Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 May 14

< 13 May	15 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no indication of actual notability. "He is the inventor of DASP, yet to be productized." NawlinWiki (talk) 03:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sravan puttagunta

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

Seems to be Autobiographical. Will be impossible (or prohibitively difficult) to verify any information or establish notability as Google searches reveal no information on either the person or file format [1], [2] except for this article. Caleb Jon^talk 02:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru (talk) 07:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Man Outside (disambiguation)

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

Disambiguation page with only one link. An article search failed to bring up any other "The Man Outside" or similarly named articles. Airplaneman ✈ 01:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment an editor has started to create The Man Outside (1967 film). However, the new article does not yet establish notability for its subject since IMDb merely proves that a film etc exists (and the Notes merely take us to the WP article about the reviewers rather than to any actual reviews). Also, the 1933 film and the 1972 British TV series might just be notable enough for independent articles (though, not from the links I have provided). I am waiting the completion of the new article and/or waiting to see if anyone can estabilsh notability for the other two article subjects before !Voting, therefore --Jubilee ♫clipman 15:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any intelligent person can see there are two movies, as well as a television series and a play, by this title. User:Airplaneman would have recognized that if he had observed the one-hour rule before tagging a page for suggested deletion. Airplaneman tagged that page only 12 minutes after I had begun to create it, at which time the page had only one of the four titles. In less than an hour it had all four titles.

In addition to vandalism, Wikipedia needs to have a policy on BUSYBODIES, which includes people who impatiently add suggested deletion tags in violation of the one-hour rule, or who add them to pages with the UnderConstruction tag. Whenever such a tag is added to a page that Wikipedia rules it will keep, a BUSYBODY demerit should be added to the tagger’s record. Two such demerits ought to bring the BUSYBODY a severe warning that any additional demerit will result in loss of editing privileges.

Why should I be obliged to waste my time defending the obvious legitimacy of a page that was tagged by a busybody who didn't have the decency to wait an hour (as required by Wikipedia policy) before tagging it?Aardvarkzz (talk) 04:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion: No good reason for deletion, as far as I can see. While the film could be dealt with adequately with a hatnote in the play's article, it's clear that there are other art works with the same title that may merit articles in the future. I also agree with Aardvarkzz's sentiments regarding the pointless of the nomination in the first place. DionysosProteus (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the version as nominated could have been speedy-deleted and the nomination was not pointless, the current version (with the additional blue link) is a valid dab page. ("May merit articles is the future" means "may merit a disambiguation page in the future" too.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Landon Augustine

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

Creator and IP repeatedly remove speedy deletion tags, violates WP:AB and WP:NN. Only one GNews hit and about 60 GHits (almost all social networking sites. GregJackP (talk) 01:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, subject does not meet notability guidelines. ... discospinster _talk 02:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A record-setting blueberry raker? Delete. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, A7. Hairhorn (talk) 05:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: no indication of importance. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The speedy deletion tag has been removed twice by the author and twice by an anonymous editor. The IP has no edits apart from this article, and two of its three edits have been removing this tag. I think it is a good bet that this was the author of the article again. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 22:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, in spite of the blueberry raking. First Light (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Notability is not asserted, let alone shown. Edward321 (talk) 23:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Landon Augustine

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

Creator and IP repeatedly remove speedy deletion tags, violates WP:AB and WP:NN. Only one GNews hit and about 60 GHits (almost all social networking sites. GregJackP (talk) 01:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, subject does not meet notability guidelines. ... discospinster _talk 02:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A record-setting blueberry raker? Delete. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, A7. Hairhorn (talk) 05:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: no indication of importance. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The speedy deletion tag has been removed twice by the author and twice by an anonymous editor. The IP has no edits apart from this article, and two of its three edits have been removing this tag. I think it is a good bet that this was the author of the article again. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 22:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, in spite of the blueberry raking. First Light (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Notability is not asserted, let alone shown. Edward321 (talk) 23:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opus-dei: existence after religion

