Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 August 9

< 8 August	10 August >

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 no consensus. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 08:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chaverim

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

Admirable groups, certainly, but not notable; the article has zero reliable sources and almost no secondary sources, and I couldn't find significant coverage searching on my own. (The only coverage I could find that wasn't trivial and wasn't about one of the billion other things called Chaverim actually used the term in error, meaning Shomrim.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. References added. As I mentioned in the first AFD, the organization's name is usually spelled Chaveirim in the Jewish press, which is where all the references are hiding. Yoninah (talk) 12:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I searched on that spelling as well, and still didn't come up with significant coverage in reliable sources. The sources you have added are either not actually reliable news sources, are trivial mentions (often in the same breath as a number of other organizations), or are routine announcements looking for volunteers or advertising events. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an Orthodox Jewish communal organization which does not seek publicity as a matter of course, you are simply not going to find full-blown write-ups in the New York Times unless something big happens, as the NYT wrote up Shomrim after the murder of Leiby Kletzky. I have provided descriptions from The New York Times, Baltimore Sun, The Jewish Press, Yeshiva World News, The Lakewood Scoop, and matzav.com, as well as websites for every Chaverim organization, and you still don't think it's sourced? Come on. Yoninah (talk) 18:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you have provided are, as I've said, trivial, routine, or unreliable. I'm also surprised that you consider "You really expect to find significant coverage?" a defense of the group's notability. Notability is determined by significant coverage in reliable, independent sources (ie. no matter how nice a website a Chaverim organization has, it can't attest notability, because anyone can make a website). Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added some awards that the Lakewood Chaveirim have received, with refs. Yoninah (talk) 06:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In addition to the multiple, independent sources quoted, I'd also like to note that this page gets 350 to 400 hits per month. Yoninah (talk) 07:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite the excellent work this organization does (and I myself have been the recipient of their help on more than one occassion) I do not think that they pass WP:NONPROFIT. Unlike Hatzolah, which is both (inter)national in scope and covered by multiple third-party sources, Chaveirim is (currently) at best regional and has received little attention outside of local web pages and word-of-mouth. If they continue to grow, they may be notable enough in the future. Avi (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not seeing a encylopedic notability here. Sources nonwhithstanding. Joe407 (talk) 21:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NONPROFIT The organization is international and also has branches across Israel under the name 'yedidim'. video ref added. --Shuki (talk) 22:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're misinterpreting WP:NONPROFIT. That guideline is saying that a nonprofit organization must operate internationally to be notable, not that a type of local nonprofit organization in more than one country is notable. You'll notice that WP:NONPROFIT and WP:CLUB go to the same section - the argument you're making is like saying (to choose an example at random) "there is a ten-member Squirtle Fan Club in a local area of the United States and one in a local area of Japan, so Squirtle Fan Clubs are an international phenomenon deserving of a Wikipedia article." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because like Shomrim (volunteers) this is an equally valid and well-known organization typical of the American Haredi communities. User Yoninah (talk · contribs) has done a perfect job of upgrading the article with WP:RS and WP:CITE per Wikipedia requirements. IZAK (talk) 05:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's well covered by 3rd parties and nicely referenced.--Shmaltz (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article has been sufficiently updated where an AFD is no longer necessary. Yossiea ^(talk) 16:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I recommend that users actually look at the quality of the sources and not just the volume of the sources. A routine announcement advertising an upcoming event or calling for volunteers, a trivial mention of a Chaverim organization in a list of other organizations, or a website owned by a Chaverim group do not attest notability. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~I can't disagree about the fact that the reliability as in WP:RS of the references is not the best.~~ However, the fact that there is so much talk about them at least shows that they are notable. BTW, to anyone that was ever locked out or left hanging with a flat tire and they came helping they ARE very notable and those count in the 10s if not 100s of thousands.--Shmaltz (talk) 21:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's...not a notability criterion. Notability is determined by significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, not by anecdotal experience. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have gone thru the sources again now. There seems to be significant coverage and I am therefore rephrasing my above comment that I am disagreeing about the sources being in line with WP:RS. Look here and here.--Shmaltz (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Shmaltz - Yes, I looked at the sources. The NYPost article is a one-line mention in an article about Jewish groups getting a large chunk of the NYC budget. It is not an article about Chaverim. The NYT article is about Jewish life in Borough Park. Chaverim has a two sentence mention. In the 1500 word article Chaverim got as much coverage as the holiday of Sukkot did and I don't think that anyone would use this article as a source for the Succot article. Yes, these sources pass WP:RS but they are trivial. Thoughts? Joe407 (talk) 20:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        It is my understanding that notability as defined here has been met with those references.--Shmaltz (talk) 21:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I have no problem with the NYT or NYPost as sources. My view is that the mention is trivial. Please see WP:SIGCOV - first clause of the GNG. Joe407 (talk) 13:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        The GNG is not an exclusion of what's not notable, it is only a guideline on whats definitely notable.--Shmaltz (talk) 01:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OK; at first I was impressed by the volume of sources that were dug up and added to this article. I just took a look at the sources a bit more indepth and I'm voting Delete on this. The two sources that are main-stream (non-jewish) media are super trivial mentions. The JP Kletzky article is also a trivial (one word) mention. The only real coverage I see (I'm discounting all the self-published stuff and the blogs) is this Jewish Press article. Call me silly but I'd like more than one article to establish WP:N and to place this org in a navbox of "Orginized Jewish life in the US". Joe407 (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Latest additions cause the article to meet the necessary notability requirements.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Window Manager From Scratch

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

Delete per WP:N: I was unable to locate any reliable secondary source offering significant coverage of the subject. PROD was removed by IP. Odie5533 (talk) 23:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - provided references are from company or code-sharing site - not reliable 3rd party sources. no indication of notability; created by an SPA, so possibly spam/promotional. Dialectric (talk) 13:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - almost spam-like. No notability, nothing to indicate a profound effect or even market penetration. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Realm RPG Engine

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

No indication of notability, just that this game engine exists and can be purchased. Google search brings up no secondary sources. fuzzy510 (talk) 22:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article created by the author of the website. See e-mail address on [1]. No assertion of importance and the subject is not notable. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Do not see sources for WP:GNG besides brief directory entries. Appears to be WP:PROMO per Odie. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ashwin Gupta

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

Looks like a self written article about a non notable individual. Possibly meets speedy delete, not sure so I have AfD'ed it. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article wasn't self written, I wrote the article because I thought he was an important factor in the rise of cricket in Newfoundland and he is also a rising film maker and editor. He works with large foundations such as MUN and Shorefast Foundation/Arts Corporation.--Crocodileman (talk) 00:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject seems to fail WP:GNG. Topher385 (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Cricket in Newfoundland is in itself non-notable. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 10:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I didn't see notable sources on Google and Yahoo aside from a Linkedin page. SwisterTwister talk 22:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW(non-admin closure) Cerejota (talk) 01:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvie Bodorová

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

Yet another vanity page by a non-notable composer. At least she can afford a website (you know, unlike Harold Fortuin). Incarnatus (talk) 22:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She's notable enough for Juda Maccabeus alone. Which, by the way, has been recently recorded. James470 (talk) 02:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, one of the most important contemporary Czech composers, her works are performed, recorded and reviewed worldwide. See for example an interview at the website of the Czech Radio, the book Women and music, pp. 295-7, review of her first symphony (Czech Television), etc. Btw, I don't like the mocking claims in the nomination, it is inappropriate for a discussion here on Wikipedia. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — but this does need proper referencing and a good copyedit. --Klein zach 14:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been edited by subject's husband, an important Czech musicologist Jiří Štilec (contributor to the Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart etc.) --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment However, a serious rewrite is in order, regardless of whether or not Jiří Štilec is a musicologist or not. James470 (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to imply anything, it is just a fact. Btw, +- 3,500,000 of our articles need serious rewriting. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jiří Štilec may also have a conflict of interest. --Klein zach 01:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm aware of that. I just thought the information could be relevant for this discussion. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly hope so! Unlike Grieg's wife, who couldn't have cared less. Anyway, I'll start putting my time where my mouth is, that is to say, I'll start working on a more extensive rewrite. James470 (talk) 06:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely keep - she is a well-known composer in Czech Republic and Slovakia (and incidentally in my opinion a very good one) - I will try to help with the article (of course in a neutral way...) --Smerus (talk) 07:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Fortuin

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

Vanity page for a non-notable composer who can't even afford to get a new website in the aftermath of the demise of Geocities. Incarnatus (talk) 22:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom on this one. James470 (talk) 02:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment His work has been recorded and a Google Books search returns discussion, e.g. a book (albeit by a collaborating instrument maker) and discussion in The American Organist. So sources there are, with or without Geocities, the question is whether they are sufficient for Notability in his (rather obscure) field. AllyD (talk) 07:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find plenty of references, not only for his compositions but also about the hardware he designed. I also do not understand how lack of wealth of subject (if that statement from nom would be true) can be a reason for AfD nomination? --DeVerm (talk) 14:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment The way I would have worded it is thus: "...who couldn't even spend a few minutes to get a new website in all this time since Geocities was taken down." James470 (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps address this point, a Google search turns up his actual site. It is just that nobody had added it to the article. AllyD (talk) 19:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly... ain't it funny how people who create their own WP article are attacked over doing that with commercial interest etc. and now we have somebody who doesn't touch his WP article and that is held against him/article too; hard to satisfy the WP Deletists :-) --DeVerm (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A look at Google Scholar shows several published articles in notable journals (I've added one to the article), and he's got recorded compositions out there with respected distributors. I don't see any facts or tangible reasons stated by those who favor deletion. Scot Johnston (talk) 23:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 someone wants to put this on Wikia, let me know. Courcelles 23:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Essex bus routes 240 and 250

