oriented language" and you will also note that Super Kid Icarus, and the link thereof, is a non-commercial website. Did you know that a spam tag is a useful "first warning" to put on the Talk page of a spammer, if that is what you felt? Also, if you felt it read as an advertisement did you first try to edit the article to read less like an advertisement and/or solicit help using tags before requesting deletion with a tag and now on here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterAmbrosia (talk • contribs) 14 September 2011 — PeterAmbrosia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete - No coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. Current sourcing in the article has no reliable sources. Blogs, forums, and personal pages are not reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. G·N·B·S·RS·Talk — frankie (talk) 17:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No notability, and whatever popularity it has (if any) is directly inherited. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 19:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I am a little confused here. I am new to Wikipedia and read the notability page entirely and provided an outline of how I feel the page complies with it. People are saying blogs do not count, even if they have sufficient coverage and are independent, however I am really have trouble finding this rule. All rules that seemed applicable were thoroughly read and it seemed it was ok to make the article. Can someone please help me understand what went wrong here? What is considered a "reliable" page? And why is Idealsoft specifically not "reliable" as in what indicates it is biased towards the game or created by the owner of the site? Self sourced material is included for the story because the page on how to make pages for games said that should be sourced from the manual etc. Was that wrong and if so, where does it say that? Guess I am just really confused with all this and trying to keep up. Also, can someone please tell me how to sign my signature so I stop getting all these unsigned things? I assure there is no malice there, just don't know how to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterAmbrosia (talk • contribs) 23:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess could someone show why my analysis of notability, as taken directly from the wikipedia page about notability is wrong or what about it is wrong, with specifics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterAmbrosia (talk • contribs) 23:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be looking for (a) print sources which reviewed the game and/or (b) rankings. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This AfD ties together a bunch of articles that vary widely as to notability. Renominating them separately would allow for better discussion of their respective merits. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Premier Soccer League

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

Bunch of articles on a non notable minor amateur soccer league, and its teams and associated pages. The league has only had some minor, routine coverage in local sources (match results), nothing sufficient to meet WP:N (teams and leagues aren't covered in WP:NSPORTS). Already, one of the team articles was deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galveston Pirate SC, a season article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 SPSL Spring-Summer Season, and some templates and two articles on the cup competition as well: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SPSL Cup. Texas Lonestrikers and 2011-12 SPSL Winter Season were deleted through ProD, SPSL rivalry cups as a speedy. I have, together with the main article, also nominated all remaining teams and some related articles:

*Regals FC (withdrawn)

2010–11 SPSL season Fram (talk) 08:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This move to delete the SPSL from Wiki simply does not make sense. The SPSL is one of only 3 USASA sanctioned regional leagues. One of the teams participated in this year's US Open Cup, losing to the USL Pro's Charleston Battery 2-0. The match was tied 0-0 at half time and the Battery were awarded a BS PK early in the 2nd half. The Regals also easily beat the PDL New Oreleans Jesters in New Orleans. Not bad for a bunch of guys that "are not good enough to play in college."

The SPSL is seeking a move to USASA's new "inter-regional" status in time for the 2012-2013 season. This will include the addition of a number of west coast teams in California, Arizona, and Nevada. Former US World Cup player Desmond Armstrong has been exteneded an invitation to join the league and form a new Alabama, Mississippi, Tenn, and Georiga division.

I may not be a Wiki expert, but it is more than obvious that this move is simply politically motivated.

If one of the wiki experts would like to contact me directly, feel free to do so. Stephen Heisler, Director, SPSL. [email protected]

. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.121.227.170 (talk) 13:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep some - The WP:FOOTYN guidelines states: "all leagues whose members are eligible for national cups are assumed notable". As Regals FC participated in this year's US Open Cup [25], it is acceptable for me that there is an article on that club and the fifth tier league. I am in favour of deleting the other articles as non-notable, unless the subject is a club that has also participated in the cup. The above comment from the SPSL Director, who I see has also edited some of the articles, indicates some additional WP:CONFLICT issues with these. Deserter1 talk 15:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regals FC definitely needs to stay as the team competed in this year's US Open Cup, which gives the team notability alongside every other team which has competed in it over the years.JonBroxton (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as no evidence of notability; however, Regals FC should remain as it meets WP:FOOTYN by having competed in the national cup. GiantSnowman 21:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have withdrawn the Regals from this discussion, thanks to both of you for pointing this out. Fram (talk) 08:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Subject appears to be notable, but the league page definitely needs references, as well as the team pages. A quick google search finds several articles from the Brownsville TX newspaper on one of the teams in the league. Mateinsixtynine (talk) 21:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 14:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since I voted already, from what I can tell, teams in this league are eligible for qualifying rounds in the US Open Cup, which might suggest notability. I don't know if all teams are eligible or just the league champion though. I also think semi-protection could be removed on the article since its a bit out of date and the main editor on the article doesn't have a regular account. Mateinsixtynine (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The cup is "open to all United States Soccer Federation affiliated teams, from amateur adult club teams to the professional clubs". If all amateur teams are eligible for the qualifying stages, then that is not an indication of notability for the league or the clubs. The one club that did reach the "real" cup is already withdrawn from the nom. Fram (talk) 07:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware there is no reason why leagues with amateur teams can't be considered notable. As I said above, if all members of this league are indeed eligible to participate in the US Open Cup, then I think the league itself can be considered notable. To clarify, I agree that the other articles (with the exception of Regals FC) can be deleted as non-notable. Deserter1 talk 13:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would also suggest Rio Grande Valley Ocelots FC be kept because I think they would be considered notable since they previously played in USL Premier Development League. Other team articles probably aren't worth keeping. The All-Time Rio Grande Valley Ocelots article coud be deleted since its just a bunch of names with red links. No need fo ran extra article there. Mateinsixtynine (talk) 15:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Ocelots didn't play in the PDL. The team which played in the PDL was the Rio Grande Valley Bravos FC, and the owner of the Ocelots bought the franchise rights from the Bravos owner after the Bravos had already folded. As far as the USOC is concerned, standard practice for US soccer editors has been that (with the exception of the teams that play in the PDL and the NPSL) amateur teams only become notable when they qualify for the first round of the tournament, not simply by taking part in their USASA regional qualification process. The Regals attained that criteria this year, but none of the other teams have (yet). JonBroxton (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all fail WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Courcelles 23:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Messianic Jewish organizations

AfDs for this article:

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

For over 3 1/2 years this article has been tagged as a list that is poorly defined, unverified or indiscriminate. No standards are provided to determine whether an organization should or should not be included in this list. The list is entirely unsourced. Wikipedia is a not a directory, a Google search might produce the same list that this article has. The list does not seem to provide any encyclopedic value, the text in the list itself seems to be directly lifted from each organization's own promotional copy in its web sites. Zad68 (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am the nominator for this AfD. A category would easily serve the same purpose of this list, and would actually be better because the category's item articles would be better sourced, undergo better scrutiny and not duplicate the information this list might hold. I have hopefully saved the category Messianic organizations from deletion and I have tagged the 3 organizations in this list that have Wikipedia articles with the category. -- Zad68 (talk) 15:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 16:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 16:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 16:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The inclusion criteria is rather clear, and the descriptions of the organizations make it rather obvious why each has been included. Per Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, categories and lists are intended to support each other, and there is no reason that both should not exist; Nothing would be duplicated, the information would be accessible through different means of access. While a category would merely include the titles of the included articles, this list can offer descriptions and details that are impossible to include in a category, and I'm unsure how "the category's item articles would be better sourced" because categories can never include sources while they can readily be added to a list. Alansohn (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no argument on notability has been raised--which is good, since I'm sure most would agree that Messianic Judaism is notable--but the objections that HAVE been raised do not require deletion to remedy them. Per WP:ATD, if the article is broken, fix it. Jclemens (talk) 01:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The earlier nomination for deletion of this page was on 3 September 2007, and the result of the discussion was keep. The list exists to support the Messianic Judaism article while preserving the encyclopedic character of the main article. Note this article was recently vandalized with an unauthorized miscategorization and subsequently restored.--DeknMike (talk) 02:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Contains embedded lists that are poorly defined, unverified and indiscriminate (tagged since January 2008) and relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject, rather than references from independent authors and reliable third-party publications (tagged since October 2007).

