Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 March 17

< 16 March	18 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to Community (season 2). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Messianic Myths and Ancient Peoples

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

I love Community as much as the next girl, but not every episode will meet notability guidelines. This is one such episode. There is no information here that isn't already included on the main episode list. In fact, the episode list for season 2 contains this information plus a summary. I am gonna have to go ahead and request AfD. At this time, there is an insufficient amount of external content specific to this episode. Valid sources currently offer one of three things: plot summary, ratings, critical review/recap. Per Wikipedia's style guidelines for television episodes, in order to be considered notable, an episode article needs "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The MOS guideline for writing about fiction clarifies that "the subject's real-world notability should be established according to the general notability guideline by including independent reliable secondary sources — this will also ensure that there is enough source material for the article to be comprehensive and factually accurate." As with most individual television episodes, it is unlikely that these requirements can be met at this point.

I have considered merging - but as previously stated, there is nothing in this article that wasn't simply C+P from the main list. Redirect may still be an option, but that seems like an unnecessary step. In the main list, linked articles currently point to genuinely notable episodes in the series' history - leaving this episode as an internal WP link (just to redirect back to itself) seems too convoluted and is misleading at first glance. Deletion is a much better option in this case, as absolutely no new information will be lost. ocrasaroon (talk) 05:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think there is a policy that WP is not a TV directory. Borock (talk) 12:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into season article there is no compelling reason to delete this stub or even bring it to AFD. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or if indeed things are already entirely covered in the target, redirecting will suffice. Redirects are cheap and there is rarely a good reason to turn an article that can be upmerged into a redlink. Jclemens (talk) 00:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and nothing to merge. 97198 (talk) 07:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to episode list, and (obviously) unlink the link found there. That way, anyone who searches for the episode will find what they are looking for relatively easily. Kevinbrogers (talk) 00:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Janwillem van de Wetering. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grijpstra and de Gier

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

Unsourced nonsense about some fictional characters in a novel. Ashershow1_{talk•contribs} 05:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I'm not personally familiar with the characters, I've seen the author's name, and the list of novels involving these characters suggests that Wikipedia ought to cover them in some manner--even as just redirect(s) to the relevant section of the author's article. Any ideas or preferences? Jclemens (talk) 00:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about a redirect to Janwillem van de Wetering#Grijpstra and de Gier novels? --Ashershow1_{talk•contribs} 23:04, 22 March 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) 00:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect: Par down the excessive descriptions of the characters to the essence and put at the top of the above mentioned section. Hasteur (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect for the sake of building a consensus. Not enough significant coverage to WP:verify notability but maybe some of it can be salvaged as part of a broader notable article. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect for the moment. There's enough to constitute its own article eventually though: Grijpstra and De Gier is a series of Dutch novels, as well as a television series, so it's notable enough. Kusonaga (talk) 09:19, 27 March 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, Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 03:12, 31 March 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Justus Weiner

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

This person seems to be only notable for one event, being involved in a controversy about what he wrote about another person. The introduction gives some general facts about his life and career without making any real claim to notability, then the article gets into the controversy and spends most of its time there. Jaque Hammer (talk) 04:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Much of the information on the dispute is included in a lengthy footnote in the Edward Said article. Jonathanwallace (talk) 06:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As I wrote already on the article discussion, the article reflects the image cultivation of Weiner and his camp and is based on highly biased "sources" (JCPA, frontpagemag,...) which are to be attributed to this camp. revision, taking into account more objective views, is one possibility. But it could well be that this person for itself isn't notable enough and that the essence of the article can be moved to the Edward Said article.--Severino (talk) 09:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Weiner is the author of multiple published and widely reviewed books and is thus notable per Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and WP:AUTHOR. This article can be expanded and improved, I see no policy based justification for deletion. Marokwitz (talk) 10:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The claim that the person is notable for one event is incorrect. He is a scholar, has published articles in academic journals as well as major peridocals of high standing. The entry should not be deleted. --ResidentRevenant (talk) 11:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whole his main notoriety in the news was with regard to Said (even making multiple mentions in the NYT), his other works are widely cited (huge number, in fact, per Google Scholar - not "google"). [1] shows that Weiner is not a "one trick pony." Collect (talk) 12:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a very well sourced article about a notable person. He has lots of published works, and there are lots of articles about himself.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Marokwitz, ResidentRevenant, Collect. Not an earth-shaking figure, but not unworthy of a short article. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an individual worthy of encyclopedic biography. FIX this article, which is terrible. Carrite (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up Person appears to pass notability requirements; article needs to be improved. -- Avi (talk) 13:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- definitely a one trick pony; if it weren't for his misguided academic stalking and character assassination of Said, nobody would know a thing about this guy. All his notability comes from the Said incident (just look through and actually read the google scholar links mentioned above); and it is more than well covered in the Said article itself. If we keep the article, it might be better reframed as "Justus Weiner Edward Said controversy" or something rather than as a bio. csloat (talk) 21:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Collect. Inspecting the Google scholar links as recommended above I find that years before the Said controversy he was described as a domain expert, and was publishing articles in well known journals of international law that were subsequently cited extensively by other scholars. Easily meets the notability standards. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 00:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