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

Bus routes are rarely notable and this the subject of this article has no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Fails WP:Notability Charles (talk) 22:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy pending sourcing and/or transwiki somewhere. A lot of effort has gone into producing this, and so it would be a shame to just delete it. There should be a home on the web for this sort of content, but in the absence of coverage in secondary sources Wikipedia is not that place. Sources may exist though, but which are not easy to google for, given that once context has been established as bus routes in Essex once in the book/article/chapter (with no standard phrasing) then very generic phrasing such as "route 240", "service 240" or even just "the 240" is used. There are also a great many sources of all reliabilities that make reference to bus routes numbered 240 in many different places worldwide. Thryduulf (talk) 02:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a place on the web] for this type of material, on Wikia, which has a UK transport wiki, including a list of London bus routes. This article could be moved there with minimal formatting changes.--Charles (talk) 09:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. there is already an article called List of bus routes in London. All the added information can be found on seperate articles such as the information on the bus company Naomib1996 (talk) 13:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; not notable. bobrayner (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Beagel (talk) 23:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep – nomination withdrawn. --Nat682 (talk) 01:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Space shuttle launch countdown

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

Completely inaccurate (did anyone ever actually read the sources?) and, when made accurate, would just in essence be a copy of information already presented in the exact same form on NASA's Countdown 101 page, which should be linked to as an external link instead of copy-and-pasting it onto Wikipedia. WP:NOTCSD #10 certainly applies. Nat682 (talk) 21:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Opening paragraph is based on 4 references. While the Milestones section does come largely from the Countdown 101 reference, it looks to be supplemented with information from the Science.ksc.nasa.gov reference and a press release specific to STS-97 so CSD#10 (or any other speedy criteria) does not apply here.

The nominator calls the article completely inaccurate but I'm not seeing that. Does it need some help, sure. The nominator corrected one section title (2 hour vs 20 minute holds) ~~and I just fixed the section titles that incorrectly identify non-hold milestones as holds. Other than that~~ I'm not seeing this article s "completely inaccurate".--RadioFan (talk) 13:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, you did not fix any of the section titles. They are still bullshit. And I didn't say anything about CSD10, I said that WP:NOTCSD #10 would apply once it was made accurate. --Nat682 (talk) 18:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's correct, I looked back at those titles and they are accurate, they lump multiple items from the references provided together to segment things out by holds, which is a bit easier to read and understand here. It also reduces the number of sections. No need to have a counting section and a hold section here. We'll leave that to the reference. If you have a suggestion for improving the presentation of this information, the article's talk page would be a good place to hash it out but you might want to tone it down a bit here. No need to get so agressive. Let's focus on making a good article here.--RadioFan (talk) 21:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs a lot of cleanup, but it is salvageable. Furthermore, there is absolutely no way in which NOTCSD#10 could be used to support an argument to delete anything. I would suggest that it is the nominator who needs to read what he is citing. --G W… 19:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sue Monroe

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

Subject does not meet WP:BIO guidelines. No cites on GS or Google Books other than own webpage. Yoninah (talk) 21:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Yoninah (talk) 21:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Yoninah (talk) 21:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This person appears to fail WP:BIO Topher385 (talk) 17:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agreed. GenQuest (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:RS, WP:INDY, WP:BIO. No independent sources, and I couldn't find any in a Google search. Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not pass WP:AUTHOR or WP:ENTERTAINER. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

17Bit Software

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

Non-notable company. Joe Chill (talk) 21:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I didn't see any notable links on Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 21:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Notable. Joe Chill (talk) 22:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PerSay

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

Non-notable company. Joe Chill (talk) 20:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A quick look at the news stories shows lots of coverage for this Israeli start-up which was sold in 2010 for $6.7 million. I added references. Yoninah (talk) 22:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cos Natola

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

WP:N: Unable to find multiple, reliable secondary sources which provide in-depth coverage of this musician. I've been sorting through various primary, IMDB and retailer links but haven't seen coverage which would evidence notability under WP:GNG nor WP:MUSICBIO. Additional sources welcomed, as always. joe decker ^{talk to me} 20:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The original author clearly wants the article to be deleted. The subject also appears to fail WP:MUSIC. Topher385 (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think it qualifies as a G7? I don't usually handle or create speedies, but it seems plausible. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be reasonable to list it as CSD G7 as it seems to meet the qualitifations. Topher385 (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong / Speedy Delete: Agree with above. Jsharpminor (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong / Speedy Delete: Agree with above two entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mondomodo (talk • contribs) 19:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've tagged it G7. --joe decker^{talk to me} 20:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've declined the G7 tag. There are contributions from others besides the original author that are not insubstantial. This AfD will probably endorse deletion, but a CSD G7 is not appropriate. Imzadi 1979 → 20:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, I missed the additional contribution, but I believe you, and that's precisely why I asked for a second opinion. Cheers, --joe decker ^{talk to me} 20:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Original author only wants it deleted because he can make no sense of why some of you are questioning it's validity. The article is honest and accurate. It features no attempt to sell anything. It provides some proof thru various links etc...that the artist is in fact worthy of all the article speaks about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mondomodo (talk • contribs) 00:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thanks wiki, but i still think you have all missed the boat here....you feature a lovely article about canadian musician connie kaldor, who was beaten by cos natola in the 1982 "du maurier search for stars" - the equivalent of today's american and canadian "idol" shows.....anyway, whatever.....a talented individual gets axed from wiki for apparently no valid reason, as there was nothing slanderous or false in the entire article.....this artist has been featured on TV Guide, TV Week, The Vancouver Province, The Vancouver Sun, The Globe and Mail, IMDB....hello? is this not good enough for wiki????? as i said, whatever, and thanks again for trying to maintain your "standards", although in this case, you truly make no sense at all.....now i sincerely hope you go and sift through the hundreds (at least) of other articles you still maintain, which feature performers far less notable than cos natola — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mondomodo (talk • contribs) 02:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. m.o.p 15:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Pagan (literature)

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

The article reads like a very minor personal essay with no sources or context for it's notability about an extremely minor literary ctricism term. IrishStephen (talk) 20:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an utterly unsourced original essay about a non-notable neologism (at best). Carrite (talk) 22:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, delete unless a citation to a scholarly journal of literary criticism can be sourced. After that, the article then needs to be rewritten. Van Isaac_WS 00:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
what do you mean, utterly unsourced? How is "Cyril Connolly's introduction to the first English edition of Albert Camus' L'étranger" not a "source"? I would argue it is a WP:RS of the first order. speedy keep, consider merge. --dab (𒁳) 11:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added the {{expert}} [2] after attempting to add citations to the article as part of WP:URA. Given the articles current state, the lack of citations, and the all the comments above, I support Deletion. As the article stands it would need a complete rewrite and significant work to meet meet WP standards. The article has been without improvement since 2006. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carrite, WP:NEO, WP:OR, and WP:HAMMER. While in theory, it could become an article, it does not appear to be ready yet. Bearian (talk) 17:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources at all, and I can't even find much of anything in this essay that could be backed up by a reliable source. Richwales (talk · contribs) 01:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese television drama

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

Original research. Wahwahpedal (talk) 20:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources exist; I just linked to one on the article's talk page. The topic seems notable and the article could be encyclopedic and well-referenced with a bit of work. --Fullobeans (talk) 20:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Requires substantial expansion to match Japan and Korea but topic is noteworthy. I'm sure plenty of non-English sources exist. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 23:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - its pretty easy to see how the article could be improved to meet guidelines and it doesn't take a lot of imagination to see that substantial expansion is possible, even if english sources are not that easy to find. Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 06:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 15:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrospective evaluations

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

The article seems to be describing ways in which retrospective evaluation can factor into political decisions. Maybe. I couldn't make sense of it enough to wikify it, and couldn't find any sources to shed light on what the original author was getting at. Fullobeans (talk) 20:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. --Lambiam 20:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - although I'm not sure how to classify this odd stub, as an essay with original research or a polemic. Bearian (talk) 17:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR. TFD (talk) 04:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was a strong consensus to delete. Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of English words of Italian origin