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

Much of the prose is copied from http://www.opus-dei.co.uk/, and it doesn't seem to be very notable anyway. —ems 2 4 01:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like a clear WP:COPYVIO here, much of the text comes form the above website which has a clear copyright notice on it. Should this be speedied? Fenix down (talk) 10:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It may even be a promotional activity by the company, as the same piece was created today under the similar lemma Opus-Dei: Existence After Religion, also by a user (Pollux.rees (talk · contribs)) who registered only today, similar as the other article (True-grit (talk · contribs)). Interestingly, both versions/lemmas were started by using the <big>-switch for the whole piece of text. --Túrelio (talk) 13:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru (talk) 07:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Dailyer Nebraskan

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

Non-notable "newspaper" lacking GHits of substance and with zero GNEWS. Fail to establish WP:NOTABILITY. ttonyb (talk) 03:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I really don't understand how a newspaper that gets 5,000 unique hits a month on its website and has a circulation 10,000 can not have notability. --Gregory32389 (talk) 04:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Real world popularity is not the same as Wikipedia notability. in addition, circulation and Google hits are not part of notability criteria. ttonyb (talk) 04:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - After reading this and editing the page I do believe that we now are within Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. --Gregory32389 (talk) 04:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Simply making a statement without providing support for the statement does not help the reviewing admin decide the validity of the article. ttonyb (talk) 04:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – 5000 uniques a month? I've got blogs that get that in a day that I'd never dream of starting Wikipedia articles for--mainly due to lack of independent nontrivial coverage elsewhere. Heather (talk) 23:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The page now contains several independent sources to verify the information provided. These sources show that several notable sources have independently provided information about the Dailyer Nebraskan. --Gregory32389 (talk) 04:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Unfortunately, one minor article, one article, and a comment by one of the original founders does not appear to be non-trivial coverage. ttonyb (talk) 05:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that the refs do not constitute "multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage." Edison (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have added more sources to the article, and believe it passes notability at this time. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 11:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - HT News does publish a "US Fed News", as their webpage states. Forgive me for not assuming good faith, but you have to admit that something like the person who nominated an article for deletion removing references during discussion looks highly suspect. I have responded in greater detail on your talk page, and hope that we can resolve this without any more animosity from either of us. Once again, I apologize for jumping to conclusions. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks, I see HT News does publish this - OMG, the Wikipedia article is not up to date. 8-) I also see how my edits could have been seen as a problem. Thanks for your further comments and I look forward to editing with you in the future. ttonyb (talk) 17:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:N. Possible merge to article about the University. Edison (talk) 19:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to University_of_Nebraska-Lincoln. Per nom, fails WP:N. This newspaper is probably only viewed by students,teachers, or alumni of the university. Traxs7 (Talk) 00:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Scapler--coverage in multiple sources good enough. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Scapler--coverage in multiple sources good enough. • Freechild'sup? 13:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru (talk) 00:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - arguably the Lincoln Star refs in particular get it over the line. I'd listen to contrary arguments though. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Veracity, verifiability, and NPOV maintained. Footnoted properly. Not selling a product. Notability is in the eye of the beholder. Carrite (talk) 19:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My-e-Director 2012