? Cited extensively by other scholars? This should be interesting. csloat (talk) 21:18, 23 March 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico national under-22 football team

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

This article is not needed since the Mexico U-22 caps will count as a full senior international cap in Copa America matches. GoPurple 'n Gold₂₄ 03:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is no such thing as a Mexican under-22 team; rather, the Mexican senior side will represent them at the competition, but it has been decided by the Mexican FA to only use players under the age of 22 (to give them experience or whatever). Giant Snowman 14:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but an article on the Mexican U23 team or Olympic team would probably be valid. In such an article, reference to the nature of the team playing as the official side would be appropriate. Kevin McE (talk) 18:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's senior team. TheBiggestFootballFan (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per GiantSnowman, they will be representing the senior team. Argyle 4 Life^talk 05:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per GiantSnowman. Zanoni (talk) 08:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no such team. – Michael (talk) 19:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree. Pelmeen10 (talk) 02:37, 24 March 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 under CSD A7 by User:DragonflySixtyseven. (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 18:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrics of Life

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

No indication of of notability, most references link to about.com, only the quotes are referenced. Documentary is 10 minutes long (even though this is not a criteria)... really? Goes on and on. Also one of the external links goes to the Black Swan website. MobileSnail 03:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC) MobileSnail 03:12, 17 March 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nachman Kahana

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

No indication he meets WP:BIO. The article has only one reliable secondary source, and that's actually an obituary of his brother, not him. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a minor rabbi, author of a marginal talmudic work. -- Y not? 02:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most of his coverage is in Hebrew language media, but searches reveal he has received somewhat substantial coverage in English language sources. [2][3][4][5] --brew crewer (yada, yada) 12:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources in those google searches just mention him in passing. Many are just obits of his brother. I see no indication he meets WP:BASIC. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - They all "mention him in passing"? That's a stretch.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - O.K., which sources are specifically about him, then? As opposed to say, sources that quote him on a topic, or sources on organizations he belongs to, etc. Is there, for example, a newspaper or magazine article about Kahana? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of him until now. Most of what I found were a lot of articles by him but not much 3rd-party stuff about him of any significance -- at least not in English. Rooster613 (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never heard of you before today, yet I don't claim it diminishes your notability in any way.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Jayjg. --BozMo talk 09:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Relatively well known and greatly respected in Settler circles. Here is another source about him, not his more famous brother. Check out the website if you have not already.--Eliscoming1234 (talk) 01:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just per all the reliable sources cited in the article, plus more in Hebrew as mentioned here, part of a very notable rabbinical family, and the works he wrote. IZAK (talk) 11:09, 23 March 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wai Chun Tam

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

Local politicians are not inherently notable without other substantial coverage. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 02:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 17 March 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) 00:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject is a district councillor without any other great claims to notability. fails to meet WP:POLITICIAN. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:37, 24 March 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, Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 03:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a quick search says not notable. Kayau Voting IS evil 16:21, 31 March 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 userfy to User:Djc wi/Write This Down (band). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Write This Down (band)