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

Violates the policy WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article is really a mini-dictionary, with a very slight discussion at the top. An article on Italian influence of the English language might be possible, but I don't see how a list of words belongs in an encyclopedia which says it is not a dictionary. Borock (talk) 19:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with regrets, as a dictionaryesque list. Be sure to userfy if the content creator wants this, there must be a place somewhere on the web for it and a lot of work has gone into this piece's construction. Carrite (talk) 23:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about Wiktionary? It seems to me that a good digital dictionary should be searchable by the origin of words. Then readers can generate their own lists. Borock (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no regrets. Articles of this type exist for dozens of different languages, and litter WP like bait for cranks who bloat them up with non-existent words. The whole lot of them should go, per WP:NAD. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - may be rescued, see WP:BEFORE and WP:LIST. It is sourced, although admittedly poorly. I'm not sure that Wiktionary has that sort feature or searchable lists; it primarily uses categories. I'm willing to change my mind, but right now, this looks like an easy rescue. Bearian (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in WP:List supports this kind of page. The closest thing is a glossary page. "A Glossary page presents encyclopedically explanatory definitions for specialized terms in a subject area." This is not a glossary since the words are not on the list because of a common subject area, but rather because of their origins. You are correct that the sourcing is poor, but that is not the problem that I see. What if you had lists of English words of Anglo-Saxon, French, Galic, Norse, Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Arabic, Native American, Chinese, Japanese origins, and so forth? Put them all together and what would you have? Borock (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:IINFO. There are thousands of words in the English language that come from Italian. Listing them all isn't the function of an encyclopedia. As suggested above, an article on the Italian language's influence on the English language is appropriate, but this article is not. Them From Space 23:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Editors interested in this discussion may also be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Italianism. Cnilep (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced, frequently inaccurate content (I spotted several words that come to English via Latin by way of French, not Italian); additionally, Category:Italian loanwords and Wiktionary can take care of this. Neutrality^talk 00:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Any problems can be edited and fixed. This is encyclopedic information. Just because something exist in a category doesn't mean it can't be in a list also. Easier to navigate through the list, and all entries have a link to their own articles. Dream Focus 02:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have a category for this specific list. The category mentioned (Italian loanwords) above doesn't duplicate this list, it is more narrow in scope. This article allows any word that has evolved from Italian origins (ex: model came from modello), but the category is restricted to Italian words that we use in everyday conversation. Them From Space 02:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everything you are talking about is dictionary material. An encyclopedia is supposed to be about topics, a dictionary about words. This is the main point of the "not a dictionary" policy.Borock (talk) 05:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LIST It aids in navigation, shows links to articles of a similar nature. Its a fine list article. Dream Focus 16:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: due to problems of potential size, ambiguity (includes many words that came to English from Italian via other languages) and sourcing. How do we define "origin" in a non-WP:OR and consistent manner? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete either the whole page or every un-referenced entry. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quality list that may be most useful for students of Italian and amateur linguists. Origin can be defined as any word traceable back to Italian, regardless of whether if came via an intermediate language and regardless of whether it has a deeper etymology. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have no opinion on the merits of this particular article, but am wondering why it is the only one AfD'd from the whole Category:Lists of English words of foreign origin?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 12, 2011; 16:17 (UTC)

I've taken a look at a handful. Quite a few I tagged as potentially not notable, needing references or needing more references. I encourage you to do the same. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This list came to my attention because it was linked from another AfD. I'd be happy to vote to delete any other mini-dictionary lists. And I certainly have nothing against Italy. Borock (talk) 00:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the next one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of English words of Korean origin. Borock (talk) 12:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. As I said, the whole lot of them should go, and I'd vote against them all per WP:NAD. I've just voted against the Korean article, in fact. Thanks for the heads up. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never Forget (Lena Katina song)

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

Non-notable song. Fails WP:NSONG. Contested redirect. SummerPhD (talk) 19:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The subject appears to fail WP:NSONGS. Topher385 (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. — Moscowconnection (talk) 12:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page should link to t.A.T.u, Lena Katina already has a wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lena_Katina from which this song links. Should not be deleted meets the criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.163.116.107 (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Yes, Katina is notable. However, this song is not notable. Per WP:NSONG, songs are not notable unless they "have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups". None of these criteria are true for this song. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While there are some sources covering it, it does not specifically meet WP:NSONGS. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chagos Islands National Championship

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

too short article, no sources, no evidence of notability Postoronniy-13 (talk) 19:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject appears to fail WP:GNG. Topher385 (talk) 17:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability, not a national league. Giant Snowman 15:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Chagos is not an independent country and not a "football country" recognized by FIFA and/or any continental federation. --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g3 - it is a blatant hoax, see Puffin's comment. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That '50s Show

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

Almost a blatant hoax. No references to verify notability. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 18:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a hoax, just another random YouTube series with delusions of grandeur. Was speedy deleted over the weekend. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is, it says "Original airing March 1, 2012" which is in the future?? Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 18:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hoddywell Archery Park

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

Non-notable spam article. Article creator User:Peter Kaltenbrunner is named in article as one of the founders of the company. Text mostly lifted and marginally rewritten from company's website, probably a WP:PARAPHRASE. TransporterMan (TALK) 18:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because also created by the same creator and part of plan of spam; Hoddys Well might remain if some evidence of its existence other than this company's site is found:

Delete: Subject appears to fail WP:GNG. Topher385 (talk) 17:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete All - A walled garden of articles, all lacking WP:RS to support WP:GNG, created by a WP:SPA with WP:COI in support of each other. Happy Editing! — 70.21.24.28 (talk · contribs) _{22:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete all clear WP:ADVERT and conflict of interest. LibStar (talk) 12:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Disney_Channel_Games#Disney_Channel_Games_2006. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Disney Channel Games

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

Duplicate article of Disney Channel Games. DisneyFriends (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Obviously duplication (content fork), the main article is not big enough to be split into many articles. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 17:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As per my edit removing the previous speedy tag, WP:CSD#A10 is not appropriate, the article is not recently created, it was created in 2009. I am not going to remove the speedy tag at this time because I don't want this to turn into an edit war, so I have expressed my opinions on the talk page, In my opinion, users should not restore speedy tags removed by good faith editors without explaining why the user's reasoning was faulty. Quasi human | Talk 20:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect 2006 Disney Channel Games (the newer smaller article) to Disney Channel Games. Accidential duplication. No big deal. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:23, 2 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, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 17:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Disney Channel Games. Topher385 (talk) 17:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Disney Channel Games — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naomib1996 (talk • contribs) 12:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HarmonySEQ

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

Deleted in previous AfD, Fails WP:N. The official website for the software is a WordPress blog. Joe Chill (talk) 17:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – unless secondary sources that establish notability can be found. Dicklyon (talk) 18:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet notability requirements listed in WP:NSOFT. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete... The official website is not blog(btw. many big companies have blogs). It's just made on WordPress. Yes, you can make a website with WordPress - it's fast & free(if you don't like free/open source - don't use Wikipedia). --Marqin (talk) 22:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I like open source software myself even non-notable software. I use them for my personal video editing needs. Me liking certain software though doesn't make them notable for Wikipedia. The comment about it being the business's website still doesn't show any notability. Joe Chill (talk) 22:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Btw. author of hseq said me some days ago that one of musicans(who's using it) is writing some articles about his equipment&software for newspaper, it will be notable then? --Marqin (talk) 22:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N, no sources that meet WP:RS. Non-notable software. XXX antiuser ^eh? 22:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are saying that are no secondary sources - how about f.e. this article(listed in sources for ling time...)? --Marqin (talk) 22:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, some more sources: [3]

[4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] --Marqin (talk) 19:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Those mentions are very minor, and I didn't see any other notable sources on Google and Yahoo.SwisterTwister talk 22:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe you are not searching good? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marqin (talk • contribs) 22:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wealth Dynamics

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

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger James Hamilton. There was some comment at that AFD that this related article should be deleted also. The subject of this article does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. While there are several references in the article they are either not independent sources or do not do much to establish notability (references not really about Wealth Dynamics). Peacock (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the AfD has a red link back here, so the nomination is not finished. I would also support deletion, but at the same time, I am concerned that this debate must be extended. Bearian (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD notice was placed on the page, this discussion page was created, the discussion was added to the AFD list, and the article creator was notified. All these necessary steps were done within one minute of each other. How can it be accurate to say that the "nomination is not finished"? Peacock (talk) 12:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blogs and PR pieces in the article currently. I found absolutely nothing in Google News on Wealth Dynamics and a search on Google Books only brought up a few things, some of which appears to be sections written by Hamilton put into other books and the rest just very short pieces that are also PR-ish. A general web search wasn't much help in that regard either. It just seems to be a huge PR thing with no real notability of its own and no one (reliable sources) paying any attention to it. Silver seren^C 03:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I didn't see any notable mentions on Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 22:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 03:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DJM

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

I'm not sure that the tone of this article nor the amount of sourcing in it really is appropriate. Jasper Deng (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the tone is bad, change it. If there isn't enough sources, find more. This article is really a stub, which is OK. All articles have to begin somewhere. This seems to be a notable product, I don't think that the underlying argument for this AfD is valid. Roodog2k (talk) 17:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the underlying argument for this AfD is valid. Nail. Hit. Head. I highly doubt this user knows any WP policy TBH. I'll make a note of this when I log a complaint against this individual. Lugnuts (talk) 17:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Neither of the issues in the nom are grounds for deletion. Furthermore, I see no issues with the tone. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Nikolaos of Greece and Denmark

Person is not notable. Notability is not inherited. Wikipedia is no directory. See precedent at already-deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Philippos of Greece and Denmark (2nd nomination). Takabeg (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Takabeg (talk) 15:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The high-profile wedding alone meets WP:GNG without considering anything else whatsoever. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 17:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is sometimes inherited because eminence, fame, prominence (and even notoriety) are sometimes functions of the family to which one belongs, and children of kings and members of royal families are examples par excellence. Nikolaos happens to belong to two such families -- and in the case of Greece, he also belongs to a dynasty which has climbed on and off the throne four times -- each of which was, at the time, declared to be final. FactStraight (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Insufficent third party coverage to establish notability. Wedding is a one-time event, and notablity of family is not inheritable. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's in the media quite a bit and while he probably hasn't done anything notable, he is a celebrity and there are people interested in him. I've suggested merging his wife's article into his. Nightw 08:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen this kind of deletion argument before, and it rests upon a misunderstanding of WP:NOTINHERITED. It means we don't give articles to people just because they are related to or associated with notable people. But that's very different than saying that we don't give articles to notable people if the only reason reliable sources cover them was because of such a relationship. That would be us interjecting our own subjective judgment of importance for that of the reliable sources, and it would have unwanted consequences for most royalty/nobility subjects, First Ladies, heiresses, and many other relatives. postdlf (talk) 15:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice or as precedent - most royals of all stripes are, in fact kept with their own articles, as noted by Postdlf, and all were kept until c. June 2010, when the prior Wikipedia precedent was that all royals were presumed notable. While the consensus seems to have changed, at least for not-sitting royals, I don't want this (or his brother's case) to be bad precedent. Sitting royals still enjoy the presumption of notability, like First Ladies, members of the British House of Lords, and other acknowledged and proven nobility. Bearian (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Siavash Tizro