— Pakkaf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - Simply not notable nor encyclopedic, just a random list. --Cox wasan (talk) 11:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of how this article might meet notability guidelines.--On the counter (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or purge all non-notable entries I also question why all entries are US based, which seems odd (but then I know little of the topic). Stuartyeates (talk) 01:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concern was noted. Have included organizations organized and/or operating outside USA--DeknMike (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a legitimate content fork of Messianic Judaism. Most of these are mini-denominations and probably notable - collectively, the list is certainly valuable. As far as notability goes, the thing to look for is whether there is independent non-trivial coverage of messianic organizations in general, which there certainly is. StAnselm (talk) 06:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Challenge I agree: "the thing to look for is whether there is independent non-trivial coverage of messianic organizations" but the coverage needs to be for each organization proposed to occupy space in this Wikipedia article otherwise it fails WP:NOTABLE. I challenge the assertion that this coverage you describe exists, would you please take 3 or so of the (non-wikilinked) organizations recently added and show where we can see independent non-trivial coverage about each? Thanks... Zad68 (talk) 14:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you've totally misunderstood WP:NOTABLE - it clearly says "notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article" and that "these notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not directly limit the content of an article or list." St Anselm (talk) 04:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Concerned about the treatment of articles who are about Jews or Jewish groups tied with Christianity. Like in the article recently deleted (Michael L. Brown) and this, (Zola Levitt), we are having a few Single-purpose account accounts springing up submitting them for deletion or voting to delete. See here. The in these 3 deletes I mentioned all seem to have one or two account that are rather new to always stack things to "delete." Basileias (talk) 01:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would encourage you to tag SPAs as per Wikipedia:SPA#SPA_tagging. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A category and a main article exist so there is no need for a list as well.--TiberiasTiberias (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Many new entries to the list have been added since this this !vote started. I'm concerned that almost all of them currently lack independent third party sources (or articles containing said sources). I'm not really familiar with the topic but a quick google isn't finding sources for them either (Is it likely that there are sources in Hebrew for them?). Given that this appears to be a disputed area, independent third party sources would seem to be required. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree, the entries recently added to the list all fail WP:NOTABLE, and they all look like they fail WP:NOTADVERTISING. (As Messianic Judaism is a recent USA-based movement, we would expect references to be in English and not Hebrew... this is for English Wikipedia anyway.) Actually all these recently-added entries just strengthen the case for deleting this article under WP:NOTADIRECTORY as well. None (except one) of these entries has real WP:RS references, they are simply links to each group's own self-promotional web site with each organization's promotional ad copy copied here. No encyclopedic value is added beyond what category tags provide, which I have already taken care of. Zad68 (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Further Comment ...and as somebody already pointed out, the main article Messianic Judaism already contains a list: Messianic_Judaism#Messianic_organizations If the non-notable entries are taken out of the list there, the list is certainly small enough to keep the list maintained there instead of having a separate article (with no added encyclopedic value) to maintain as well. Zad68 (talk) 14:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your POV may be that this is a recent phenomena (I've heard the same lame - unverified - arguments before), but the movement has more validity than many other Wiki articles. (Isn't 'none' a bit strong? or have you deleted those links again?) We can double the length of the main page or keep mention of the key associations and link from the main page to this list. I vote we keep the page encyclopedic and link to the list.--DeknMike (talk) 20:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Even after your edits, the article still exhibits all the attributes that make it a good candidate for deletion. I noted "None (except one) of these entries has real WP:RS references" and that is still true: Only the MJAA entry was notable enough to have a reference from a WP:RS (actually the link provided is broken, it brings up snippets of 11 different pages of a book, and none of the snippets mentions the MJAA). The number of WP:NOTABLE entries (notable enough to have Wikipedia articles) in this list is still 3. Those 3 entries already have the appropriate Messianic organizations category applied, and they are already listed in the main article Messianic Judaism. The rest are not notable... in fact, in the case of both "Atlantic Messianic Alliance of America" and "Messianic Jewish Theological Institute", the links provided jump to no web site at all. I didn't check all the others but those two random clicks led nowhere. Clearly, these are not notable, and no evidence of notability is provided via a reliable third-party reference. All the text under "Focus" is advertising copy cut and pasted from each organization's promotional web site. The focus of this list is being further blurred now that "Congregations", "Schools" and "Publishers" are all getting lumped in here. Please review Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It's apparent that no encyclopedic value is added by this article, and the recent edits provide an increasingly strong case for deletion of this article because Wikipedia is not a directory. Just my observations. Zad68 (talk) 03:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 23:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tenille

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

Not a notable person, and barely sourced JDDJS (talk) 14:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ - I'm honestly at a complete loss with this one. Her hometown paper has a couple of articles about her [26], [27]. The Edmonton Journal has an article that covers her nomination for a Canadian Country Music Award. Given the nomination, I would have expected more coverage (which I cannot find), and reviews of her music (which I cannot find). Perhaps I've completely goofed in my research. -- Whpq (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - The additional reference from the Edmonton Journal tipsi ti over for me. -- Whpq (talk) 10:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak delete Her award nomination, coverage in the Edmonton Journal and appearance on Canada AM may just scrape by for WP:MUSIC but given her age and time in the industry there's not much out there to build on. You can tell that filler has been added to the article's length with the mention of the other artists which adds nothing to the article. Unless more coverage can be found, this is probably a delete although if she continues in music the article can always be recreated. freshacconci talktalk 17:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per addition of sources by Paul Erik. Passes WP:MUSIC now. freshacconci talktalk 12:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've tried digging around some more and have managed to come up with just this bare mention of the nomination. -- Whpq (talk) 19:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I've added multiple sources just now. There are multiple articles in Grande Prairie's newspaper, as well as more in the Edmonton Journal, significant coverage of her at the time of her 2009 single "Home Now". The sources also confirm national radio play (and performing on a national TV show), so she meets WP:MUSICBIO criterion #1 and possibly #11. The award nomination certainly helps too. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 00:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nadi al-Jam'iyya al-Islamiyya

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

Contested PROD; there is no evidence that this football club is notable by sporting standards, and having links with Hamas is not enough to show notability. Giant Snowman 13:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the general notability guideline. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How does it meet the GNG? Giant Snowman 14:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With significant coverage in the independent reliable sources cited in the article, including a whole book chapter about the subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any evidence that the coverage is "significant" - the chapter in Ref1 appears to be about "Football and Islamism in the Gaza Strip", not the club specificially, while Ref2 appears to be a passing mention and nothing more. Giant Snowman 14:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the introduction of the first book referenced the whole chapter is based on this club. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is one chapter in a book "significant coverage"? Giant Snowman 15:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Sufficient coverage to meet the GNG. See for example Jørgen Bæk Simonsen: "Youth and youth culture in the contemporary Middle East", p.117. Marokwitz (talk) 20:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A passing mention in a book is not "significant coverage." GiantSnowman 20:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For now striking I'm out my !vote. I think my initial evaluation was wrong, need to look into this some more. Marokwitz (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If kept, this article needs a complete rewrite, since this is not a football team, as incorrectly implied by this article. See "Youth In the Context of Oblation and Perpetration of Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorism: The Hamas Case. by Onur Karaköse". p.15 Marokwitz (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, what is it then? Giant Snowman 20:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a sports club, for a variety of sports. 21:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep I did a quick search for the club in Arabic (نادي الجمعية الإسلامية) and it seems like they are a football club that just won promotion to the Palestinian top flight. A search for the full name of the club in Google returned 11,000 hits, from different newspapers [28]. However, I think the club now changed its name to نادي الصداقة الرياضي .. Alsadaka Sports Club. Here is the club's official website: http://www.alsadaka.ps/. They're also mentioned here: [29], seems like its its a club "from Jabalya refugee camp in the north of the enclave". With that said, I think there's more than enough information out there from a number of different sources to confer notability through WP:GNG. TonyStarks (talk) 20:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good research, are you able to add as much information to the article as possible? If so, I'll be happy to withdraw my nomination. Giant Snowman 21:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I could. I should have some time tonight and I'll let you know when it's done. TonyStarks (talk) 21:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An entire book chapter on the team is pretty good ("Football and Islamism"); the other book's only a snippet view so I can't tell how in-depth the coverage is, but it's certainly more than a passing mention, as what I can see says "the article deals with the activities within one of the three Hamas-affiliated sports clubs in the Gaza Strip, the Nadi Jam'iyya al-Islamiyya." Not bad for a region where it's difficult to get stuff on the internet; TonyStarks also notes that they seem to be in their country's premier league. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article really needs to native-language version of the name ( the league it plays in) so editors acan check/find sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G7, here —SpacemanSpiff 21:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thamaraiyin Sondhangal