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

Delete. Subject does not meet notability guidelines presented at WP:BAND. Released one studio album on a notable indie label. Did not chart. Much discussion on the talk page regarding the possibility that the band's music has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network. Meeting this criteria would indicate that the subject meets #11 of the WP:BAND guidelines. However, rotation is limited to RadioU and ChristianRock.Net, neither of which are considered national major radio networks. In addition to the failure to meet WP:BAND, the article has not established notability through significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. Cind.amuse 02:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~The band has two EPs.The second EP was listed as an album by their label. One review spends more time lamenting this choice from the label than they do reviewing the album.~~ The label is an imprint of EMI Christian music, so not indie per se. The band clearly does not meet WP:BAND Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Now, I ain't about to be spilling my age for nothing. That said, well over a hundred years ago, I used to book indie bands through T&N for various conferences. They were the go-to indies when they first started out. EMI owns 50 percent of the label. To this day, T&N continue to define themselves as an indie label. (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Cind.amuse 01:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First of all, Write This Down (EP) and Write This Down (album) are two separate projects. The EP was released independently and the album was released by Tooth & Nail Records. ChristianRock.Net may not be a network, but RadioU is. They broadcast from two parent stations in Ohio and California. It is this fact that distinguishes RadioU from local radio stations since local stations only broadcast from one parent station. Write This Down (band) meets Criterion 11. --Djc wi (talk) 13:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The criteria calls for rotation by a major national radio network. Respectfully, neither RadioU or ChristianRock.Net qualify. Cind.amuse 17:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I've explained how RadioU is a network. Please explain how RadioU isn't a network. --Djc wi (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. Two stations isn't a network. It's two stations, one of which is KRQZ, which has no entity of its own, so it's essentially a repeater of the first station. See http://www.radio-locator.com/info/KRQZ-FM Where is KRQZ's home page? Who are KRQZ's on-air personalities? Who is the station manager at KRQZ?
      In a real network each station plays local content, has options on some national content, and has requirements for other national content. I'm thinking of NBC Red Network or CBC Radio.
      And according to radio network "The Broadcast type of radio network is a network system which distributes programming to multiple stations simultaneously". This is only one other licensed station. The others are repeaters. In fact KRQZ is just a glorified repeater.
      RadioU is a great radio station, WUFM, and I have listened to it since 1997, but it's not a network since it's one station in Columbus with multiple low-power repeaters around the country.
      Now, being owned by the same company doesn't make it a network either because KWPZ and KCMS are owned by the same company and they don't share any resources. They're two separate stations.
      So I can't see how RadioU is a traditional network and as such should not qualify toward the criteria listed in WP:BAND. If that's the case, there are a lot of indie bands who need to be added because they make the daily RadioU Most Wanted list. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. In response to Djc wi above. Network? Not a network? I don't know and haven't made a statement either way. However, let's just say for the sake of argument that the two radio broadcast entities are networks. That said, the topical notability criteria calls for rotation by a major national radio network. This is where the rotation airplay falls short. In spite of all this, we still have a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Meeting the topical notability criteria does not negate the requirement for significant, reliable, and independent coverage. Cind.amuse 01:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have already commented above on the two "projects" as you called them. The first is an EP and doesn't qualify toward the criteria as listed in WP:BAND. The second "project" does. I have corrected my comment above to reflect that fact. One album and one EP. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, and thank you for your correction. And just to clarify, I never mentioned being owned by the same company as a criterion for being considered a network or not. It is simply because RadioU is being broadcasted by more than one parent station in different coverage areas across the United States. --Djc wi (talk) 01:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Article also meets Criterion 12. Has been subject of hour-long broadcast over national TV network. --Djc wi (talk) 08:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here is the link to the proof of Criterion 12. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6cVJAA1FQw TVU's Most Wanted is an hour-long broadcast on TVU, aired on KTV, a national network. --Djc wi (talk) 08:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I checked out the link, but rather than appearing for an hour-long interview or broadcast of which they were the subject, the interview is just under ten minutes long. Are the other 50 minutes somewhere else? Sorry, I couldn't find the content that would fulfill the topic notability criteria. Cind.amuse 08:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. The video is of an hour broadcast. TVU's Most Wanted plays music videos and internal promotions in the other 50 minutes. The video just cut out everything else. Since other music videos and promotions take up the other part of the show, that would make Write This Down the subject of the show. For proof of "the other 50 minutes," TVU's most wanted airs on Friday at 4, 7, and 10 PM ET & PT. You can see that the subject of the show receives about 10 minutes of airtime and the other 50 minutes is videos and promotions. --Djc wi (talk) 10:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. Ten minutes of coverage does not equate to being the subject of an hour-long broadcast. Cind.amuse 09:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - KTV isn't a national TV network! --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment. KTV is a national network. If it's not, then what is it? --Djc wi (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment What are the TV stations in the TV network? It's a music channel that broadcasts through the Internet, Sky Angel and KTV where it has a four-hour timeslot during the time when other network affiliated stations are running infomercials. It's owned by the same parent company as RadioU. It's a stretch to call it a network, and certainly not in the spirit of WP:BAND. Since you won't let this issue drop, would you mind giving full discloser of your relationship to the band and its record label? Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:12, 23 March 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The issue here is the two words Major and National. Neither the tv channel, or the radio stations meet this criteria. No denying they are networks, but the other two parts are the qualifiers. (Trust me, my own band got lots of student, local and pirate radio plays, but you will notice that Digital Fish is conspicuously a red link. What can I say, the media is populated by philistines! ;-)). While I do hope that this band achieves notability, and from what is being posted, it is clear they are heading in the correct direction, as yet, they do not justify a page. I would suggest that at present, this would be best suited to a dedicated website, as Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a free web hosting service. Bennydigital (talk) 09:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND, also agree with Bennydigital above. LK (talk) 09:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Do not meet WP:BAND as per Bennydigital. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userify - It's obvious that this discussion has gone on too long, but the band is still active and will most likely be releasing a second album on Tooth & Nail Records in the future. Until then, the page should be maintained as a user page until the second album is released. --Djc wi (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No one can prevent you from adding the contents of the page to your user page or as a sub page of it, but it's not advised nor is it necessary. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just curious, why isn't it advised or necessary? --Djc wi (talk) 21:59, 24 March 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tails to Tell Animal Rescue Shelter Ltd.