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

Unreferenced, non-notable per WP:NFOOTY: hasn't yet played a professional match. Prodded three times already. This is just one of several repeatedly re-created articles on young Persepolis players who haven't played a professional match yet. Gurt Posh (talk) 15:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of notability. No significant coverage on Google or Google News. Hasn't even played his first professional game yet. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. You have every right to take action against the user who continually recreates these articles. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unreferenced BLP long past it's BLPPROD date which would have been deleted days ago if nominator hadn't removed BLPPROD against policy without adding a source the day it reached maturity. Footballer appears to fail WP:NFOOTBALL criteria as well. --ClubOranje^T 11:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - Article was already deleted several times via PROD. The same delete rational still applies. Until he makes his professional debut or receives significant coverage for some other reason, he is not notable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was based upon the consensus that this fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Diplomats, sub Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria, sub Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline. Proponents for keeping mostly either fail to provide sources, fail to point to guidelines or policy. Unsupported statements are likely to be given little weight by closing administrators. Delete. Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Sproule

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

A minor Canadian diplomat. Has only been to one conference and not a particularly significant one at that. Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Diplomats. Recommend delete. Suttungr (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage on Google or Google news. No reliable sources provided to establish notability beyond a single international tiff of marginal significance. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of good sources found on Google and Yahoo that could support a biography. SwisterTwister talk 20:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable as former Canadian ambassador to Afghanistan and Thailand. Ambassadors are not minor. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Former Canadian Ambassador, gives equal status to any other such individual with title "Ambassador" on wiki, disagree phrasing Rotterdam Convention is a "minor convention", view number of nation signatories. I don't believe it is in the interest of users to delete bio's of people who were former Ambassadors. Setting the bar like that would indicate rule should be applied across the board, and that all serving or former Ambassadors are not of sufficient status to merit wiki entry. There are a number of news articles from reputable sources, interviews and reports available with a google search on his role as Ambassador to AfghanistanKurt Dundy (talk) 06:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The notability guideline does not give carte blanche to all ambassadors. True, the definition of 'significant' events is undefined and left to subjective opinion. But, IMO I believe the Rotterdam falls into the minor category Atrian (talk) 12:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Though his role in Rotterdam may have been that of messenger, the result is definitely noteworthy. Any substance that kills any many people as asbestos related illnesses, should have accessible wiki links and traces for research purposes. His role as Ambassador in Afghanistan could be flushed out with several other noteworthy details pertaining everything from the conflict to the treatment of detainee's by Canadian forces. There is a lot of information out there on those subjects that has simply not been linked. 41.208.164.14415:55 (talk), 11 August 2011 This was me Kurt Dundy

Keep Canadian Ambassador would seem to meet the "international office" criteria in section one of WP:POLITICIAN. Valenciano (talk) 12:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant policy for ambassadors is WP:DIPLOMAT, not WP:POLITICIAN. And i don't think the sources provided establish notablity according to that policy. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sproule is neither a judge nor a politician so this reasoning doesn't apply. Atrian (talk) 12:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Needs sources. If somebody can find reliable sources then I see no reason why it should be deleted but if not then it needs deleting — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naomib1996 (talk • contribs) 12:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CommentAdmittedly there are very sources listed here... but even casual google search provides articles with reputable new agencies and interviews on Afghanistan. There is also plenty of information to google about the detainee's and the conduct of Canadian forces he's commented on. The details and background around him and his role as Ambassador could do with additional flushing out. This was me as well Kurt Dundy

Delete as per reasons given above. Atrian (talk) 12:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, references are not optional extras. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have started to flush out this article with references... The Afghan detainee issue in Canada is very notable, and Mr. Sproule's position as Ambassador in Afghanistan during this period puts him right in the middle of it. Kurt Dundy (talk) 23:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Hutt

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

Unremarkable radio host. Lacks citations to significant coverage in reliable sources. No indication of how this might meet notability guidelines. Does not inherit the notability of her father or brother. Prod contested by the subject of the article herself. RadioFan (talk) 14:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Insufficient sources establishing notability. Notability is not inherited. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete': I'm unable to find significant coverage. If someone finds significant coverage and the article is kept, the number of children that she has should be removed from the infobox. Joe Chill (talk) 22:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet notability requirements, no independent achievement or accomplishment, minor radio host whose job appears to be result of father's influence, revealing interview on "Ron and fez" radio show host mocking and admitting contrived and self-promotional nature of entry - 96.251.99.130 |talk) 10:52, August 10, 2011.

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

Delete': not so notable and it lacks information from electronic sources----czixang_gb

Comment: sources need not be electronic to be useful in establishing the notability of this topic. If there are any in print only, please bring them up here or add them to the article.--RadioFan (talk) 11:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Alvord

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

Non-notable per WP:MUSICBIO. Sole claim to notability is making it to 48 on the Billboard Social 50, which relies heavily on friends/fans/followers on social networks. No significant coverage of artist online from WP:Reliable sources. Gurt Posh (talk) 14:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 14:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only secondary source is a database that ranks trending social-network musiciansCurb Chain (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Muhandes (talk) 18:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yeah, Cullen is likely on the right track, here. If an article on the book appears, this should be redirected there. Courcelles 23:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alec Michod

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could this be speedied per CSD G4? Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Isn't this a case of personal webpage or personal article within WP? Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 17:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is not quite so clearcut, Eduemoni. In my opinion, his novel The White City is probably notable, because it has received multiple reviews in reliable sources. If that article existed, we could redirect there. Currently, its a redirect to the article about the World's Fair. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)there. I don't think the novelist hi[reply]

Note - Notability is not inherited. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 00:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep actually, what makes an author notable is the notability of his work. What else would it be? And similarly for other creative professionals. Painters become notable because of the paintings they produce, architects for what the build, scientists for what they discover. The only question is whether the author of a single notable book should have an article as well as the book--my preference is to merge to the author if necessary, because a person may come to write more notable books, and it also provides a place to mention his less-thanotable work, while an article on a book has almost no potential for further growth. (There might be a question about whether the book is notable and that is shown by reviews in Village Voice & [The Chicago Tribune http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/access/515885411.html?dids=515885411:515885411&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Dec+28%2C+2003&author=Reporting%3A+Jeff+Lyon&pub=Chicago+Tribune&desc=WHAT+A+TIME+IT+WAS.+.+.+AND+WAS+.+.+.+AND+WAS+.+.+.+AND+WAS+.+.+.&pqatl=google]--mong others from a quick search on Google news archive. And it's in over 372 World Cat libraries) There's also a chapter on him in a 3rd party source, Believer book of writers talking to writers . So it seems there are sufficient source for notability. Did nobody look at AfD1--some of the sources are mentioned there. DGG ( talk ) 03:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DGG: I see different notability guidelines for books (WP:NBOOK) and authors (WP:AUTHOR). Do you think that they should be consolidated? --Noleander (talk) 21:34, 9 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, v/r - T P 14:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's only written one book, which many people have done, but don't get their article.Curb Chain (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The WP:AUTHOR guideline lists four criteria for notability:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

The sources do not demonstrate that any of those four have been met. --Noleander (talk) 21:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of sources on Yahoo and Google that could help a biography. SwisterTwister talk 21:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hype & Soul

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

Contented prod. Fails WP:NBOOK. The references given are for the author's biography, not for the book itself. The page creator is associated with the publisher in some way; at File:Hype And Soul 1st Edition Cover.jpg he claims to hold the copyright to the dust jacket design. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Book isn't even published yet making this pretty much spam/advertising. No objection to userfying provided that it doesn't re-appear in article space until it meets WP:NBOOK. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 22:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 broad opinion seems to be that there is currently not enough coverage in reliable source to establish notability. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don E. Stevens

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

Contested redirect. Questionable notability - main claim is being the editor (but not the writer) of a religious text. Provided references mostly appear to be primary or non-independent sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

notability to qualify for encyclopedic material - Example - Faredoon Driver, Eruch Jessawala (meher baba mandali) please note: New independent reliable sources that have written about Mr. Stevens Don E. Stevens were included - presenting notability - (Dragonbooster4 (talk) 14:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)).— Dragonbooster4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - Dragonbooster4, please review WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, as citing other examples of potentially non-notable subjects that have articles is not a reason to keep this article. If you feel those other articles are also in need of improvement, by all means find some reliable sources to improve them, or if those are unavailable then please propose those articles for deletion as well. Thank you. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources are all primary/non-independent sources. I am unable to find any reliable source coverage to establish notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If "writer of religious texts" is an indication of notability, here are six books he did author: [14]. Hoverfish Talk 15:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - May be taken for notability - Glow International:Spring 2011 issue - http://www.sheriarfoundation.org/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=book123780 - (Dragonbooster4 (talk) 16:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
Comment - The door bell of forgiveness by Don E Stevens - London: Companion Books, 2011 (Dragonbooster4 (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
Comment If "writer of religious texts" is an indication of notability for Don E Stevens, then the issue is resolved. (Dragonbooster4 (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
Delete I can not find any independent sources confirming his notability. And being a friend or a follower of notable persons doens't make one notable. Cst17 (talk) 17:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree Comment Notability here has to do with Don E. Stevens and his Publications and associations with Meher Baba - This has nothing to with any friend or follower - This article is a part of Meher Baba's major figures, Not friends who knew meher baba's Mandali - Thank you (Dragonbooster4 (talk) 17:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

In the article about Meher Baba he is only mentioned as the editor of one of his books, and again notability has to be proven by independent sources and I could not find any. Cst17 (talk) 17:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please notice, recent Disruptive edits in the article to change the content of sources by user ConcernedVancouverite. Any one is welcome to edit, but not this. (Dragonbooster4 (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
CommentThankyou - will try improving it

However, Please try to stop the non sense below by other user:

The page Meher Baba is being vandalized by users like ConcernedVancouverite. The page is being edited with statements such as Cult Leader - which was never indicated or stated by Meher Baba himself.