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

The film is only in production (according to the single source - WP:GNG not demonstrated as met) so article should not be created per WP:NFF. There is no evidence offered to suggest a deviation from the standard guidelines is appropriate. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 13:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it - The film has been confirmed by reliable source and is currently under production stage, hence must be kept again as per WP:NFF. If single source is a problem, please wait for few more days. If still it doesn't work, i will blank the page and you can delete it. Karthik Nadar (talk) 13:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Why that single reference would be a reliable source is not clear to me. If deletion is a problem, just wait or develop it in your user space--I or any other admin will be happy to userfy it for you. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - The credibility of "Behindwoods" was questioned many times in the past. The publish all sorts of rumours. The source indicates that the film is in production stage but doesn't give any other clue about it. --Commander _{(Ping Me)} 09:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete - If officially confirmed by many sources, will create again. Karthik Nadar (talk) 11:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andorra at the 2011 World Championships in Athletics

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

Permanently a substub article to say "Andorra did not compete at the event". PROD contested. Stifle (talk) 13:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but only just, I'm tempted to !vote Keep just becuase it's so ridiculous. However, we have enough trouble deciding which things that happened are notable, if we start creating articles on things which specifically didn't happen, AfD will probably reach critical mass and implode. For the same reason that we don't need an article on Andorra's non-existent lunar mission, we don't need an article on this. Yunshui (talk) 13:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I Googled "Andorra's non-existant lunar mission" and only found 2 hits linking back to this AFD. Therefore I submit that insufficient reliable sources exist to prove Andorra doesn't have a space program and such an article is indeed unsuitable for creation. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: He The country didn't compete in it and it doesn't say what he did do. This is a stupid article. SL93 (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you realise that Andorra is not a person? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant to type the country. I sometimes type the wrong thing on accident. I never looked back at the AfD to fix it until now. SL93 (talk) 20:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Don't see a reason to have an article on a country's performance in an athletic event when they didn't participate in said event. Maybe if there were circumstances leading to a lack of participation (like the U.S. in the 1980 Summer Olympics), an article could be justified, but that isn't the case here. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - surprisingly, the article does have a source which covers to some extent that Andorra would not participate. Xinhua also verfies the fact that they (and some other countries) didn't participate but that's really a passing mention. I don't see that this lack of participation has generated the coverage necessary to justify an article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this non-participation was not due to noteworthy events and there's really nothing else that can be written, let alone verified. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing notable regarding the non-participation, unlike, say, United States at the 1980 Summer Olympics. GregorB (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kai Nagata

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

No real notability. Basically a "one hit wonder" with resignation letter. See policy WP: NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:BLP1E Spoonkymonkey (talk) 11:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC) cat=B Biographical[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to TV station. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A viral blog is just sensationalism. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Kakinada. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University College of Engineering Vizianagaram

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

An unnotable constituent college. I was going to suggest a merge but there is zero useful material. Should be deleted and then a redirect can be made. Muhandes (talk) 10:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I once got scolded for suggesting a deletion and redirect. Apparently that is a no-no.--MelanieN (talk) 01:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that's the case when attribution may be needed. But the current article is completely useless. The little existing material is unsourced, and seems to be copy pasted from promotional material, cf. this, and may be a copyvio. --Muhandes (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, what would be the point of a redirect? If someone is looking for information about this college, the name of the university will get them there. --MelanieN (talk) 01:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. I said it can be made, in case someone thinks this is a valid search term. Redirects are cheap. --Muhandes (talk) 08:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. News coverage of this institution ([30]) is sufficient for general notability guideline. Article includes campus photos and campus information that do not fit into the article for the parent institution. --Orlady (talk) 18:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The news coverage is far from being depth coverage, it is mostly announcement of the establishment, reports on the opening ceremony etc. Therefore there is no evidence of notability. Photos are never a reason to keep an article, they can be put in the commons. There is no reason why the campus information cannot be put in the parent article as well.--Muhandes (talk) 11:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to parent. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ On second thought, Delete. There is no need for a separate article about this constituent college of Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Kakinada. A redirect would be redundant since the name of the university is the first part of the name of the college in any case. --MelanieN (talk) 01:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Stuartyeates. There is some info not found in parent article. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 13:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Párvusz

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

I can't find any evidence that this artist passes WP:N; one small gallery exhibition and a cartoon character in a magazine that has a whole two issues does not inherent notability make - and does not make general notability unless there's reliable sourcing to back it up. Ironholds (talk) 10:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -fails WP:CREATIVE. ukexpat (talk) 13:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability. Vanity page. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Should we let the other 20 Wikipedias that have machine translated clones of this article know about this crap? Sven Manguard Wha? 15:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It was deleted from fi-wiki a year ago as cross-wiki spamming. Reasons were: References only self submitted profiles, comics are published in magazines nurturing a very small language (Sami, Retoroman), which do publish e.g. stories by children, whatever available in that rare language. Seven works displayed once in a norwegian small town gift and souvenir shop [31]. No real exhibitions, articles, collections, studies in art etc. Has asked users in various wikis to translate the article after making a few himself in small rare languages: [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], -BluePuddle (talk) 18:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BMI Group (Hong Kong)

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

A financial services company that fails WP:CORP. Speedy delete was declined because it is listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange as its only claim of significance. Unable to find independent WP:RS with no claims of notability as an internet search turned up only companies listing, recruitment notices and other passing mentions. Michaela den (talk) 10:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 10:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lack of secondary sources. STSC (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of characters in the Camp Half-Blood series#Annabeth Chase. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Annabeth Chase (Percy Jackson)

Previous AfDs for this article:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annabeth (Percy Jackson)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annabeth (Percy Jackson) (2nd nomination)

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

This character is a minor person on a minor book series --ChristianandJericho 10:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC) ChristianandJericho 10:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the above to remove an inappropriate deletion from the previous AFD list Edgepedia (talk) 12:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a character in a book series and a film. The both the series and film do appear to be notable; both having coverage in reliable independent sources. Also this character doesn't appear to be minor person in the film; in the film article she's listed a 'main character' and the actress was nominated for an award for her performance. If she was not notable then this article would redirect to List of characters in the Camp Half-Blood series#Annabeth_Chase. I don't think the nominator has given a valid reason for deletion. Edgepedia (talk) 12:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She is the secondary main character, similar to Hermione in Harry Potter. That is not minor. Anyways, for real deletion/keep reasons, the character has coverage in third party reliable sources, and meets guidelines. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 18:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG sources need to have substantial coverage of the topic, not a related topic. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to an appropriate character list. Subject is clearly a major character in a notable series. Edward321 (talk) 00:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge per Edwards321 as compromise). Sources talk tangentially around the character. A few quotes with nothing of substance to say about her significance. Not enough to WP:verify notability and meet the general notability guideline. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:GNP is met on the basis of a number of significant secondary verifiable sources. See Gnews --Ryan.germany (talk) 13:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC) Archive[reply]
Delete or Merge - Does not pass WP:GNG. The link provided by Ryan.germany shows many news articles which mention the character, but these are only trivial mentions with no significant coverage. Because there are no notability guidelines for fictional characters save for GNG, I cannot support keeping this article. However, I would like to see a guideline written up at some point and restore/delete this article based on what it says. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of characters in the Camp Half-Blood series. Notable within the series, perhaps, but none of the sources found so far really appears to meet the requirement of significant coverage. However, some of the content is worth keeping, so a merge would make sense. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - How do sources 2, 3, 14, 15, and 16 not satisfy notability purposes? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 22:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 2: Can't see it. Reference 3: Dead link. Reference 14: Don't have access to that review. Reference 15: Another dead link. Reference 16: Trivial mention of the character, more about the actress who plays her. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Move to Wikipedia:Backstage projects.. causa sui (talk) 01:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Backstage projects