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

A rather esoteric research and development project enabling end-users to select focal actors and points of interest within real-time broadcasted scenes. I am bringing it to AFD in the hope of getting an answer to my question: "does funding by the Seventh Framework Programme automatically make a project notable enough for Wikipedia?" I think the answer is a definite "no". No other evidence of notability is offered in the case of this project. Wikipedia is emphatically not a place for academics to promote their projects. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 05:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 06:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not familiar with Seventh Framework, so I can't really judge the core question - is a Seventh Framework-funded program notable for being a Seventh Framework program? Depends on the coverage, I suppose - if getting this funding generates coverage, then I'd say maybe. In this case, I'm not seeing the coverage I expect, but I'm going to look about a bit more before placing a Delete. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Many 7th Framework Programme articles have been deleted in previous AfDs. There is a concerted effort to get these articles onto Wikipedia: http://aksw.org/SoerenAuer/HowToDescribeResearchProjectsOnWikipedia Abductive (reasoning) 20:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Before bringing an entry to the AFD, a careful check on the facts would help avoid any incorrect conclusions. How can a project in which major stakeholders involved in sport coverage (such as the Olympic games) participate be characterised as an "esoteric research"? First of all the use of the term esoteric is wrong. Esoteric derives from the Greek word eσωτερικό =esoteriko which means interior. Looking carefully at the description of the project, we can se that it is implemented by a European consortium of partners that have both expertise and interest in the promotion of research in personalised media delivery. Therefore, by no means we can characterise it as esoteric, nor can it be linked to a simple effort of academics to promote their work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpatr (talk • contribs) 23:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what the project does or who its stakeholders are. All that matters is the coverage (or lack thereof) in independent secondary sources. Abductive (reasoning) 01:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there seems to be a lack of knowledge as regards the way this type of research projects operate. Support by companies is obligatory, so both own funding and business plans for exploitation of results are available. Furthermore, again there is a term that is used in a wrong way? How is the claim that "no independen secondary sources" justified? The sources of the project at a primary level are independed so the problem is at the secondary level? What is the impact of this? In any case, it seems that now the problem is reported to be different than the initially stated (esoteric research!). By the way, there are several entries in wikipedia that have by far a more limited scope and impact, but there is no problem there. What is the special conditions that apply here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpatr (talk • contribs) 07:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article on secondary sources defines them quite well. The sources must be independent of the people associated with the topic. As for articles that have a "far a more limited scope and impact", you are permitted to nominate them for deletion any time you wish. Abductive (reasoning) 01:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I find this article quiet interesting but it lacks of technical details and references. If authors give some more details, I believe that it would be worth to stay in Wiki Pedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Platons (talk • contribs) 07:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails to show notability (and notability is not inherited from supporters or funders. I will also point out that the discussion of the word "esoteric" here suffers from the etymological fallacy. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru (talk) 00:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notbaility not even close to being established. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dryer ball

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

Dubious notability. Only source is this unreliable looking website. I removed some pointed text such as "the pseudo-scientific, unproven, purpose" and "Green Lane claims to have laboratory test results proving their effectiveness but fail to show it to anyone who asks to see it." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 11:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I don't think this is non-notable, and perhaps it is better to redirect to fabric softener. — Timneu22 · talk 14:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the article suggested above. I think that the object is something like a laundry ball. Tarheel95 (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The dryer ball is related to the laundry ball in that they are non-chemical based products. But the dryer ball is a replacement for chemical fabric softeners. [3], [4], [5], and [6] demonstrate that these things are being covered by multiple reliable sources, and there are more news articles behind pay walls. Although they are meant to soften fabrics, I don't think a redirect would make any sense. A person landing on fabric softener would get an article about chemical fabric softeners with no mention of a dryer ball. A merge might make sense, but these things are so radically different that I think a separate article is warranted. -- Whpq (talk) 16:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru (talk) 00:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Also noted in US patent D583519. The article notes news about the item. This is a unique object which people will try to learn about. Deleting this article will confuse anyone trying to learn what a dryer ball is. --Erik Garrison (talk) 01:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & improve. I have these at home and I haven't the slightest idea how they're meant to work. Either that or merge with fabric softener. Hairhorn (talk) 06:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(recomment) Redirect, this is probably laundry ball; no reason for separate articles. — Timneu22 · talk 13:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It is not a laundry ball. A laundry ball is for washing clothes and takes the place of chemical laundry detergents. A dryer ball is for fabric softening during drying clothes and would take the place of chemical fabric softeners. They are not the same thing. - Whpq (talk) 13:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources cited above by Whpq and seen at Google News Archive [7] (besides the cites which are just juxtaposition of the words). A product widely sold in stores, and claimed to be "green" about which readers might seek information in an encyclopedia. This is not fabric softener, which is a chemical product, and it is not a laundry ball. Edison (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The balls themselves appear to be notable apart from the court action, although the article makes no such claim, and no such sources are provided. GregorB (talk) 11:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Additional sources: [8] [9]. JulesH (talk) 21:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joyce Elaine Roop