Further, the user ConcernedVancouverite is including the same misleading statements in Don e stevens article, which is not needed (Dragonbooster4 (talk) 18:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Comment. Just because a user has a different point of view than you does not make their edits vandalism. This is especially true when, as is the case with the edits by ConcernedVancouverite that you've protested, their position is backed up by reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 18:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could you keep the discussion on a central place, not posting on the talk pages of all the users involved? Cst17 (talk) 18:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've protected the article for 6 hours to stop the edit warring. I have no idea if the info being added is helpful info that will show the subject's notability, or if it's poor claims masquerading as sources to save an article that should be deleted. What I do know is that no one is talking on the article's talk page, and, instead, are having various scattered discussions and heavily reverting each other. Y'all need to take this to the article's talk page and hash out the details there. This AfD will run for 6 more days, and can even be relisted if it takes time to work through the sources. Please do so. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only thing this article demonstrates is that somebody else entirely is claimed to be a cult leader. Le sigh... On its own, the subject fails WP:BLP. The only assertions of the man's notability come from his religious associates. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Suriel1981. If reliable sources for Don Stevens notability turn up in the future, we can reconsider having an article. - However, I would like to leave a note here that "OTHERCRAPEXISTS" in the face of a newbie, who ignores any notion of what reliable or secondary sources are, who has not even an idea about what we call vandalism, and who is quite apparently emotionally involved with the subject matter, is a highly provocative phrase, which may incite very bad reactions on the part of the newbie and should therefore not be used on newbies. OTHERSTUFF or WAX is a much kinder approach. Thank you. Hoverfish Talk 13:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree the notibility is not established. As far as the subject being a mandali (disciple) of Meher Baba, the article on this term says there are at least 122 mandali and that Meher Baba also included others in this term. I don't believe working for an oil company is in itself notable, and I don't believe being a co-editor on a notable book qualifies either. There would need to be some demonstration of uniqueness. There are too many editors on Meher Baba's books, too many authors in the world, and too many deceased oil executives. Dazedbythebell (talk) 19:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability - The individual - Don E. Stevens, notability has to do with his own Published narrations related to meher baba

Notability has to do with Don E. Stevens as narrator and editor of religious texts and not as a Businessman or seemingly or apparently considered opinions about whether he is any one's friend or what ever.(No emotions or sentiments are involved here) Thanx and regards. (Dragonbooster4 (talk) 12:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

If so, why is none of his narrations mentioned in the text?Cst17 (talk) 13:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why subject fails notability - in more detail: Stevens fails WP:AUTHOR - there's no evidence his writings have attracted mainstream attention. The article itself fails WP:BLP - "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source" (the subject's minority religion associates cannot be classed as reliable sources for obvious reasons). Stevens has not "been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" and thus fails WP:BASIC. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 13:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:Discussion

1.I agree, with your statement, that there is no evidence Don E. Stevens writings attracted mainstream attention.

2. But, Eruch Jessawala / Faredoon Driver / Bhau Kalchuri did not gather mainstream attention as well - As per wikipedia policies can you detail how the above three satisfy Wikipedia's notability irrespective of Meher Baba????

3. When compared with the above personalities and their significant association with Meher Baba, Don E. Stevens is notable. This cannot be argued.

4. The article on Don E. Stevens is not yet complete, His narrations were listed. I am in the process of gathering multiple secondary published sources on his narrations. Once the discussion about notability is complete, the article can be improved significantly.

5. Based on the above indications, Don E. Stevens could be considered in Meher Baba's major figures template, if required. (Dragonbooster4 (talk) 14:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Comment: The inclusion of Don Stevens' name in the template or his mention in any article does not depend on whether his biography article stands the notability criteria or not. However there are other considerations, of historical nature, which do not place Mr. Stevens as one of the few (say 10-20) top figures in Meher Baba's life, but rather as a top figure for some of his recent western followers. Hoverfish Talk 11:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The existence of Eruch Jessawala / Faredoon Driver / Bhau Kalchuri on Wikipedia is not in itself a reason for the article to remain (see WP:OTHERSTUFF). As for the article not being complete, one of the reasons deletion debates usually are open 7 days is to give editors the chance to upgrade the article's content to the appropriate standard (if that is possible). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 11:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability of Don E. Stevens may be considered now. (Dragonbooster4 (talk) 08:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Comment: The situation has not changed in any essential way, except in the number of links provided. I still do not see anything that establishes notability. Two of the other three disciples mentioned above have been day and night near Baba most of his life and have played very significant roles historically and therefore, were their articles nominated, I would definitely support them with a "keep" vote and I have significant arguments to offer to justify it. The third one has been near Meher Baba less than the others, but has compiled his 12 volume biography and has been, and still is, chairman of the AMBT in India, which is the sole official organization left behind by Meher Baba to maintain the archive and the historical grounds and shrine in Mereherabad, as well as facilitate access to them for the public. I am sure that there must be enough official material in India to more than justify his article, except most of us (usual editors of MB articles) are not India based and it is very hard for us to get our hands to such official documents there. But none of this, even according to the references provided here, is true for Don Stevens. Unfortunately many other people, even criminals, may have an article in Wikipedia due to the publics fascination and coverage for their notorious acts. But this is how it is. Notability criteria does not reflect the net value of a person, or wikipedia would be something like "The Book Of Life". The link given to the "Lists removed from Wikipedia" is itself a hint as to what may have already been discussed and decided in Wikipedia on the issue in the past. And BTW: I see 5 "Delete" votes above and not one "Keep" vote (not even one by Dragonbooster4, by the way, although one can be considered to be implied). Hoverfish Talk 11:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am neutral on this. Its up to the expert admins in Wikipedia to decide (Dragonbooster4 (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shahzad A. Rizvi

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

No evidence of notability provided (no secondary sources that back this up); no relevant, reliable sources included overall. These were indicated as a problem in July, and the article has been edited by the same account more than 40(!) times since then. Safety Cap (talk) 13:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Weapons-grade vanispamcruftisement and hyperbole by a WP:SPA (probably the article's subject, Sarizvi (talk · contribs)) … lacking WP:RS to satisfy WP:GNG. Happy Editing! — 70.21.24.28 (talk · contribs) _{15:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)}[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did a bit of googlesearching and found zip in terms of coverage by independent reliable sources. Nsk92 (talk) 01:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After reading the first sentences of his book on GB I thought that if William McGonagall has a page then why not this subject? However, second thoughts led me to conclude that he had not yet reached McGonagall's level of fame although if he perseveres with his writing he might in future. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 _.......^{Leave a message} 03:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ChristmasLightsEtc.com

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

Doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. The sources that appear are weak. Should be deleted. IvoShandor (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per lack of notable mentions, media coverage in general. No notable sources were found on both Google and Yahoo! search, I believe this article may have been created solely for advertising purposes as well. SwisterTwister talk 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I checked 4 of the refs and they were trivial, from the looks of the others they will be the same, but I couldn't gurantee that without reading them. Szzuk (talk) 22:00, 7 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) 13:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. Per this message on my talk page, I have reopened this discussion. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added links that show live news coverage from Fox News and CNN regarding the company sales and products, as well as verifiable media coverage from additional national outlets. After the page was flagged for deletion I studied numerous similar pages, including http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balsam_Hill. I could continue to add media coverage from other sources, but after providing coverage from CNN, CBS, Fox News, Associated Press, Smart Money, and NY Times, I thought enough had been added. Should I just continue to list news sources? I followed all of the posted guidelines, so please let me know what else can be done. JeanetteDi (talk) 19:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are weak, focusing on the Christmas light market and mentioning the company in passing or as a source for quotes rather than specifically dealing with the company. Other references are not substantial in nature or are press releases. The article is borderline promotional. Acroterion (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had another look and checked more refs. My opinion has firmed up from probably delete to definitely delete - advert. Szzuk (talk) 21:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per SwisterTwister et al. --Noleander (talk) 21:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Trivial coverage in reliable sources. Joe Chill (talk) 22:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I understand that Wikipedia editors have very specific criteria that must be met, and an endless list of article entries that need review and judging. Please take a closer look at the credentials, however. News teams have hand picked the company using their own research, and filmed at the office location, interviewing members of the company, and focusing on sales and products. Some of the media is much more in depth than others, but just because there is a variety does not warrant all segments to be discredited to trivial. I have reviewed similar pages in detail, and the credentials are on par with other companies.