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

This is an entirely self-referential description of internal Wikipedia / WMF processes. It's a perfect fit for projectspace, which is where it should be moved (and possibly later migrated to Meta). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move, at least in the interim, to a Wikipedia: page, and keep; and speedy close this discussion, because deletion of the page is not really being requested here. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

move per FRankie. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't have a problem with move but what would be the specific section for a move? Thanks, Geof. GeoBard^Semi-retired 00:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Backstage projects would seem like the logical first choice. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. joe decker ^{talk to me} 13:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pyrography

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

Pyrography clearly exists, however I can't find any reliable sources describing it, just a few blogs and a few galleries using the word without any useful context. The article itself is a fusion of cleverly disguised advertisement and not at all disguised advertisement, and the gallery conflicts with the article on what is, or is not, Pyrography. Between the fact that it's all unsourced and that there's a good deal of advertspam, the page is pretty useless. I asked a few other users Sven Manguard Wha? 09:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overtaken By Events (OBE) Blatant copyvio of http://www.jessieobrien.com/pyrography, CSD-tagged accordingly Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of minutes checking reveals that the linked web page dates from 2007, whereas similar content was inserted into the Wikipedia article on various dates from March 2005 onwards. The copyright infringement is the other way round. It is essential to do a little checking before tagging for speedy deletion as a copyvio. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found several pages with identical content to parts / all of the article, didn't check all of them for dates, etc. Can we be sure on this? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 12:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP should have an article on this topic. BigJim707 (talk) 13:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Hundreds of books, thousands of articles - how on earth could you struggle to find references for this? Blatantly notable topic, absolutely no reason to delete. It does need a rewrite and some citations; I don't have the time now but will see what I can do to fix it up tomorrow. Yunshui (talk) 13:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I highly recommend you start the article over from scratch. Not only because of the copyvio question, but also because the spammy prose, COI editors, and the fact that if you "accidentally forgot" to include most of the gallery, you'd be doing the subject a service. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but delete the page and start over, to be safe. No need to have potential copyvio lying around. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Much better now, though some pics should be brought back. The nom should never have been launched as the subject is clearly notable, with 13 other language versions etc. Johnbod (talk) 15:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've always known it as wood burning. Obviously notable with entire books written about the subject. -- Whpq (talk) 15:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Aazaan. A simple solution is what everyone wants and the question is not around notability of the film, but about other issues like duplication and primary title etc, so I'm moving Aazaan (film) to Aazaan and will redirect this duplicate article there at least for attribution purposes since some content has been moved by one user. —SpacemanSpiff 10:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aazaan (the film)

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

conflict with another article with the same title. Aazaan (film). other article is up-to-date and neatly written. The user of this page is been blocked too. Ashu (talk) 07:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Beloved Freak 09:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Beloved Freak 09:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I misunderstood at first. I thought you were talking about articles on two different films. Where we have multiple articles on one topic, it doesn't matter really which is "the best" (or "neatest"); we simply merge what useful information there is from each into one. I've added a small amount of useful info from Aazaan (the film) into Aazaan (film) and the former can now be redirected to the latter. I would do it myself, but I'm not sure if this would count as a speedy keep or if me closing this AFD like this would be out of process. Of course, editors may consider "Aazaan (the film)" to be an implausible search term, in which case {{db-r3}} might apply, although I can't really see any harm in keeping the redirect. --Beloved Freak 09:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Aazaan (film). Note that Aazaan (film) should be moved by an admin to Aazaan, which has been salted for repeated spamming. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Panditejashri and User talk:Panditejashri: this article has been created under several names, nearly all of them copyvio spam. I tried to edit one for WP:NPOV, but it got deleted. Let's see how long Aazaan (film) lasts in its present neutral state. Gurt Posh (talk) 10:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can be easily recreated if this organization becomes more notable in the future. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand Tea Party

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

No significant, verifiable coverage from multiple independent reliable and independent sources. Yaksar (let's chat) 07:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd consider the New Zealand Electoral Commission to be a credible and independent source. They are the authority in NZ on whether a political party is "real" or not, and they're not in the habit of registering logos for parties that don't actually exist. --IdiotSavant (talk) 12:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never tried to argue that this party was not real; there's no doubt that it exists. But it is still a non-registered party, so it is not inherently notable without GNG passing coverage. A listing on the board of elections site approving the logo is hardly anything significant coverage (it seems that all parties, registered or not, must have their logo approved).--Yaksar (let's chat) 14:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement that all logos must be registered is incorrect. There are longstanding parties which have never bothered to register a logo. Its something which shows a party is actually notable, rather than a failure from the outset.

The policy for New Zealand political parties has always been to include all parties which register, run electorate candidates, or are notable for other reasons (e.g. having MPs, being significantly influential without running anything). Between elections, parties are included prospectively, then deleted if they do not meet those criteria. We have an election in a little over two months, and it will become clear in early November whether this party (and others which have recently been formed) are going to meet notability. I suggest leaving the article for the moment, and revisiting the issue of deletion after nomination day. --IdiotSavant (talk) 03:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 08:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It looks like anyone can register a political party in New Zealand. Considering that there are parties advocating NZ joining Australia and the USA, as well as becoming communist, it doesn't look like merely registering as a party means a lot. The notice of secondary sources is still needed. BigJim707 (talk) 13:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I've doubled the number of references and added a link or two. Still very borderline, but it wouldn't be the end of the world if it wasn't deleted before the end of November (i.e. after the election). Disclaimer: I'm an active member of the NZ Wikiproject. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until after the November election, per IdiotSavant. Deletion of a political party article so close to an election seems unfair, given that no one is doubting the actual existence of the party.-gadfium 06:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I think the opposite is true for this. It's not our job to equalize the notability of political parties to make it "fair", if it's not notable, we don't have an article on it. For example, let's say this were an article on a non-notable politician and it was right before an election: WP:Politician would have us delete or redirect it, like in this AfD.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it appears that a former-MP (with independent notability) may be running for the party (increasing notability / chances of winning a seat), but none of the sources say so much in so many words, so I've not added it to either of the articles. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete all. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K-1 ColliZion 2010 Croatia

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

also nominating:

another useless sprawling series of results that fail WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 06:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 06:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication this is anything but routine sports coverage. Papaursa (talk) 21:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Articles fail to show notability or independent sources. Astudent0 (talk) 18:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per WP:ROUTINE. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. It would have been nice if improvements were made after the last AFD, but luckily we are not on a deadline here, and there is at least a weak lean in the consensus that she is borderline notable. (also noting that much of her work was pre-internet and sources related to it may not be online, maybe someone could visit an actual library?) Beeblebrox (talk) 21:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Genny Smith

AfDs for this article:

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

Nothing showing any notability in article. Sources are very weak. Was up for deletion many years back and Kept basically on the hope that article would be improved and eventually show notability, which never happened. Notability needs to be shown to be kept. Should have been deleted then, still needs to be deleted now. DreamGuy (talk) 06:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this hinges on the criteria at WP:CREATIVE, and mav's comment from 7 years ago:

Keep : Being a publisher is notable as well as being on Board of Directors of the Mono Lake Committee (a very important conservation group in Eastern California).