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

Non-notable company lacking GHits and GNEWs of substance. Fails WP:COMPANY. ttonyb (talk) 01:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete nothing in gnews [6]. LibStar (talk) 07:44, 21 March 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Non-notable organisation. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:05, 24 March 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2001 Sussex bus crash

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

as per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. we don't report every fatal crash in Wikipedia. LibStar (talk) 01:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom, also WP:1EVENT. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 03:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The subject of the article has no lasting notability and Wikipedia is not a news service. Hut 8.5 12:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This event is not notable enough for it's own article and it doesn't comply with Wikipedia is not a news service. Aaaccc (talk), 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: WP:NOTNEWS states that "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." A bus crash that killed several people is by no means routine, so this should not be judged under that policy. The relevant guideline is WP:EVENT, which requires an event to have long-term coverage and lasting impact. At first glass this appears to fail massively... but this suggests otherwise. Regional coverage from seven years later which mentions the creation of a charity as a direct result of the crash is certainly better from a notability point of view than what's there at present. Not enough by itself, but this would appear to be less clear cut than the four above !votes suggest. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:44, 19 March 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

20th Century Masters: The Millennium Collection: The Best of Boyz II Men

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

Prodded, then undeleted via WP:REFUND. Still doesn't meet WP:NALBUMS as there are no secondary sources to be found; albums by notable artists aren't inherently notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "In general, if the musician or ensemble is notable, and if the album in question has been mentioned in multiple reliable sources, then their officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." (WP:NALBUMS) Eauhomme (talk) 17:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You'll have to show where this album has been "mentioned in multiple reliable sources". --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 23:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Isn't the Allmusic review alone sufficient to keep the article? I know there's a general bias here at Wiki against "20th Century Masters" compilations, and I know that notability isn't inherited, but as an encylopedia isn't it our duty to inform and isn't it reasonable to assume that a reader interested in a notable band would also be interested to know what tracks are on a compilation? Why force them to go find the information at another source when we have the information right here? WP:IAR allows us to use good judgement here and not stick to the letter of the law. Here's another source. Robman94 (talk) 16:28, 10 March 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable album, no secondary sources. MoondogCoronation (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the commentary of Robman94 above and IAR. Strikerforce (talk) 11:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a release of a notable group on a major label, and it is widely distributed internationally. Allmusic review qualifies as significant independent coverage in reliable source. Onthegogo (talk) 00:03, 22 March 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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Winter/Reflections

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

Prodded, then undeleted via WP:REFUND. Still doesn't meet WP:NALBUMS as there are no secondary sources to be found; albums by notable artists aren't inherently notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are secondary sources around, though on the brief side - an allmusic review, and this from Google News, which appears to be from a Korean news website. Since the group is very notable, all the article content is verifiable (although the release date in the article appears to be wrong), and there are a couple of sources available, I don't really see a compelling reason to delete this. Would we really have a better encyclopedia if this was deleted?--Michig (talk) 21:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "review" from Allmusic isn't a review at all but rather a recursive, three-sentence summary. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01*:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete. non-notable album. MoondogCoronation (talk) 11:10, 12 March 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There shall be no prejudice against speedy renomination, but please remember that Wikipedia is not a battleground. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Omnicon

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

At best a minor character in the Transformers franchise which need have no reliable sources to justify a solo article. Dwanyewest (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- unsourced article about a minor group of fictional characters. Reyk _YO! 20:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what the hell? "At best a minor character in the Transformers franchise which need have no reliable sources to justify a solo article"? "'need have no reliable sources to justify a solo article"? That's some confusing wording. Also, as Reyk said, this is a group of characters. Not 'a character. Sometimes I wonder if you just copy-paste your deletion rationales withoutactually checking if they're appropriate. NotARealWord (talk) 17:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - The nominator clearly didn't read the article, he is just pasting the same justification at random to Transformers related articles. It's a group of characters from a anime series, which is mentioned on List_of_Transformers:_Energon_characters#Omnicons, so that might be appropriate. Mathewignash (talk) 12:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no reliable third person information to support the article notability and you know it talk Dwanyewest (talk) 03:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The nomination is complete pap, and proves you didn't even read the article. Proof of your bad faith, and blatant attempt to disrupt Wikipedia with your nominations. Mathewignash (talk) 12:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just because you don't like people like myself and others nominating Transformers which are poor and unsupported by anything other than PROVEN unreliable fansites doesn't mean they shouldn't be nominated for deletion. If there is a mediocre Transformers article there is normally a high likelyhood Mathewignash either created or contributed too it Dwanyewest (talk) 02:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ya know,even though I'm not for keeping this, Mignash does have a point. It's not easy to take your nominations as good faith if it seems like you don't actually look at the articles. NotARealWord (talk) 16:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One poorly incorrectly worded nomination does not demonstrate a catalogue of bad faith nominations.Mathewignash likes accusing myself and others who don't think mediocore articles merly out of of malicous spite and nothing more. Dwanyewest (talk) 16:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the first suspicious thing. You recently AfD-ed the type of articles you had earlier suggested to merge. With some rather strange wording (see here for elaboration on that). I also recall at some point last year you just copypasted your delete votes across multiple pages, even when it wasn't quite relevant. NotARealWord (talk) 17:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected it later when i saw the mistake in that nomination. Dwanyewest (talk) 17:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By, "that nomination", you mean which thing? The copypasta-ing was from you voting in other people's nominations, among other (inappropriate) things, not your own nominations, if I recall correctly. NotARealWord (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were complaining about a typo mistake I made in another nomination but nevertheless. I have not done anything illegal or against wikipedia's rules to my knowledge. It not illegal to nominate more than one article at once. If it is an issue of how I word nominations I shall be more explicit in the future. Dwanyewest (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to know what inappropriate things have I done in nominations not mine. I would like to know what I am being accused of. But I feel its diverting from this nomination. No doubt Mathewignash will use sources with at best tenuous relevant to justify keeping this article active (as he has history of it). I still believe this article has insufficient sources to support this article notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 18:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well duh it is not illegal to "nominate more than one article at once". I've done a lot of that. But please, don't sound like you were too lazy to check what the article subject is. The "inappropriate things" you've done are basically that, not paying attention to the articles and stuff discussed/nominated when commenting/voting. Or at least sounding like you don't (see this reply I left to a comment you put as a non-AfD example.) NotARealWord (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think something important here is that whether you like the article or not, whether it fits the guidelines or not, other people put work into it. From the looks of the history, over a dozen registered editors added to this article. If you want to come in and delete other people's hard work, at the very least you should be required to read and understand the article and give it the respect those writers deserve. Putting in some cut-and-paste reasoning, one that's not even correctly describing the article, without any actual research is a major sign of disrespect to your fellow authors. I've seen lots of articles I don't like, but I don't try to delete them, I try to IMPROVE them, or I leave them to those who know more about the subject. Mathewignash (talk) 20:15, 16 March 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Mathewignash, Dwanyewest and NotARealWord, keep it calm and maintain the discussion fresh. Do not bring personal bias to a AfD, it is not within the scope of this project. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 01:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Aston Martin Vanquish. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aston Martin Vanquish S