Main points are:

Notable news coverage
- Both Fox News and CNN have done interviews at the Alpharetta, GA showroom
- Mentions in larger papers such as New York Times and USA Today
Growth
- Recognized by Inc 500/5000 magazine multiple years. #184 in 2006
- #274 in Entrepreneur Hot 500 in 2007
Size/Traffic
- Top Alexa Ranking in Christmas Shopping category
- Consistently a top of Google for top searches such as Christmas Lights and LED Christmas Lights
- 2.6 million visitors in 2010
Other
- Energy Star partner
- A+ BBB Rating

The press releases are listed above as part of the reasoning for the page being suggested for deletion. Neither press release is being listed as a news source, but merely as a reference backing a fact that a specific tree manufactured by Christmas Lights Etc is displayed at Six Flags, and another referencing a partnership with a tree brand. If press releases are discouraged as references, I have not seen evidence of that in Wikipedia outside of this page, and please direct me to whichever help page would have provided me with that information. I am trying to improve the page in an effort to keep the page on Wikipedia. JeanetteDi (talk) 19:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep News stories are from notable sources such as FOX and CNN. As noted by JeanetteDi, there is no difference between http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balsam_Hill and this page. There is enough information on this page to warrant a Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindenflynn (talk • contribs) 19:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. I've tagged Balsam_Hill for notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have sent that to afd but I didnt have time to check the reliability of the refs. Szzuk (talk) 07:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to meet WP:GNG.
- Significant coverage: Fox News segment is almost completely based on Christmas Lights Etc, filmed on location, with most of the reporting being the dialogue with Christmas Lights Etc. Christmas Lights Etc receives almost complete focus of the entire segment.
- Reliable: The interview was conducted by Johnathan Serrie, Fox News Reporter, Atlanta Bureau, and published by Fox News. He also mentioned the company in a blog post that day, referencing his segment: http://onthescene.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/12/23/led-lights-shine-bright-this-christmas/ . I do not feel the blog post is noteworthy, but I do believe it supports the reliability of the source.

I believe the other guidelines - secondary, independent of subject, and presumed are not in debate regarding Christmas Lights Etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeanetteDi (talk • contribs) 20:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. @pple complain 01:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Héctor Bellerín

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

Another Arsenal youngster. Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 13:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Life^talk 13:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agreed, It's too early. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although coverage does exist, it is all routine sports journalism, and he is yet to make his debut for Arsenal. Until either of these changes, he is not notable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - He has made his debut for the reserve team and we do have the reserves players on here that have not yet made their first team debut, such as Conor Henderson. Woolwich 4 Ever (talk) 09:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Um, no. Both players you listed are on loan to other teams. For example, you listed Conor Henderson and he has played for a Football League One team. Per WP:NFOOTBALL, playing for a Football League One team makes you presumed notable. So, he doesn't have a page because he is on the reserve team. Bgwhite (talk) 09:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Conor Henderson has yet to go to any team on loan.Woolwich 4 Ever (talk) 10:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What in the world was I taking last night? I swear I saw two players with one being on loan. You are correct and I apologize. The only thing that I could find that would make Conor Henderson notable is he appeared during garbage time during a FA Cup meet for Arsenal. I would double check that in case I made another major screw up. Bgwhite (talk) 22:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Henderson played against Leyton Orient in the FA Cup, along with Ignasi Miquel. Consensus seems to be that appearing in a match between two professional sides in a major competition makes them notable. Argyle 4 Life^talk 01:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Other than that, he has also played for the national youth team and apparently scoring a goal as well.Woolwich 4 Ever (talk) 00:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What a player achieves in his youth doesn't grant notability, per WP:NFOOTBALL. Neither does appearing in the reserves. Argyle 4 Life^talk 01:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well then in that case we should delete the Conor Henderson page as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woolwich 4 Ever (talk • contribs) 13:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, my response to Bgwhite is clear and Henderson's article states why he is notable. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KonsoleKalendar

AfDs for this article:

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

I was going to prod this, but I saw that it was previously nominated for deletion in 2004 - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KonsoleKalendar. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 12:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced; no indication of notability. Dialectric (talk) 07:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coconut (project)

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable project. Only source is the project's website and a press release on the Reuters website marked "Reuters is not responsible for the content in this press release". Does not meet WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 12:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Yet another EU research project. There's an offsite canvassing project dedicated to creating articles for these without regard to whether they are actual encyclopedia subjects or not. The uncommunicative jargon and wild optimism about what they hope to achieve is also typical of the too-familiar genre: ...aims at defining a framework for the integration of formal verification and system design. Embedded systems, possibly with mixed continuous/discrete domain, are a special focus of the project. Tools for formal verification, correct-by-construction synthesis, mapping between hybrid and discrete domains, and property analysis will be researched, developed or improved, and integrated into a design flow. If you can explain in real English what this project is about, based on that extremely abstract and baffling description, you win a gold star. I'm not even sure from that text whether computers are involved. I suspect so, though. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Another non-notable software. Joe Chill (talk) 22:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The last AfD closed as keep because of two reliable sources which just so happen to be dead now. Joe Chill (talk) 23:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was : deleted by User:JamesBWatson. Deli nk (talk) 21:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Kumar Singh

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

Latest in a long promo and sockpuppetry campaign for Taj Pharmaceuticals; most of the (non-broken) references don't mention him, and the ones that do use the name "A.K. Singh" in passing - a very common name in India, so this spelling may even be a hoax. Non-notable per WP:BIO in any case. See also:

WP:Articles for deletion/Priyanka Singh
WP:Articles for deletion/Priyanka Singh (2nd nomination).
WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive635#Organized promotional effort/Taj Pharmaceuticals
WP:Sockpuppet investigations/ShantanuSingh198
... and probably more, if I have a dig. Gurt Posh (talk) 12:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I didn't see any good sources on Google and Yahoo aside from Linkedin and ZoomInfo, nothing that could help support a biography. SwisterTwister talk 20:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tough case. Abhishek Kumar Singh, Abhishek Singh and A. K. Singh are extremely popular names that make searching hard. According to the press release references he is the CEO. According to the company's (www.tajpharmaceuticals.com/Taj%20Pharmaceuticals_Company_%20Executive%20Committee.htm) executive committee page, the CEO is A. K. Singh, but born 9 years earlier than Abhishek Kumar Singh. According to the company's (www.tajpharmaceuticals.com/Taj%20Pharmaceuticals_Company_Board%20of%20Directors.htm) Board of Directors page, the CEO is Ashwini. Singh. The only references I could find with "Abhishek Kumar Singh" and "Taj Pharma Group" are the PR news releases already in the article. Nothing really concrete to say he is notable. Bgwhite (talk) 00:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note The company's webpage is blocked by Wikipedia's spam filter, thus the addresses above in parenthesis. Bgwhite (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snowball delete. @pple complain 01:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I Wan't a better life

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

Contested PROD. To quote the PROD concern "Experimental film amateur teenage director at best. No Google results for film and only Google results for director are his Facebook page and some computer gaming events." NtheP (talk) 11:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No sources to establish notability. No awards, nominations or significant press coverage. Zero mention on Slovenian WP. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delet'e Jus't anothe'r mino'r fil'm. Totnesmarti'n 12:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not only non-notable, but according to the article, isn't due to start being made until next year. Fails WP:CRYSTAL as well as WP:NOTE. Yunshui (talk) 13:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a single reliable sourceCurb Chain (talk) 15:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Couldn't find any reliable sources covering this. —Yk Yk Yk talk ~ contrib 15:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article asserts that the film won't start production for another 10 months. Thus, it should not have an article yet, per WP:NFF. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Return to author. Proposed project has no coverage. At best, this one is WP:TOOSOON. Suggest author read WP:Planned Films. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per above. Most likely an amateur teenage film project, not deserving encyclopedic coverage by any stretch of imagination (I dare say that even if the film gets made eventually, it won't meet the notability criteria). — Yerpo ^Eh? 12:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as soon as possible, because the nobody can prove it that some teenager will record that movie. Search on google for him and google can not find nothing interesting except social networks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.61.112.93 (talk) 17:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only sources are Facebook and Twitter? Eeekster (talk) 00:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:SNOW. — Jeff G. ツ 00:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Super duper ultra delete. Considering the title is the same words as the creator, f*cking yes sir/ma'am/alien. LikeLakers2 (talk) 00:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 salt to prevent further recreation. If by any chance the subject's notability is established in the future, I'm more than willing to lift the protection. @pple complain 01:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Ebrahimi

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

Non-notable per WP:NFOOTY: hasn't yet played a professional match. Fourth prod for this expired 10 hours ago. This is just one of several repeatedly re-created articles on young Persepolis players who haven't played a professional match yet. Gurt Posh (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A professional football player who has never played a single professional match. Supremely not notable. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt to prevent continual re-creation of these players. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - Article was already deleted several times via PROD/Speedy deletion. The same delete rational still applies. Until he makes his professional debut or receives significant coverage for some other reason, he is not notable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 salt to prevent further recreation. @pple complain 01:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kamran Tajari

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

Non-notable per WP:NFOOTY: hasn't yet played a professional match. Second prod for this just expired yesterday. This is just one of several repeatedly re-created articles on young Persepolis players who haven't played a professional match yet. Gurt Posh (talk) 10:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 10:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 10:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A professional football player who has never played a single professional match. Supremely not notable. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep' I Added a couple of external links that show he is on the roster for Persepolis FC. However, the links don't mention if he played a game. Sports360 links shows he was on the roster for 2011 Match World Cup. Sports360 does not have him listed on the 2011-2012 team roster. Bgwhite (talk) 09:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Simply being on a roster isn't enough, you have to actually play! Giant Snowman 17:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - Article was already deleted twice via PROD. The same delete rational still applies. Until he makes his professional debut or receives significant coverage for some other reason, he is not notable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. @pple complain 01:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Celtix du Haut-Richelieu