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

Delete. Non-notable lawyer/activist. Borderline speedy candidate with what's there now. Contested WP:PROD. Only reference is a typical obituary which basically just gives her résumé. Original author is indefblocked for spamming. Wknight94 ^talk 00:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on balance. Tricky. Agree she draws almost a complete blank on Google, but then she died 15 years ago, so it isn't a great test. The obit comes from a very significant paper, not some backwoods weekly. Google Books turns her up at a Congressional Hearing. It's marginal but i don't think the article is doing any harm, notability is established from (admittedly only one) very reliable source, and someone researching her using hardcopy sources may find more. Better to keep i think. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meetWP:BIO. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keeper If you have ever lived downwind from a coal-fired power plant, you would appreciate a woman lawyer who fights acid rain, as I do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MindyMinder (talk • contribs) 00:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Needs a stub tag, but keep it. Carrite (talk) 19:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: Several people found it worth editing. The photograph was deleted: Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArdenHathaway (talk • contribs) 21:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru (talk) 07:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only a single source, and does not meed WP:BIO. Chrisbrl88 (talk) 11:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This single source (a news obituary in the Boston Globe) is good enough for me. wp:BIO says "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability". I consider this to be substantial enough depth of coverage to make this unnecessary. As Hamiltonstone points out, print sources may also exist (which could be used to improve the article), but I don't consider them necessary for establishing notability. Buddy431 (talk) 02:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. My apologies for relisting this. Though some of the keep !votes could have been stronger, the consensus was clear. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alina Foley

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

fails WP:ENT. no multiple notable roles. LibStar (talk) 07:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Those are fairly large bookings for a child actress but there's probably no real coverage out of industry rags. I'm pretty close to being neutral on this but due to the previous nom I'll tend towards my current status. Shadowjams (talk) 08:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For a 6-year-old to star next to Jackie Chan is pretty darn good, and since her roles have only improved over her life I don't see this as a stopping point by any stretch. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

we don't relax WP:ENT for 6 year olds. acting with someone notable does not make one notable. LibStar (talk) 07:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Having a significant role in a hugely popular major national show in addition to co-starring in a major studio distributed and internationally theatrically released film does demonstrate notability. --Oakshade (talk) 04:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

there is no evidence she had a substantial role in this film. LibStar (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is.--Oakshade (talk) 13:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. Being a BLP, a few more comments would be helpful before this is closed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see a reason why this should be deleted, yet. Actresses and famous people, in my opinion should be kept, especially for someone young. Tommy2010 01:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you have failed to address how she meets WP:BIO or WP:ENT. being someone young is not a criterion. LibStar (talk) 17:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cautious keep Borderline notable, but inclined to think not good practice to re-nominate without good reason. PatGallacher (talk) 13:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Some notable appearances, needs an awful lot of work. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. Normally, a second relist with this many "keep" !votes would be uncalled for but considering that the subject is a living person, not a Pokemon, we need to get this one right. Now it seems to me that whether or not she passes WP:ENT is if the role she played in "The Spy Next Door" is "significant" so let's focus on that. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has a few notable roles, both from 2008 Days of our Lives and The Spy Next Door CrimsonBlue (talk) 01:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Of Mice & Men (band). Redirecting as an editorial decision. Consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second & Sebring

Second & Sebring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

its references only lead to the music video. it doesn't state how the song is notable. Qö₮$@37 (talk) 19:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Of Mice & Men (band). It might be argued that a debut single of a (presumably) notable band is itself notable, but I think merging it would be the best way. GregorB (talk) 11:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EPiServer