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

The Aston Martin Vanquish S is simply a tuned version of an existing car, the Aston Martin Vanquish. It is therefore analogous to the LP670-4 version of the Lamborghini Murcielago, the GTO version of the Ferrari 599 GTB Fiorano, or the Super Sport version of the Bugatti Veyron. None of these special trims have -- or need -- their own page; they are covered as sub-models within the parent article. This should be true of the Vanquish S. I would have proposed this as a merge, but the Vanquish article already contains almost the entire text of the Vanquish S article, so a merge is superfluous. Sacxpert (talk) 20:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the user has done a good job on the page. He has put lots of infomation therefore I think it should be Keeped. Wilbysuffolk (talk) 07:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I don't deny that there is useful information, but that information has been (largely) included in the Aston Martin Vanquish, which is where I'd say it belongs, as a section heading. We don't have separate pages for the 599 GTO, the Murcielago SV, the Veyron SS, or the various iterations of the Spyker C8. The Vanquish S simply isn't distinct enough, on its own merits, to warrant its own page. Sacxpert (talk) 10:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nomination--Antwerpen Synagoge (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked Sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/אֶפְרָתָה. -- DQ (t) (e) 19:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per. Nice page, just not distinct from Aston Martin Vanquish Douglasi (talk) 16:15, 9 March 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nom. Even though the article is well written and good effort have been used on it, it does not have notability, because it is a limited and tunned version of a existent car. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 01:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sidenote - To prevent loss of information, the article text could be incorporated as a section into Aston Martin Vanquish article. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 01:29, 17 March 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. Lack of debate makes this a no quorum closure, with no prejudice against a speedy renomination. -- Lear's Fool 13:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bodypop

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

No indication of meeting WP:MUSIC#Albums, lacks coverage to show independent notability. Aside from original research this article is little more than a track listing. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete No indication of notability of this album. WP:SPEEDY#A9

Incidently this band has a main article And One, a discog article And One discography, 4 album articles Anguish (album), Flop!, Aggressor (And One album) and Bodypop, and a couple of single articles.Sometimes (And One song), Zerstorer (And One song) (as well as 3 others currently under Afd discussion. None of these articles makes any vague attempt to establish notability apart from one unsourced mention of a 'best newcomer award' from an unspecified body and a few attempts to inherit notability from the bands they have covered or aspired to copy. I'm not saying the band isn't notable (I don't really feel qualified to judge it) but there really needs to be some attempt at sourcing or else a major cleanup here. Bob House 884 (talk) 19:07, 11 March 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:15, 17 March 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) 00:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Square Mall