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

No evidence of notability TonyStarks (talk) 09:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't play at a notable level. Giant Snowman 17:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no indication that this is a notable club. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication that this club is notable. Argyle 4 Life^talk 23:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. @pple complain 01:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Celtics United

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

No evidence of notability (and no references eitheR) TonyStarks (talk) 09:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject appears to fail WP:GNG. Topher385 (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't play at a notable level. Giant Snowman 17:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication that this club is notable. Argyle 4 Life^talk 23:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Proponents for keeping don't present good sources, and just saying "is notable GNG" will normally be given very little weight by the closing administrator. Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance audit

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

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. -- $Σ talk contribs$ 06:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article is in fact original thought and needs to be restarted with references such as [15] [16]. —Yk Yk Yk talk ~ contrib 07:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just curious have you said what you meant here as your response? You wish to keep the article yet you think it is original research?--User:Warrior777 (talk) 10:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I said the article at present is OR and needs to be rewritten, not deleted. —Yk Yk Yk talk ~ contrib 15:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This subject is in fact notable (WP:GNG) and the article clearly defines many parameters of the subject. The article does however need sourcing (WP:VERIFY) and expansion for length and content. This article does have potential (WP:POTENTIAL).--User:Warrior777 (talk) 10:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Pure OR. Even if the subject turns out to be notable, it won't ever be notable enough to warrant a stand-alone article. Whatever can be found can be merged into preventive maintenance or similar articles. After all, the best one could hope for is a well sourced definition. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Content fork of audit. Curb Chain (talk) 15:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research that reads like it's from somebody selling consulting services. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 _.......^{Leave a message} 02:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quicksys RegDefrag

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

Non-notable software. Joe Chill (talk) 04:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notable sources that could help this article on a encyclopedia, all I saw on Google (Google News as well) and Yahoo! searches were review and download websites and the company's website. SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete gnews just shows product listings. no indepth coverage to meet WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 08:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards delete, lead appears copy and pasted (with a tiny rephrase) from here and here. The software did make [http://download.cnet.com/Quicksys-RegDefrag/3000-2094_4-10844188.html download.com, but so do a lot of programs. --Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 09:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No relaible sources to establish notability. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 _.......^{Leave a message} 02:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quicksys

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

Non-notable company with non-notable products. Joe Chill (talk) 04:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notable sources. I didn't see anything that could help the article on a encyclopedia aside from the company's website and download websites. No sources were found on Google News, Google and Yahoo! websearch. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No reliable sources to establish notability. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Closed because article speedy deleted. Peridon (talk) 11:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erideon

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

Meets speedy deletion criteria WP:CSD#A7, WP:CSD#G11, WP:CSD#G12 at [17]. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 04:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced the speedy tag on the article (again!) and warned the creator about removing it. Yunshui (talk) 07:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and for the record? Delete as spam and copyvio. Yunshui (talk) 07:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 _.......^{Leave a message} 02:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quicksys Disk Defrag

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

A prod was contested on May 10, 2009. Non-notable software. Joe Chill (talk) 04:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I didn't see anything on both Google and Yahoo that could help this article be more encyclopedic. SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No reliable sources to establish notability.Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreferenced; no indication of notability; created by an SPA, so possibly spam/promotional. Dialectric (talk) 13:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 assertion of notability, WP:CSD#A7, plus opinions below. No need to prolong the agony. Guy (Help!) 20:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hall High School Chess Team

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

Refunded PROD, however as the prod nom said "The article fails to give any indication of notability, and does not even warrant being merged with the high school's page", I agree fails WP:CLUB and WP:GNG Mt king ^(edits) 03:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can only find one reliable source for the club, and it generally fails WP:CLUB. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no notable team members and clear COI with the creator being one of the team members. As a maximum I would say one paragraph, with the sources given, would make a useful addition to the main school article. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 08:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - I hate to say "as above", but it's true. There may be slight aspects (if properly supported by more than one GOOD source) to include a brief statement on the school's own page, but overall this organization fails WP:CLUB (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a notable school chess team? No. Not ever. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: Completely unnotable self-promotion of club. Google search reveals no reliable sources to establish notability. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable high school club. If supported by a useful reference, a condensed version may be suitable for inclusion at the high school article. Acroterion (talk) 20:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely not notable. No merge or redirect either. Pity there isn't a speedy for this. Blueboy 96 22:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
About two sentences' worth can be merged into Hall High School at the most. Its existence can be noted, and the championship winnings can be mentioned. That's it. LadyofShalott 15:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George (dog)

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

I'm not sure if this dog is notable... Tim 1357 ^talk 03:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is not just some notability for one thing news type story. The dog was awarded a PDSA Gold Medal, a bronze medal from the New Zealand Society for the Protection of Animals, was honored by a Vietnam war veteran, and received his own statue. Joe Chill (talk) 04:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- From talk page - "what the f is this dog doing on wikipedia...?" and "agreed...this is not what i think wikipedia should be about. since i don't see an article for every fireman, policeman, etc that's ever saved a person's life." Not every fireman, policeman, etc. are awarded two medals and a statue. Even if every fireman, policeman, etc. did receive that, this is a dog. Really impressive for a dog. Joe Chill (talk) 04:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One-event local news story does not establish notability. Good perhaps for Dogopedia, not for Wikipedia. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So you're saying that the dog is non-notable just because it is one event and published in local news without saying how everything else still makes the dog non-notable? There is more to consider than that. Joe Chill (talk) 14:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:ANYBIO which can refer to animals states "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." Joe Chill (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm skeptical that a medal created specifically for awarding to dogs by a veterinary organization is "well-known or significant." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, multiple reliable sources comparing the award to George's Cross makes it well known and significant. It's not what you think, it's what the authors of reliable sources think. It's not just intended for dogs according to the article, it just so happens that only dogs were awarded it so far. Joe Chill (talk) 15:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's the George Cross...for animals. Awarded by a private animal advocacy organization. They cannot seriously be considered of equivalent importance. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - You're using your personal beliefs again. Joe Chill (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - How about I phrase it this way - do you think that this is a well known and significant award for animals. Joe Chill (talk) 15:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I think it's significant when an animal receives an award designed for people, so no, not really; perhaps detail about individual cases can be covered in the article on the PDSA Medal. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Then there really is no reason for me to discuss this with you. Animals can do notable things that are written about in the media. A statue of him was made along with a ceremony held by the governor of a country. Five kids could have been seriously injured or dead if it wasn't for this dog. Joe Chill (talk) 15:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Merge, delete, keep. I'll just stop arguing my point because I already made it. Joe Chill (talk) 16:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete. Sorry, WP:BIO1E applies here. SYSS Mouse (talk) 16:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A quote from that page: "On the other hand, if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles, for example Howard Brennan, a witness to the JFK assassination." Is this of sufficient importance? Maybe some don't think so (how subjective), but the award has its own article with valid refs that do describe it as the equivalent of the George Cross, so one would have to make a good case for its lack of importance. Anna ^talk 18:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete Wikipedia is not a memorial. Sad, though... Roodog2k (talk) 17:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Daily Mail, Sydney Morning Herald, and Fox News aren't enough? Not sure how "Wikipedia is not a memorial" is valid deletion rationale when there's nothing gushing or unsourced in the article. Anna ^talk 17:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep multiple awards, multiple reliable coverage, certainly not a memorial, a proper article, no reason to delete at all. Leave your personal beliefs at the door guys, PDSA Gold Medal is significant. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep...but only because a statue was erected in memory of this dog. I wouldn't consider George relevant to more than one event, otherwise, but now he's the reason for a local landmark. This deletion discussion is interesting in particular because of the recent AfD debate over Fjordman, in which the subject's notability was in question because it was mostly the result of one recent event. This dog is only notable for one event as well. He did earn an award for that event, yes, but there was still only one primary event. Also, he was a dog. Several Times (talk) 18:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep... as original author of this article. WP:ANYBIO combined with sufficient sourcing shows that George is indeed notable enough to have his own article. Miyagawa (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Unusual topic, but notable. Would probably suffer from NOTNEWS issues, except for the numerous awards. --Noleander (talk) 21:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He saved 5 kids. 5 people that would not be alive today. He deserves any and all recognition, and to 'go down in history.' -gijen3 04:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.116.67 (talk)

Seriously? You think that 2 pitbulls would have killed 5 kids?? Back to reality...DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I came to wikipedia to find this exact example of small dog behavior versus larger dogs; one that would include verifiable sources. This delivered the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jms18 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: National newspapers and news sites (including the the BBC) thought this was notable enough to report, so I can't see any reason it should be removed from Wikipedia. Stephenb (Talk) 09:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not everything published by BBC News is fit for inclusion in Wikipedia. Case in point.. Several Times (talk) 15:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, that's the "Magazine" section of the BBC website. Stephenb linked to the News section. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Aw, now I have to spend my afternoon scouring the BBC for a non-notable news piece (just kidding, I get the point.) It's a bit of a blanket statement to claim that everything reported by major news sources is Wikipedia-worthy. WP:NRVE notes that "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest". Every dog has his day, but not every dog needs his own article. Several Times (talk) 18:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - "Every dog has his day, but not every dog needs his own article." So every dog wins two awards, receives a ceremony, and gets a statue? That equals "significant independent coverage or recognition". He received a lot of coverage and he received recognition for saving five kids from two pit bulls. I know that I said that I would stop replying, but I find that comment very odd. Joe Chill (talk) 18:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Never said it was, Several Times. Just pointing out yet another source, of many. Stephenb (Talk) 07:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If this dog is so non-notable, I dare you to list all of the similar articles in Category:Individual dogs and see what happens. Joe Chill (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Pretty much agree with all the keep comments above. The animal clearly received a top, rarely given award for bravery and quite a bit of reputable media coverage.-Kiwipat (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep - seems to make the grade, see also several articles linked off Dickin Medal, which is the military equivalent - SimonLyall (talk) 09:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Received media attention worldwide, was honoured with a top award, was immortalised in a statue... not sure how all that fails notability criteria. BIO1E may seem to apply to some, but it's worth remembering that that guideline is primarily for humans, who are far more likely to either be newsworthy or non-newsworthy for an entire lifetime and make such judgements more appropriate. If you're going to nominate this, may I suggest that you try something like Greyfriars Bobby next? BTW, still chuckling at the idea of a dog making it onto Fox News. Don't dogs hav their own news service? Grutness...wha? 07:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Muegge