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

Promotion for non-notable software product. I have not found any significant coverage, only a whole lot of press releases. Haakon (talk) 07:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - per CSD A7. No mention or evidence of notability as a corporation. Article appears to me to exist solely for the purpose of advertisement. --Pump me up 08:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's clearly not speedy material--it's hardly promotional sounding and it's been around for over a year, and the previous AfD was a Keep. That said, I haven't seen any improvement, it's a stub without notability, and the previous AfD reasons to keep seem to have been proven wrong by time. Shadowjams (talk) 08:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Haakon (talk) 08:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You obviously haven't bothered to search google books. First hit: [10]. Doesn't look like a press release to me. I agree the article could use some expansion, but I'm no expert on this. The sad choice of Wikipedia today seems to: either someone with a wp:coi, who knows a lot about this, develops the article, and it gets deleted as g11, or it gets deleted because it's not sufficiently developed (citing independent sources etc.) Pcap ping 21:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep?? I added the ref Pcap found. That seems to be virtually the only reliable source though - agree google news produces a poor result. At least the WP article text is neutral! hamiltonstone (talk) 03:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a Content Management System marketed by EPiServer AB. Absolutely nothing suggests that this particular product has any encyclopedic significance as opposed to hundreds of similar products. (Most of the other products in its category should not have separate articles either.) Merely being the subject of a subheading in a book about Pro scalable .NET 2.0 application designs (now there's a page-turner) does not confer encyclopedic significance on this run of the mill software. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim of notability or significance whatsoever. And, of course, Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit. GregorB (talk) 11:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scandale (film)

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

I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 01:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 07:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 07:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge and Redirect~~ to article on director George Mihalka. The article lacks assertion of notability or sources showing any... and the common name makes searches difficult... but sources are out there... some in French... [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] So either this gets input perhaps from Canadian Wikipedians with an interest in older 'B' movies, or should get a merge and redirect to the director's article, as he has the notability the current article lacks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This low-budget movie actually attractde quite a lot of coverage in its time (working from memory). Working from Google , we have this entry in Guide to the cinema(s) of Canada. [19], [20], [21], [22], [23] from the Ottawa Citizen and Montreal Gazette which Google news seems to have a good archive of. From my own recollection, the Toronto Star also covered the film during its development and subsequent release but they don't appear in any of the searches I executed. -- Whpq (talk) 16:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Whpq... with my thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert Foust

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

A lot of information here but none of it really seems to meet any of the notability criteria. Most of the references given do not mention his name at all. Google search is mostly a list of social network sites. Some of the claims are dubious -- for example, Healing Hands World Outreach supposedly makes $150 million annually, but Google has never heard of it. ... discospinster _talk 03:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 08:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 08:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is rather obvious vanity piece, perhaps written by himself or one of his followers.Pcap ping 08:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing here that is both notable and verifiable by reliable sources. Some things seem downright bogus. For example, Sport Karate Magazine just published issue 100, yet the article references issue 576. A search for "prophetic records" foust -faust produced only the wikipedia page. None of the references given show notability of the subject--some don't even mention him. For all the schools listed, there's no indication he actually graduated from any of them--it appears that after 12 years of post-secondary education he's still attending community colleges. This appears to be a vanity page created by an SPA with a COI. Papaursa (talk) 14:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have been unable to find any reliable sources to support the subject's notability as a martial artist. Janggeom (talk) 06:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note. Deleted as a copyvio --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stockton College Student Center

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

WP:CRYSTAL. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 07:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 07:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect back to college. Wow, it doesn't even exist yet? It might warrant a sentence in the school's article. tedder (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Stone

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 03:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am unable to find significant coverage for this individual. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Siddharth Talwar

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

Nothing in the article indicates that the subject is particularly notable per WP:BIO. He is the CEO of a company and spoke at forums. First five pages of a Google search comes up with Facebook and LinkedIn entries, some articles about a restaurateur in Delhi (I don't think it's the same guy), a DJ (ditto), and I found one "Snapshot" of the company on Businessweek. Nothing in Google news. ... discospinster _talk 03:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First page of google search returned this - [24]. Szzuk (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No solid information has been found despite this AFD being open for a long time. The article Szzuk found seems to be a title but no article. tedder (talk) 06:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Rouse

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

This article doesn't meet notability criteria. The subject is a stand-up comedian who has had a bit part in a movie, has appeared on a reality show and a tv show which showcased lesser known comedians, and has opened for a big-name act on tour. I've found only one newspaper article that really goes into detail about him [25] and a few other articles which seem to be regurgitating his press bio when he's appearing in their town. He hasn't met the significant coverage in independent sources bar set by WP:N. Karanacs (talk) 17:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Karanacs (talk) 17:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Faith Abrahams