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

un-Notable mall. I don't see the value of keeping it. Phearson (talk) 01:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is a regional mall[7], but at first glance it may be a tougher case for individual notability, in which case I would redirect and add a paragraph to Cleveland, Tennessee about the mall.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Keep per work by Dravecky.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a regional mall that crosses the verifiability and notability thresholds. I have added several references to the article but a quick swim through Google News finds many more with the mall as the subject, including real estate transactions, retail updates, events at the mall, and such. There are also nice in-depth pieces like "Keely, Harrison (June 6, 2010). "Out of the box at Bradley Square Mall". Chattanooga Times Free Press. Retrieved March 14, 2011." to seal the notability deal. - Dravecky (talk) 22:11, 14 March 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:14, 17 March 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, -- Lear's Fool 13:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Chattanooga Times Free Press piece is just good enough for me. Kansan (talk) 17:21, 23 March 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Naratip Phanprom

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

Unsourced BLP, can't find anything to verify this guy. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 06:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 18:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per new evidence which shows notability. Giant Snowman 14:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable footballer. Fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Per source found by Phil Bridger. Argyle 4 Life^talk 18:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment did play in Singapore Cup and does appear to have played for maybe 3 different Thai Premier League clubs but it is a bit sketchy for one who does not read Thai, and as his number for previous clubs was 22 and he was a goalkeeper, it is uncertain whether he took to the field in any league match.--ClubOranje^T 09:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- additional cmt Names are sometimes spelt Narathip and Phanphrom or even Panphrom.--ClubOranje^T 10:32, 16 March 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:ATHLETE by playing in the Thai Premier League.[8] Phil Bridger (talk) 00:42, 19 March 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 Beyoncé Knowles. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BET Presents Beyoncé

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

The only content in this article is the extensive track listing and an infobox. After a web search I found only an amazon sale page. No reviews, no sales/chart info. Adabow (talk · contribs) 07:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/BET_Presents_Beyonc%C3%A9&action=edit&section=1[reply]

Redirect to the already much more well-cited and well-known B'Day Anthology Video Album, a later release with most of this same content without the retailer-exclusive pack in. Nate • (chatter) 06:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose redirecting it; the Anthology Video album is not really related to this DVD. Adabow (talk · contribs) 07:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing found to satisfy WP:NALBUM and no awards. Similar AfD here.--NortyNort (Holla) 11:41, 10 March 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this article into Anthology Edition article. I'd like to assure that awards aren't a factor for notability, many albums out there are notable and don't receive a single award. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 01:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only similarities between this video and the B'Day Anthology is two music videos. Otherwise they are unrelated which is why I prefer deletion. Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:26, 17 March 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) 00:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Walter and Duncan Gordon Foundation

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

foundation of questionable notablity WuhWuzDat 08:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Spent some time on Google looking at this foundation. Seems to have significant involvement with enviromental and social issues in the Canadian arctic. Article itself is well done. Seki1949 (talk) 17:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I happen to think that, at a bare minimum it needs copyediting with a chainsaw, and possibly a bulldozer and/or flamethrower. WuhWuzDat 18:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It would be helpful if the nominator could explain why the hundreds of sources found by the Google Books and Scholar searches spoon-fed in the nomination are not sufficient to demonstrate notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It would be nice if the user Wuhwuzdat would not bite the newcomer, if you think it needs to be edited for it to be clearer and more concise I invite you to do so. The references and links are all valid and credible, also the foundation seems to be fairly important to major issues in Canada further bolstering its importance to remain on wikipedia. 15688577a (talk • contribs) 13:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC) — 15688577a (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This foundation has been around for nearly half a century and has clearly left an imprint worthy of encyclopedic coverage. A fairly well done article to boot, not spammy in the least. Carrite (talk) 01:46, 17 March 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. -- Lear's Fool 13:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Bayliss

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

Contested prod. Article about a voice actor who works on video games. No evidence of notability sufficient to meet WP:GNG let alone WP:CREATIVE andy (talk) 12:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC) See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duncan Botwood. andy (talk) 12:27, 9 March 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) 01:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – While not all Rare employees (current and former) fail notability standards, I could not find anything substantive in which to build an article with. There's this one passing mention from GamesTM magazine here, but that's all I can find. –MuZemike 21:36, 11 March 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not significant enough (not to denigrate his work) to pass GNG or BIO notability guidelines. Marasmusine (talk) 07:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Madras Marauders

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

non-notable article about an amateur group in a college. all refs are their promotional blogspot and youtube links. edits by an WP:SPA and from the IP addr of that college Arjun^codename024 16:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable cricket club which hasn't played first-class, List A or Twenty20 cricket and is of no historical importance. Per WP:CRIN it is non-notable. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:29, 10 March 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds like an in-joke by a few cricket playing students from NIT. Lines like "Willow Cup is the annual intra-college cricket tournament of NIT Calicut - equivalent to the World Cup in international cricket" should be indicative. Tintin 03:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was MERGE and REDIRECT. postdlf (talk) 05:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pichilemu Police