Does being a publisher of multiple books and a Director (emeritus) of a notable organization fulfill WP:CREATIVE? —hike395 (talk) 07:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMO it is not enough to fulfill either WP:CREATIVE or WP:BIOGRAPHY. --MelanieN (talk) 15:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — Beloved Freak 09:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searching confirms that she is an author or editor of numerous books about the Sierras, often under the name Genny Schumacher Smith. She has published over a very long time frame, at least from 1958 to 1993.[53] But just being a writer is not enough for notability, and I can't find that anyone has ever written anything ABOUT her writings, or about her. There is very little biographical information about her in the article, and I could find none on the internet. BTW her bio at Amazon is word-for-word identical with this article; did Amazon copy the WP article, or is the article a cut-and-paste from Amazon? --MelanieN (talk) 15:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon copied the WP article —hike395 (talk) 01:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being the author or co-author of at least six books, a publisher and a former member of the board of an influential non-profit (which won a fight against the city of LA that saved a lake and its ecosystem from being destroyed). She has been a significant figure in creating a body of reference material about a region. --mav (reviews needed) 01:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to agree with you, if I could find any independent reliable sources saying so. --MelanieN (talk) 01:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citing an essay in an RS context? :) A reference to the ultimate answer too. Who said Wikipedians have no sense of humour? That said, let's stick with policies and guidelines. --mav (reviews needed) 02:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I use that link as shorthand for WP:INDEPENDENT WP:RELIABLE sources. And we do need such sources; THAT is policy. --MelanieN (talk) 02:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She is called "The Naturalist Queen of the Eastern Sierra" by Colleen Dunn Bates [54]. I'm still looking for more sources —hike395 (talk) 05:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's good! I added it to the article. Another one or two like that and her notability will be established. --MelanieN (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She's considered "author of definitive guidebooks to Mammoth" with "over 67,000 copies in print" [55] —hike395 (talk) 08:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm skeptical if that qualifies as a "reliable source", looks more like a blog - well, I see it is an internet page sponsored by "Mammoth Magazine", but that "magazine" seems to be almost content-free and rarely updated.[56] In any case I can't cite the item because it is undated. But keep trying! --MelanieN (talk) 15:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 19:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid Computing

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

Delete. Non-notable defunct company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per reliable sources already in the article that establish notability of the topic. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Links already in the article that establish notability: Theregister.co.uk article, Another Theregister.co.uk article. Did the nominator check the references already in the article? Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:29, 14 September 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 Computing-related deletion discussions.

Delete. Regardless of whether sources might exist that could potentially establish notability, the information-free description of this business is unambiguous advertising and patent nonsense: ...provides "unified computing infrastructure for the dynamic data center". The company claimed LiquidIQ and Liquid Elements unified computing solutions drove down the time and costs of managing IT infrastructure through unified software-based control of servers, storage, and networking resources. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as pter Ihcoyc. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AFD is not cleanup. The article is clearly notable by sources already found. If you have a problem with the tone or any of the content, then discuss it on the talk page. Dream Focus 04:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:CORP. sufficient coverage in gnews [57]. LibStar (talk) 04:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to LG-Ericsson. Edit history preserved for future editorial merging. causa sui (talk) 01:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LG-Nortel IP Phone 8540

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

Delete. Non-notable product. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge verifiable data to Unified communications, a better solution compared to blanket deletion. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That does not seem like a good place to merge info about one particular model of phone. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge' , but Alan is quite right that it serves no purpose to merge to such general articles. Rather, we shouldmake an article on this brand of phones, and merge it in there. It has sometimes been objected in such circumstances that there might be no such page at present, but that can be dealt with by editing: Move this article to such a page, give it a section heading, and and a one-sentence general introductory statement--then there will be a place to merge the other. the principle is to allow for expansion, as NOT PAPER. DGG ( talk ) 01:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to LG-Ericsson. The individual product is not notable enough for an article, but it is already has several sentences at this article about the company that makes it. --MelanieN (talk) 01:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. causa sui (talk) 01:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William Seebring

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

Delete. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Also, the editor who created the article may have a conflict of interest. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: With no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, the author does not meet the criteria of notability for people. There is also no evidence that the author meets the additional criteria for creative professionals to presume that an article about him is needed. Jfgslo (talk) 14:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think we have normally regarded writing a poem or story or play included in an anthology as notability. It shows recognition of importance by a responsible editorial group. DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The deletion argument was based on the lack of personal notable achievement. However, there is a strong consensus that his historical legacy coupled with such sources as exist make him a valid encyclopaedic subject. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hiallt

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

Does not pass WP:BIO; only claim to notability is being begotten by some notable people and begetting a notable clan. No information on the person himself is available, and notability is not inherited. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Our biographical standards are created primarily to exclude trivial people in the present time; the amount of sourcing available for people born nearly eleven centuries ago is so different from the amount of sourcing available for people alive today that anyone from that time for whom we have this much information should be covered. Do you really believe that we can know this much about him without the existence of substantial coverage? Nyttend (talk) 03:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Know this much about him" (emphasis mine). We know about his family, not him. If he is truly notable for begetting people, how many sons and daughters did he have? Any estimates? Siblings? Battles or important raids? If we are going to write about every single progenitor out there, we'd have untold billions of possibilities. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hiallt is not notable for begetting lots of offspring and the article does not claim such. Surely successful begetting in Wiki terms is a qualitative not a quantative process, he only needed to beget one notable offspring (Thoralf - it's in the sources but not mentioned in the article because it's not yet important) in order to achieve the position that we are discussing here. (Note - Klara Hitler begat 6 offspring, but we don't really care about the others.) Billions of progenitors? May I suggest a different biology textbook for this debate to stay sensible. Chienlit (talk) 17:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm? If his claim to notability is not being the ancestor of a notable person, then what is it? Regarding the "billions", our article on Human population notes that there were 2 billion alive in 1927, of which at least a billion must have died by now, and most would have had at least one child. Go back another 2000 years and there will be even more. Should a (theoretical) common ancestor of Hulk Hogan, Kim Jong Il, and Desmond Tutu have an article for having a notable descendent? Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Hiallt founded / originated at least one, possibly three, communities in France. I think that is redolent of a 'significant' achievement, but it doesn't take many words to say this, (we only have the anachronistic French idiom as proof), and so it is covered in a few words the article. But his real significance is that his DNA was spread throughout Western Europe and the Middle East in positions of great power, and his family's expansionist culture has resonated throughout geopolitics for 1,000 years. I wrote the article because I was researching backwards from 9/11 for the root of the conflict, a path which leads inexorably over 1,000 years to the first crusade and bloodshed in the Holy land and a climate of mistrust and misunderstanding. It then leads further back to 'some of' the instigators of the crusades, Vikings, who had already traded, plundered, pillaged, conquered, tricked and settled throughout both Russia and Western Europe so that they were known as Normans, English, Italian etc. Hiallt was probably born too late to be a plunderer of Normandy, the Treaty of Saint-Clair-sur-Epte may have ensured that he instead became a settler, but when a Viking decided to settle on your fields I doubt whether it was a pleasant experience. A settler is probably not much more than a plunderer who stays, integrates with local women, giving the choice of fight to the death, enslavement, or running away. It is possible that no information about Hiallt passes Wiki's tests, but that doesn't mean that we should delete such people, maybe we need to refine the tests. This article gives us the merest glimmer of the slightest insight into the incredibly successful expansionist culture of these people. The direct quote from Goffredo Malaterra ...took the Cross with the intention of plundering and conquering Greek lands.. may well be a reasonable insight into the hereditary culture of the family, rather than merely a description of Tancred, but it is up to the reader to piece together their own picture. (For me the quote would seem to be a good basis for 1,000 years of bloodshed and mistrust.) I look forward to 2121 with intense anticipation and absolute certainty that Wikipedians will have unearthed more verifiable details about the man and his family. Chienlit (talk) 13:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There may not be much known about this person, but his name appears in multiple records and traditions as the scion of an influential family and the founder of a community and a dynastic family. Particularly considering that it is now some 1100 years after his death and his name is still remembered in this fashion, that's more than enough notability to be the basis for an article. --Orlady (talk) 16:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I totally agree with Nyttend's argument. Not to mention the multiple records about him and him founding at least one town. Bgwhite (talk) 20:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because this is an encyclopedia. The various notability guidelines are designed to help us deal with marginal cases, not topics that are obviously encyclopedic. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mask (Mugbook)