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

Subject has had a few minor roles, which does not meet the notability requirement for entertainers. ErikHaugen (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually more than just a "few minor roles", having lead roles in multiple film, video, and television projects[26] which actually seem to be pushing nicely at WP:ENT's "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Further research may indicate that through her recurrences in the various film, video, and television projects of the fan-loved The Fairly OddParents, whether or not she may have also developed "a large fan base or a significant "cult" following". Time for research. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What lead roles are you referring to? You don't mean Francis, do you? ErikHaugen (talk) 01:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Francis is only part of her repeated television films since 2003 and being in a TV series from 2001 through 2008... as I note that not all are Fairly OddParents. This would seem to make her "Francis" when added to her other roles, as adding up to significant roles in multiple notable projects. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, I thought you said "lead roles." So my reading of imdb/etc is correct that she has had no lead roles, right? I think it's pretty clear that per wp:ent, her resume alone does not imply enough notability for wp. ErikHaugen (talk) 17:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Re-read WP:ENT. It stipulates "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." It does not say this must "only" be "lead" roles. And per WP:ENT, if verified in reliable sources, her career can indeed allow a reasonable presumption of notability for WP. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would expect a BLP to have better sourcing, especially since this discussion has gone on so long. Borderline WP:ENT, but I think it fails. Narthring (talk • contribs) 03:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frumentius (Pope Joan)

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

A secondary character from a 19th-century romantic novel that doesn't have an article; no notability of his own. The novel is Emmanuel Rhoides' Papess Joanne, a fictional account of the supposed medieval female Pope named Joan, which an anonymous user has been touting as genuine history for the last year and a half. However, it's not, and the character Frumentius does not appear extensively in any version of the Pope Joan legend outside of this novel. This had been redirected to Pope Joan, but the parenthetical makes it an unlikely search target.Cúchullain ^t/c 15:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is very strange to have an article on a character on a novel which does not have an article, and whose notability is not yet established. PatGallacher (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find no evidence of treatment of this fictional character in reliable secondary sources. Deor (talk) 14:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep the on;y reason the novel does not have an article is our ethnocentrism; the author is Greek; the novel is in Greek, and the novel has a long article with dozens of references in the Greek WP. [27], which calls it " one of the greatest Greek novels, " . Agreed we need a translation of that article more, but let's not throw out what we have. DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even in the lengthy Greek article, this character is mentioned in passing, in a single sentence of the plot summary (with no indication of any source that deals with him); the Greek WP doesn't have a separate article about the character. Whether we need an article on the novel Pope Joan has nothing to do with the merits of this article. Deor (talk) 10:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this isn't an AfD for the novel. It's an AfD for a person who the article initially implied was a historical person, but in reality is a secondary character from the novel. There is no possible way to expand this article, and there are no sources specifically about him. And there's no risk of throwing away what we have; we have an article on Emmanuel Rhoides, which discusses the novel.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to the novel: cna't find sources on this and satisfied that the Greeks can't find it either. Sufficient to mention it in the plot summary of the novel. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't make sense. You can delete or you can change to a redirect, but you can't do both. It does not make much sense to redirect to the novel since it doesn't have an article. PatGallacher (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - We delete and redirect all the time... but the lack of article on the novel is confusing... i guess no redirect makes sense. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Or maybe, you should ask the author of the article to post a G7 and finish the matter. One should notice however that originally, Frumentius (Pope Joan) had been a live link inside the Pope Joan article but an editor here deleted it three times in the past. 94.71.203.203 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolai Ogolobyak

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

Subject is only known from this one news story. Undue weight, article not justified, per WP:BLP1E, and WP:ONEVENT. œ ^™ 08:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —œ ^™ 08:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ONEVENT. --DonaldDuck (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for crappy writing and footnoting, at a minimum. Carrite (talk) 19:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. However, an article on the event itself may or may not be notable. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 07:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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