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

This article was previously nominated for deletion, but it appears there was some confusion about what it is actually about. All it describes is a local branch of the national police force, the Carabineros de Chile. For comparison to the US, it's a bit like having an article about a single detachment of state police. It is categorically not a police force or police department in it's own right. ninety:one 18:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails general notability guidelines. Individual units of the carabineros are not notable. Perhaps large subdivisions are but there are no local carabineros entities in Chile. The carabineros stationed in this town are not limited to patrolling this town and ones stationed in a neighboring town patrol this town and so forth.Thisbites (talk) 03:32, 13 March 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's the communal subdivision of Carabineros de Chile in a provincial capital, we wouldn't be running out of the mill, nor creating confusion by adding articles on every single one, and I'm sure there are other ones which could have better references than this one will ever reach. My 2c as the author of the article. Diego Grez (talk) 22:35, 17 March 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) 00:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Pichilemu. That seems like a reasonable compromise. /ƒETCH COMMS / 01:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Where exactly into the article do you suggest? I can't think of a good place for it, there. I'm happy either keeping this on its own article or creating a list with all of the Pichilemu-based organizations (properly sourced, of course). Diego Grez (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Pichilemu#Government and politics? At least in the U.S., police forces are part of the government. /ƒETCH COMMS / 01:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh well. In Chile they are, kind of. Diego Grez (talk) 01:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:LOCAL Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, due to: not a police force by its own right, small size and dubious notability.Dentren | ^Talk 13:12, 27 March 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Joseph Swanson

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

The subject does not appear to meet the general notability guidelines or the subject notability guidelines for authors; there does not seem to be enough coverage of this person in third-party reliable sources. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems promotional in intent. I don't think being a self-published author is necessarily a killer in terms of encyclopedia-worthiness, but this article gives us nothing of import about the subject and a Google search shows a fan club and a lot of seemingly self-produced material. Delete without prejudice against recreation at a later date, assuming third-party sources appear over time... Carrite (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks the coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note AfD is malformed; WP's search engine does not care if there are underlines between words, but Google's does. Checking Books and News yields no hits until spaces are used instead. Anarchangel (talk) 01:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Pardon, I never use those links, so I didn't notice. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:57, 13 March 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note Fixed the AfD template. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 01:26, 17 March 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. WP:NPASR. The "delete" side made no attempt to address Anarchangel's concerns, but is free to renominate immediately if desired. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Biggs

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

No evidence of notability.The only reference to check out is to her own website. Teapotgeorge^Talk 19:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I skimmed the interview, and am not sure if it is a reliable source. Not much else there. She likes Utilikilts. That's it. Bearian (talk) 18:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: What interview are you referring to? It's not a source in the article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know. There was an interview in the external links. Is it gone? Bearian (talk) 01:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    - I looked at the article and some source, and now I can't find it. Perhaps it was a dream .... LOL. It doesn't change my !vote. Bearian (talk) 01:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This book review isn't much to establish notability, especially when correlated with the words by Emerson Probst who pushes out stuff for the book's publisher. There is a [LIZ+ATWOOD&pub=The+Sun&desc=5+THINGS+I+HAVE+TO+HAVE+NOW&pqatl=google 172 word article] behind a pay wall. But that is all I could find. -- Whpq (talk) 17:26, 11 March 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no independent reliable sources with significant coverage to indicate notability. Yaksar (let's chat) 04:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Linda made numerous appearances on Baltimore, Maryland's WJZ-TV, starting in 2005, in interviews with Marty Bass and Don Scott's 'Coffee With' talk show that apparently span several commercial breaks. They refer to her in superlatives that I take with a pinch of salt, but I feel sure that with that much smoke there has to be some fire somewhere. I could not find the other clips, but her previous appearances are alluded to by Don Scott in her Dec. 1, 2010 appearance on the show. It is shown in full at the Wednesday, Dec. 1, 2010 page on CBS Baltimore: CBS Local Events: CBS Local Pages. That is by far the highest quality source in the article, but it establishes notability, and nearly every sentence is cited now.

Linda is very active in the her particular subgenre of the fantasy art community, and has been called on to present the subject by the Glen Rock, Pennsylvania Fairie Festival (2010 Fairie Chautauqua Presenters Spoutwood Farm: Fairie Festival). Anarchangel (talk) 01:16, 22 March 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ARTIST. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, she passes #1 "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." for the regard in which she is held by those who work with her, including those mentioned above, and the writer of the foreword to one of the book her art appears in (The Art of Faery), who is one of the conceptual artists who worked as a consultant on the Dark Crystal and Labyrinth (film), namely Brian Froud. Arguably she passes #2 as well, for her Lowbrow (art movement) underground comix-inspired renditions of fairies. #2 "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique." Anarchangel (talk) 08:41, 27 March 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, Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 03:35, 31 March 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) 00:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Traphik

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

non notable "musician" WuhWuzDat 20:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow.. "non notable" besides the fact that he was ranked number by BILLBOARD and published in their tangible issue as well. This "Wuhwuzdat" guy is a simply just wants the page down for some reason. Kevinbarlow (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets criterion #2 of WP:MUSIC as having a 7 week run so far on Uncharted. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - may be rescued, see WP:BEFORE, and per Hammer. This is a charted musician, and yes, a musician, though we don't like his music. Musicians can't all be creative; see Weird Al Yankovich. Bearian (talk) 18:16, 10 March 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article needs expansion (perhaps further information about his early life?), he is new artist, as time passes by, the article eventually gets expanded and new things are added, but there is enough info there, that with a further research, would make it reach notability, verifiability and so on. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 01:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 03:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Athoc