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

Just a routine College publication-nothing indicates that this is special enough to merit its own article. I don't know of any specific notability guideline similar to WP:BOOK that this can be judged against other than the WP:GNG which it obviously fails. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.192.15.137 (talk) 03:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination finished for IP. lifebaka 03:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Minor college periodical, fails WP:NMAGAZINE and WP:GNG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any verifiable information to Walla Walla University. --MelanieN (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn as userfied, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 11, 2002

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

Is this a hoax or just a bad idea? Where is the evidence and references?Ydntop (talk) 01:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete, possibly as speedy for hoax. Site referenced is file not found. SYSS Mouse (talk) 02:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - There's one source and it's a bad link. Could we get an admin to delete this immediately, please? --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 02:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only source provided is a broken link. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources whatsoever. The article has been basically the same for almost five years. JIP | Talk 05:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No currently accessible sources on the date, article on Hassan bin Attash does not confirm the date, has some of the same (non date) material. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:Coatrack. The article is really about Hassan bin Attash. BigJim707 (talk) 13:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
tentative Keep' pending clarification of the reference and a check on the date. I note this AfD is the nom's first contribution to Wikipedia, so he may not know that GeoSwan's referencing is almost always correct, though documents such as this move around frequently, and he, like all other editors, make errors. I do not think he has ever introduced any hoax articles on any subject, so it's a pretty odd assertion from a new editor. As for the other deletion reasons, we do not delete articles because of broken links, we fix them. Nor do we delete articles because they have remained the same for 5 years. Whether we might want to remove this article because its not really necessary as a separate needs some further thought, but if the date can be verified, and no other captives that date can be verified, it can be merged into the article on the person. If there are other captives, they of course should be added. DGG ( talk ) 16:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the sole contributor of intellectual content I am going to userify this stub. No, it is not a hoax.
I started this stub 57 months ago. In those five years the wikipedia's standards have become stricter. In those 5 years I have become much more experienced, and my own personal standards are stricter.
If I were starting this article today I would have entitled it Karachi safe house raids. We know about some important safe house raids There is the recent safe house raid where Osama bin Laden was killed. I don't think there is any question that this was the most important safe house raid. There are only a few other raids or sets of raids we know a lot about. The March 2002 Faisalabad raids netted Abu Zubaydah and half a dozen captives who were to face charges before the military commission system. The Karachi raids netted another half dozen key al Qaeda leaders, and important computer files, including lists believed to be of the real names of hundreds of recruits who attended al Qaeda training camps, lists of passports, financial records, and other key information.
I strongly suspect that an article on the Karachi safe house raids is not only viable, with enough work it might even qualify for good article status. But I cann't afford much time to work on it during the afd process.
Hence userification. After userification. Geo Swan (talk) 18:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and WP:SALT as this is the third deletion. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trubiquity

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

I am unable to locate substantial secondary sources for this "software solutions" company as required per WP:GNG. Previously deleted per A7 and PROD processes. VQuakr (talk) 01:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as the user didn't want to prove notability in the AFC-process and did a copy 'n paste job of the declined article! mabdul 14:30, 14 September 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 Computing-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Advertising copy (article is just a product list) and meaningless, deliberately vague text: a software company providing enterprise software and software-as-a-service (SaaS) solutions for managed file transfer (MFT), business process integration and supply chain collaboration for the automotive, aerospace, advanced manufacturing, retail, finance, healthcare and consumer goods industries. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - advert, numerous press release sources used to give false impression of notability, created by an SPA. Dialectric (talk) 02:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask what the difference between the way this page is written and this page is? Also, I added an external link that shows Siemens as recognizing this as a major PLM solution provider, as well as a reference to the Odette webpage recognizing this company as a major global OFTP2 service provider. aboz1626 (talk) 19:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability on Wikipedia is defined by policies (in this case, at WP:CORP). If and how Siemens views the company is not directly relevant to a notability discussion. As to your first question, probably not much but that is also not relevant. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 07:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 19:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Sims

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

Does not meet WP:BIO, lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. His books might meet notability guidelines but I'm having difficulty locating sources where this person is the focus on the article. RadioFan (talk) 19:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Borderline, but falls on the keep side for me. There is the Telegraph article which is a substantial piece. His book is known even in Italy. Not available for free, but he is clearly the primary subject of this Church Times article. Also not available for preview, but visible in the search results from [58] is "Country life: Volume 199, Issues 44-47" which shows "Seeking a new flock: the Rev Graeme Sims of which he instructs in a different language ranging from Arabic to Anglo-Saxon. Speaking in tongues to his sheepdogs is more than a parish party trick for Graeme. He travels with an eight- dog ..." -- Whpq (talk) 14:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's borderline, but looks notable to me. Nice source-finding from Whpq. Keep. Meelar (talk) 01:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Topic's notability is established per several reliable sources listed above researched by user Whpq. Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gangsta (manga)

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

Search for reliable third-party source doesn't come of with much, but given the title, it's hard to separate the wheat from the chafe. Fails WP:BK and WP:NOTE. In fact, I'm having a hard time verifying that the series ran in Comic Bunch, especially since the manga allegedly started in the magazine when it ceased publication. —Farix (t | c) 01:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Try these hits? This page appears to be a case of WP:CRYSTAL - at present it does not seem to meet WP:BK or WP:GNG. --Malkinann (talk) 02:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not much for references have been added since this was first put up for AfD, I do not see any WP:Notability to be had here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Apparently it's notable enough to have a movie adaptation made of it according to the Japanese Wikipedia entry: ギャングスタ (映画). But, that doesn't necessarily justify an English entry and I couldn't find a comparable entry for the manga itself in the Japanese pages. But then again, I'm just searching by copy-pasting kanji. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 03:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Energy policy of the United States. Courcelles 00:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

United States oil politics

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

This article is hopelessly original research and especially synthesis. The first section is simple factual info on US's importation of oil; however, it is included to imply (which the sources do not) that this effects US politics (I mean, yes, of course it does, but we cannot be the ones to synthesize that information per WP policy). The only other thing in the article is 2 extended quotes (rather than summary of those quotes) from limited sources, on very specific policies (information that could better be incorporated into other articles). In other words, to make this article comply with WP:OR and sourcing, I'd have to remove the entire thing except for the lead and couple of quotes. Since there is no underlying article that can be saved, it must be deleted until someone is willing to write an OR compliant version. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Salvage whatever factual information may be relevant to various subsections of United States, then delete. This isn't an encyclopedia entry, it's a policy paper. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 03:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The article may have some forms of WP:SYNTHESIS in it, which would need to be corrected by editing, not deletion of the entire article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except that there is nothing in the article that isn't synthesis except for 2 quotations. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge factual information to Energy policy of the United States and then redirect there. Beagel (talk) 04:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I second that proposal, with a specific redirect to Energy policy of the United States#Petroleum. I also think [Energy use in the United States] may benefit from the facts listed in this. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 15:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Beagel above. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This is irredeemably OR and synthesis. Wlse, it would simply be a list of--I don't know, names of pieces of legislation pertaining to oil? Whatever goes beyond that is for the blogs and the magazines, not for an encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 22:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If anyone actually reads the article, you'll see it is not Original Research, but quotes ambassadors and other reliable sources for information. Newspapers have been covering "oil politics" involving the United States for decades now. [59] Dream Focus 18:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Energy policy of the United States#Petroleum, per Beagel & Nintendude.--JayJasper (talk) 18:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Drake & Josh characters. (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 19:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Nichols

AfDs for this article:

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

Article is unsourced and the information is covered nicely about the character at List of Drake & Josh characters. In addition, no other major characters have their own pages, and IMHO, none of them should. Tinton5 (talk) 06:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of Drake & Josh characters if there is found to be any information not already found there. The first AFD for this article appears to be for a different Josh Nichols, so that info doesn't really apply here. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or redirect to List of Drake & Josh characters. Just plot info (WP:NOT#PLOT) and in-universe trivia, nothing sourced. The LoC already has a succinct character desciption, so I see nothing to merge. With this being the only D&J character that currently has a separate bad-shape article, it should be given the same (non-article) status as all the other characters. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Drake & Josh Characters. 11coolguy12 (talk) 11:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to List of Drake & Josh characters: The fictional character does not seem to meet the general notability guideline. As the fictional character has no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that make analytic or evaluative claims about him from a real-world perspective or beyond the plot of the TV show, any article about him can only be a summary-only description of a fictional work. On top of that, the article is unreferenced, so I do not see a valid reason to keep the article. A redirect to List of Drake & Josh characters may be a good alternative to deletion, but I favor deletion slightly since the fictional character's name is shared by real people not related in any way to the show. Jfgslo (talk) 23:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet the general notability guideline. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was wrong forum. As others have said, this is not "articles for splitting", and "split and delete" is not possible for reasons of attribution. Splits can occur through normal editing with no need for an AfD discussion. Sandstein 06:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Beach Boys solo discography

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

Split and delete. Cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of solo albums by members of The Beatles —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Split per nom. This is not articles for splitting, though. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response Sure, but would you keep this as a dab page or just make it a redlink as any unlikely search term that should have no incoming links? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Split and keep as a disambiguation page. Dzlife (talk) 13:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If anyone wants to merge any of the verifiable content I'd be happy to userfy a copy for them. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

White or black hat

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

Fork of search engine optimization that mainly duplicates same content and then adds unreliable, unnecessary details or spam. An unnecessary page. Anthing useful can go in the main article. Jehochman ^Talk 12:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has a silly title and not much else to recommend it. Warden (talk) 17:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Anything useful should merge to search engine optimization or Spamdexing which covers the Black hat side Ace of Risk (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ample coverage found. If you had trouble finding valid results in the massive number of results, you shouldn't just declare it had no coverage, but instead found a way to sort through it. [60] By searching for "White hat" "black hat" "search engine optimization" I got results. The New York Times has an article [61]. Macworld has one also. [62] These and others do cover it in detail, explaining the practice, what it is, how it works, and what the results are, who has used it to make their company worth vast amounts of money, etc. Dream Focus 17:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Newsweek has an article on it on its Daily Best. [63], and Information Week covers it as well. [64] Dream Focus 17:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just confirming that these terms are widely used to classify spammers and hackers in "good" and "bad" categories. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per reliable sources that establish notability of the topic Northamerica1000 (talk) 23:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Ace of Risk. Move useful info to search engine optimization or Spamdexing as needed. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 13:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Ralph

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

Nominate for deletion Cannot find anything to support WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 14:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nomination. In my eye, this is pushing A7. smithers - talk 01:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article has no sources. 122.106.189.57 (talk) 09:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eddy Willems

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

Nominate for deletion Can't find anything to support notability, everything onGhits seems to be self-promotion.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not the place to post your résumé. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bluecanvas

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

Originally tagged as speedy G11, but the article has been cleaned up. However, the notability of this magazine in questionable at best. There are several references used in the article; however only two of them would qualify as reliable: one is behind a paywall, and the other talks about the magazine's founder, but not about the magazine itself. Fails WP:NMEDIA. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Currently working on gathering better reliable sources about the magazine itself and cleaning up the article. Thank you for your input and help. I really appreciated it. Lexoman (talk) 22:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Perhaps it is best to wait before a blanket deletion, per user Lexoman's statement above about expanding and cleaning up the article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's been several days, and there shouldn't be an article if it's not ready. If (Wikipedia:SPA) Lexoman is still going to work on it, he should do it in his sandbox like he's been doing. JFHJr (㊟) 08:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC) P.S. He can always recreate the page when it's viable, after all... JFHJr (㊟) 08:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 00:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Baruch Taub

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

A long-serving rabbi who retired to Israel, but doesn't meet notability guidelines. PK T(alk) 21:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —PK T(alk) 21:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. PK T(alk) 21:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Beth Avraham Yoseph of Toronto where he was the founding and long-serving rabbi. He is already mentioned there at Beth Avraham Yoseph of Toronto#History and whatever little content there is here or could be added in the future can always be included at that main Beth Avraham Yoseph of Toronto synagogue article. IZAK (talk) 05:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Who? I've never heard of this guy, but that aside, he's not-notable. Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About what percentage of bios have you "heard of"? My personal estimates hover at less then one percent. Does that mean I am really stupid or that a lot of bios must be deleted?--brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. A quick search of Google would have yielded the nominator plenty of secondary coverage for notability. The subject is the founding rabbi and rabbi emeritus of the largest Orthodox congregation in Canada, and the former National Director of NCSY, which is enough notability for anyone. I expanded the article with refs. Yoninah (talk) 17:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Yoninah. The founding rabbi of the Beth Avraham Yoseph of Toronto is no small feat. smithers - talk 01:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per reliable sources added by user Yoninah. It appears that the nominator didn't follow the guidelines listed in WP:BEFORE for source searching prior to nominating this article for deletion, which nullifies the basis of nomination for deletion. There's no mention in the nomination regarding the availability of reliable sources. The nomination's basis is upon content that was within the article, rather than upon searching for reliable sources, as required per WP:BEFORE requirements. Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the work done by Yoninah. Also, @Northamerica1000: I'd caution against the whole "xe didn't follow BEFORE" line. You have no idea what they did or didn't do. Plenty of people don't come up with sources when they do Google searches because they don't know to do an archives search. People have a variety of interpretations of what falls under our RS guidelines. I, for one, don't always mention that I did a source ahead of time, as it's rather implied. Maybe he did follow BEFORE, maybe he didn't, but it's best to take up that issue on the nominator's talk page, politely, rather than accuse them here. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The wording of the nomination is inspecific, stating that the topic doesn't meet notability guidelines without stating which one(s). Referring to entire pages of guidelines fails to qualify specific reasons for notability or lack thereof, and equates to referring to an entire list of multiple, specific rationales as a singular, generic rationale for article deletion. This equates to stating that an article should be deleted because of any reason on a guideline page, without actually stating any of the criterion on the guideline page to qualify the statement, which is illogical. The link provided in the nominator's message linked to the guidelines for notability of people, but again, no specific rationale is provided. If it's the basic criterion, which parts? All of them? Some of them? None are specifically stated. The number of readily and easily available sources qualifies my statement above about the likelihood of the article being nominated without following proper procedures for source searching before doing so. This article shouldn't have been nominated to be removed from Wikipedia in the first place due to the topic's notability per the availability of reliable sources. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 00:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Smith (British Army officer)

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

British Army officer who not notable per Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Might fall foul of WP:oneevent I s'pose, but Smith and his role in Operation Deadstick is well documented in reliable sources (books, not newspapers, so it isn't as if he was a one week story). Ranger Steve ^Talk 16:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:SOLDIER says (as it has to): "In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources." Only considering the books in libraries of people active in Milhist, we probably have hundreds of books that devote significant, independent coverage to all the key Normandy officers. There's a misreading of WP:ONEEVENT here; we're not going to get rid of our article on Nathan Hale, who was only notable for one event. The point of WP:ONEEVENT is that multiple newspapers, all breathlessly dishing out the same drivel, don't make someone notable; but if the interest of multiple independent historians doesn't make someone notable, then "notability" doesn't mean anything. - Dank (push to talk) 17:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Dank has this one, I think; there are clearly sufficient sources to show notability. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The subject has been mentioned in a lot of reliable sources, but IMO that doesn't equal "sigificant coverage". To me these are passing mentions which are all about a single event. As such I do not believe the subject is notable under the WP:GNG. Without seeking to downplay the significance of his service in any way, the subject was a junior officer who was awarded a 3rd level gallantry award - both insufficient in themselves under the guidelines in WP:SOLDIER. Anotherclown (talk) 09:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, despite the reference to 'World War 11'. . . Mean as custard (talk) 21:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. As pointed out, a dedicated paragraph in a leading quality newspaper is significant coverage in a reliable source. And there are other sources to support the Telegraph. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Clark (Captain)