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

Non-notable former minor league baseball player. Hasn't played professionally since 2008, so I don't think he'll be playing anytime soon. Fails WP:GNG. Alex (talk) 20:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. - frankie (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. - frankie (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BASEBALL/N being a career minor leaguer. Fails WP:GNG with lack of multiple sources of non-WP:ROUTINE coverage in independent reliable sources. —Bagumba (talk) 23:11, 1 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, Bejinhan talks 03:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 _.......^{Leave a message} 02:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OfficeSIP Messenger

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

Non-notable. Notability was contested multiple times and the article was deleted more than once. This [18] article is not a review - it is a description of the software on a download page. This review is a blog. This possible review is a dead link. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 02:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Zero independent reliable sources to establish notability, and very little prospect that any will ever be found. No significant hits on Google or Google News. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I didn't see any good sources on both Yahoo and Google. SwisterTwister talk 00:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 _.......^{Leave a message} 02:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1967 N3381W Piper Cherokee crash

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

Fails WP:EVENT, an obscure little piece of trivia than can easily be covered in the article about the radio station, where it is already mentioned anyway; and without which this has no context, being just another of a myriad of cases of an untrained pilot flying in bakId weather and hitting something. I thought about turning this into a redirect to the radio station article per WP:BOLD but I concluded that the only people that would search for this based on the title would be those who already have specific details about the crash, i.e. the type of aircraft and registration, and the year it happened. Therefore I am of the opinion that a redirect would serve no useful purpose. YSSYguy (talk) 01:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:AIRCRASH. People interested in researching the history of air crashes, and there are a significant number of them, can find this article through categories and lists, rather than by typing in the exact article title. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if you think this meets AIRCRASH, then no offence meant, but you cannot have understood it properly. YSSYguy (talk) 02:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I have misunderstood it, then perhaps it should be rewritten to be clearer. I see six fatalities, what I can only assume was hull loss, and coverage in the New York Times. My guess is that many other publications covered the crash also. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I now see that the aircraft was too small to have qualified unless all three conditions in WP:AIRCRASH were met. Perhaps you might have pointed that out in your nomination. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, my apologies. YSSYguy (talk) 23:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – As it is a light aircraft under 12,500 lbs that resulted in no lasting changes to procedures or Airworthiness Directives, it fails WP:AIRCRASH and is therefore non-notable. It should be retained as a mention in the article about the radio station, however as it is notable in the history of the station, but not as a stand-alone aircraft accident. - Ahunt (talk) 11:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is interesting and contains adequate sourcing. It's been around for years (almost 6, in fact) without harming anything. Why delete it? —Cleared as filed. 04:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because all that needs to be said about it can be covered in the article about the radio station. There have been thousands of this type of crash over the years and the pilot's name is irrelevant, the type of aircraft is irrelevant, where it ended up after hitting the tower is irrelevant. All that needs to be recorded is that broadcasting was delayed because the tower was hit by a light aircraft, being flown in bad weather by a pilot who was only qualified to fly in good weather. Why does that need a separate article? The "adequate sourcing" is an accident report - which are done for all aviation accidents in the USA, as well as rail, ship and pipeline accidents apparently; a news report; and two primary sources. How does "Interesting and it's not doing any harm" get past WP:EVENT? YSSYguy (talk) 06:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, this is why I had more or less stopped contributing to Wikipedia. Thanks for reminding me. —Cleared as filed. 17:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not really notable as a stand-alone article, small aircraft hits something all on board died, sad but not notable. MilborneOne (talk) 19:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Charles (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Brazilian Air Force Cessna 208B Grand Caravan Crash

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

Contested PROD with no reason given other than "WP:AIRCRASH is only an essay". Leaving aside the issue of "it meets AIRCRASH, let's keep it / it doesn't meet AIRCRASH, but that's only an essay, let's keep it", the article should be deleted per WP:EVENT. YSSYguy (talk) 00:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. —YSSYguy (talk) 00:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, random plane crash with no lasting significance. Wikipedia does not exist to document everything that ever happened in the world. Look at the references in the article; tiny wire reports of the crash. Speciate (talk) 04:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per Speciate. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 06:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – As it is a light aircraft under 12,500 lbs, it fails WP:AIRCRASH. - Ahunt (talk) 11:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Light aircraft with no one notable onboard, so unless the Brazilian Air Force changes their regulations as a result of this, it resoundingly fails WP:AIRCRASH. Grandmartin11 (talk) 17:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unremarkable aviation accident. Acroterion (talk) 20:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have no intention of taking the WP:AIRCRASH essay seriously - it's not policy, and if it ever were, it would be orthogonal to existing notability policy, in a way that would create drama. Our existing notability policies are fine, and I think this article fails them. bobrayner (talk) 18:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

World Federation of Great Towers

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

Non-notable organisation. The towers themselves are not "members" of the organisation in any meaningful sense; they are added to this "Federation", which is basically a marketing promotion, by sending US$1500 to a P.O. box in Australia. This is not a list of notable towers or especially tall towers; that is at List of tallest buildings in the world. The marketing organisation has succeeded in getting various towers' "membership" mentioned in the press, but there is no significant coverage of the organisation itself, and notability is not inherited. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The dutch version of the article was nominated by me on nl.wiki, for similar reasons. Reliable secondary sources are not to be found, notability is lacking, promotion is clearly taking place (initiated by wikipedia though) -> WFGT does not deserve an article. Leoiv (talk) 10:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete organisation's webhits consist of its own site, the present article and then assorted facebook, flickr and micro-wiki pages. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep – Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Procedural_closure Linked from Main Page. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 01:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 London riots

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

Is Wikipedia a newspaper? Matt Lewis (talk) 00:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, but keep. We have the old London riots at 1985 Brixton riot and I'd say this is at least as notable if not more. JoshuaJohnLee ^{talk softly, please} 00:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major riots are encyclopedic as is major plane crashes. It is bad taste to nominate a "current event" for deletion when it is clearly maturing. -- とある白い猫 ^chi? 00:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Obvious keep, hundreds of sources about this, largest riots in the capital in years and years. — Joseph Fox 00:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because my socks don't match. 2.27.5.50 (talk) 00:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are sources galore --Guerillero | My Talk 01:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Now the 'speedy closing' admin (who was an involved editor) has said I can 'undo' and bring this back to life, can I have my say? This is NOT a speedy delete candidate - please no one else stifle debate. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Where did they say that? —GFOLEY FOUR!— 01:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've never seen a faster speedy delete - twice over. It was said on the article's talk page (under my Afd heading). Matt Lewis (talk) 01:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, apparently the rioting is spreading to Liverpool now (it has already spread to Birmingham). There is debate around (almost guaranteed not to be covered on this article, as generally media sites don't delve into it) on whether perhaps the media is stoking the fires. Now, the media is at least professional - Wikipedia is not. I have deep concerns in Wikipedia being a breaking news site, as its search engine placement means people get the unprofessional recycled news before the real thing. This is far removed from the Wikipedia I signed up for (after enough misgivings) in 2006. Who is calling this the '2011 London riots'? Whatever happens, currently Wikipedia is. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keepwikipedia has a long standing practice of covering significant events close to the time they happen and AFD cannot and should not change that. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Tottenham riots.©Geni 01:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep I don't think this really needs an explanation but, major news story with international coverage and the most serious riots in the UK for at least 25 years (we don't have many.) There are more than likely other reasons but I shall leave it there as I think I have made my point. Personally I can’t see why this discussion was reopened. --wintonian ^talk 01:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Regan (hurler)

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

Didn't find anything in the sources provided - that ascertains that this player is highly notable to have a separate article in Wikipedia. Wikiglobaleditor (talk) 11:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets Wikipedia:ATH#Gaelic_games. Tameamseo (talk) 21:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:46, 2 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) 00:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - according to the source provided and the searches I have done on the net - it seems like the player has played only one match in the senior county level. I am not sure is it sufficient to pass WP:GNG - Wikiglobaleditor (talk) 07:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A single match? The WP notability guidelines at Wikipedia:ATH#Gaelic_games stipulate that players that have played at the "senior" level are notable, and this player has achieved that. But if it was only a single game, that makes it borderline. --Noleander (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - according to this link[19], the subject has actually played TWO games at senior level! (exciting, I know) There's a reasonable case that the subject meets Wikipedia:ATH#Gaelic_games. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 01:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:ATH#Gaelic games (though only just!) Teester (talk) 11:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Covington Regional Ballet

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

Could not find any sources to support notability. Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 01:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 2 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) 00:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a youth dance company, located in a small town in Georgia. No independent sources seem to discuss it to a depth required to to establish WP notability. --Noleander (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A non-notable local company. Joe Chill (talk) 03:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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