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

British Army officer who not notable per Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An obituary in The Daily Telegraph is sufficient to establish notability.--Pontificalibus (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please see my argument at WP:Articles_for_deletion/Sandy_Smith_(British_Army_officer). - Dank (push to talk) 17:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be sufficient sourcing to indicate notability. I cleaned up the formatting a bit, but someone might take a crack at finding some online sources (like that obit, for example). UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the Telegraph obituary. It's a single paragraph rather than a full length article, but, as a quick indication of the degree of notability of people receiving such obituaries, I note that all the other people listed in that section have Wikipedia articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I respectfully disagree. The subject may indeed be covered in a number of reliable sources, yet I do not believe that this coverage is sufficient to consistute "signficant coverage". By that logic, in my opinion the subject is likely to be non-notable under the WP:GNG. I would ask the question: what is the subject considered notable for? It would appear to be his award of the Military Cross during Operation Varsity. Although a significant accomplishment in my opinion, it isn't sufficient to be notable here per WP:SOLDIER. Also there are signficant details about the subject's life that I would expect to be known if he were indeed notable. Anotherclown (talk) 07:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 19:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a proper obituary; little more than a notice of death. I suspect that the other sources just briefly mention him in passing. With all due respect to the man, just another junior officer who won the MC alongside many thousands of others. I can't see any particular reason why he should be especially notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wifione ^Message 18:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Wood (British Army officer)

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

British Army officer who not notable per Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "he was awarded the French Legion d' honneur, the highest order of France". --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please see my argument at WP:Articles_for_deletion/Sandy_Smith_(British_Army_officer). - Dank (push to talk) 17:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There may be question about whether a particular medal or award indicates notability... but the Legion of Honour is not one of those. Clearly, more sources would be welcome, but there is notability here. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per my argument at Hugh Clark (Captain). Although the subject clearly has recieved mention in quite a number of reliable sources it appears to me to be passing coverage only and therefore is not enough to be considered "significant" in my opinion. Therefore I believe the subject is likely non-notable under the WP:GNG. Equally I am not swayed by the argument that being awarded the French Legion d' honneur affords notability. That would really depend on what degree he was awarded, and given that he recieved it on the 60th anniversary of the landings I doubt it was the highest degree. As such it is in no way the equivalent of the Victoria Cross or similar high level gallentry award. According to the wiki article on the Legion of Honour there have been over 100,000 recipients! Too many details of the subject's life are missing which also suggests to me that he isn't notable. Anotherclown (talk) 08:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not sure what your idea of "significant coverage" is. WP:N states "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail" and "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected". How do this, this, and this not meet the criteria set out in WP:N? They all "address the subject directly in detail" and are not mere "passing mentions" in articles about some other subject.--Pontificalibus (talk) 11:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Full obituary in a national daily newspaper. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 03:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frederic Balfour Scott

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

British Army officer who not notable per Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Signigicant coverage in reliable sources already cited in the article, including obituaries in The Daily Telegraph and The Scotsman.--Pontificalibus (talk) 16:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please see my argument at WP:Articles_for_deletion/Sandy_Smith_(British_Army_officer). - Dank (push to talk) 17:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per my arguments re Hugh Clark (Captain) and David Wood (British Army officer). The question really is what is signficant coverage? IMO this isn't it. If it was we would know far more about his life then we do. Passing mention in a large number of sources about a single event, as reliable as they are, doesn't equal significant coverage to me. The subject was a platoon commander (a junior officer) and was awarded the Military Cross (a 3rd level award), as such this doesn't meet the guidelines in WP:SOLDIER either. Long story short IMO the subject also lacks "signficant coverage" in WP:RS and is therefore non-notable under the WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 09:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please clarify your basis for characterising the sources as passing mentions? For example, roughly how many words are there about the subject in each? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - former platoon commander only. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obituaries in three major national newspapers are the very opposite of "passing mentions", and demonstrate that the subject was a notable platoon commander, per the general notability guideline. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A full obituary in the Daily Telegraph certainly makes him notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm baffled by the claims that the obits are passing mentions. For those who might not have actually read the articles, I've taken the liberty of linking to them in the article. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 22:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wifione ^Message 18:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Bernard Robert Watson

British Army officer who not notable per Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG, sufficient sources already cited in the article, more are yielded with a quick search e.g. [65], [66].--Pontificalibus (talk) 19:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - again I have to respectfully disagree. The coverage does not seem "significant" to me. An obituary and a couple of passing mentions in books. In my opinion the subject lacks "signficant coverage" in reliable sources and under the WP:GNG is likely not-notable. Subject was a platoon commander during D-Day and was awarded the Military Cross for later actions as a company commander, neither of which is necessarily enough to afford notability under WP:SOLDIER, no matter how laudable that is. Anotherclown (talk) 08:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Telegraph obituary certainly constitutes significant coverage. As you appear to have read the cited books, could you please give a rough idea of how many words the coverage of the subject extends to, so that other editors can judge whether the mentions are passing? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Please see my argument at WP:Articles_for_deletion/Sandy_Smith_(British_Army_officer). - Dank (push to talk) 21:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Full obituary in the Daily Telegraph = notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 18:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Stevenson (British Army officer)

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

British Army officer who not notable per Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - subject appears to lack "signficant coverage" in reliable sources and is therefore likely non-notable under the WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 07:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article: Subject as holder of Distinguished Conduct Medal (DCM) Level Two award next after Victoria Cross (VC) Level One award should be considered as notable. Article provides comprehensive details re subject's career and suitable for retention. Charlie52 (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - simply not notable; second level gallantry award; only a major; no other significant contribution to military affairs. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wifione ^Message 18:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Evelegh

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

British Army officer who not notable per Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient sources to meet WP:GNG already cited in the article.--Pontificalibus (talk) 19:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article makes no real claim to notability as far as I can tell and the I disagree that the sources cited are sufficient. Out of four "references" two are obituaries and one is the subject's own book. Subject appears to lack "significant coverage" in reliable sources and is therefore likely non-notable under WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 08:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you discounting the two obituaries? To have obituaries in the Times and the Telegraph, you must be of some considerable note.--Pontificalibus (talk) 09:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Please see my argument at WP:Articles_for_deletion/Sandy_Smith_(British_Army_officer). - Dank (push to talk) 21:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To have an obituary in one of the four serious (I was going to say "broadsheet" but that is no longer strictly true) general (I'm excluding the FT for this argument) national dailies is a very strong indication of notability. To have obituaries in two is absolutely conclusive. Obituaries are the best possible types of newspaper articles to use as a basis for notability, because they reflect the judgement of independent reliable sources that the subjects are notable for their whole lives rather than just being about particular newsworthy events. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Full obituary in the Daily Telegraph = notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. joe decker ^{talk to me} 13:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tod Sweeney

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

British Army officer who not notable per Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Again it might be argued that his role in Operation Deadstick is WP:oneevent, but again it is well documented in books and his life after the army (Director General of Battersea Dogs Home) only serves to increase his notability. He was on This is your life after all. Ranger Steve ^Talk 16:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please see my argument at WP:Articles_for_deletion/Sandy_Smith_(British_Army_officer). - Dank (push to talk) 17:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This one is less clear cut I agree, and many significant details of his life do appear to be known, albeit uncited. The subject was another junior officer (later a Colonel though) awarded the Military Cross with a large amount of passing coverage in reliable sources. True he held a number of semi-important but non-notable positions during his later military service (Defence Advisor to the U.K. Mission to the United Nations, Head of Public Relations HQ BAOR, Deputy Commandant of the School of Infantry). I'm not really swayed by the argument that being the Director General of Battersea Dogs Home or appearing on This is Your Life adds any notability though, even if the former seems a worthy cause. IMO this is also a case of coverage about a single event in a large number of reliable sources not adding up to "signficant coverage" and therefore a lack of notability under the WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 09:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just to be clear, I don't believe that an appearance on TV is enough to make someone notable. My comment was merely to point out that the producers of This is Your Life clearly thought that Sweeney's career was enough to feature on a programme that details notable people. Ranger Steve ^Talk 09:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources cited clearly demonstrate the subject meets the general notability guideline. Claims that coverage about a single event cannot be "significant coverage" are not supported by the definition of "significant coverage" given in WP:N.--Pontificalibus (talk) 16:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly meets the general notability guideline. [email protected] (talk) 12:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Full obituary in the Daily Telegraph = notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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