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

The subject of this article does not appear to meet WP:COMPANY or the general notability guideline. The only non-press release source in the references now is a 2-paragraph mention from bizjournals.com, hardly enough to meet the requirement of multiple independent sources. I was unable to find any more suitable sources. VQuakr (talk) 01:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article creator has requested this article's deletion here. The page does not appear to be a valid G7 since it has multiple contributors. VQuakr (talk) 15:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Looking through the history, I don't see where many of the other editors added substance to the page; the text is almost all one author's, the remaining edits were all formatting or adding tags and templates. I'd suggest it is a valid G7. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not opposed to a G7 if everyone else agrees that it applies. VQuakr (talk) 15:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to not allow it. I think it's important that ~~VQuakr~~ Andrew Young US (correction--wrong user, sorry) and AdHoc in general start to try to understand that they cannot control this page in any way. Since VQuakr indicates an intention to likely make a new article in the future, it's good for them to see right now that the decision to keep or delete the page, and what information to include on it, is not based on the company's desires, but based upon Wikipedia policies. However, some might argue that this is being unnecessarily bureaucratic, which of course Wikipedia is not. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Another tech business, a a provider of network-centric mass notification and emergency communication systems. Referenced to press releases and PR sites. No showing that this business has had significant effects on technology, history, or culture of the kind that make for long term historical notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The intention of having the page in place was to provide those seeking to understand the emergency notification industry with a snapshot of one entity that has helped to inspire, if not wholly introduce concepts that have spawned new forms of innovation and advancement for the technology in question. Not to sound condescending, but the discussion above is starting to sound like a schoolhouse debate on the punishment of an unruly or incorrigible student. I assure you gentlemen, that is not required here. The issue here is not one of whether Wikipedia was being leveraged for purposes other than creating a credible source of knowledge...but rather, it is one of inexperience with creating the most effective article possible. I concede this - hat in hand. However at this point, my concern is that no matter what edits or sources are cited in support of the article, its fate is a foregone conclusion regardless of this discussion. If I am assured that these edits will be reviewed in an unbiased and fully objective fashion, I will spend the time revising and validating the merit of this article. I believe that this company, having been around since 1999 and risen to become the de-facto solutions provider to millions of military personnel, college students and emergency managers worldwide -- is notable. Their solutions have evolved in parallel with the technology (3G, 4G, GSM, CDMA, etc) and infrastructure that enables them. Hundreds of other providers have appeared since 9/11, Virginia Tech and countless other tragedies. This company is one of the very few that was in existence before these unfortunate events, and has demonstrated a consistent commitment to new thoughts, ideas and solutions that are beneficial to all. These systems save lives. If they fail, they do not. It is that important. While there are some notable instances of failure relating to these types systems when used in live situations, none of these are attributable to this company. Given the aforementioned length of their existence, the rigid environments and stringent requirements within which their systems are deployed (primarily military) and documented chronology of innovation -- I strongly contend that this article is valuable. It is my own shortcoming not to have articulated this or created this article correctly with respect to Wikipedia guidelines. Those seeking knowledge and insight into this industry should not suffer as a result. Andrew Young US (talk) 12:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We should indeed have information about the emergency notification industry; but the starting place for such an article would be an article about emergency notification or emergency notification service. To single out one firm to provide a "snapshot" of the industry is putting the cart before the horse. We'd frankly be glad to have someone in the firm write us a concrete description of the methods and tools used by such firms. But until such time as Athoc itself is recognized by others as having invented or launched a product or service that has some kind of significance in the development of the field, it probably is not a promising subject for a standalone article. Rating services and trade awards in themselves don't tell us much, either. They really don't tell us what was achieved or why.

(Puts on a schoolmaster's mortarboard) I'd also recommend that you have a look at our basic neutrality policy, and look at the manual of style on words to watch and the plain English essay, which contains specific tips on writing on business subjects. Even here, you're calling the products solutions and the businesses solution providers. You're using leverage as a verb. Please don't take this personally, but that kind of writing breaks our neutrality policy and is not appropriate in main-space article texts. It requires heavy editing, or if it's too vague to be informative, it's just going to get removed. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thanks for the feedback, and it is all taken with a sense of objectivity. That said, I would argue that this article on a "specific provider" is not "putting the cart before the horse" as you say. Have you actually sat and read this article? Please see both the "See also" and "Supporting Technology" sections. Upon completion, I think you will see that your comments create an oxymoron -- kind of like "freezer-burn". You are calling this a "stand-alone" article while the article itself is written to reference related aspects of the industry as well as the supporting infrastructure.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to provide the links and insight. Andrew Young US (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sorry, just noticed I never actually put a !vote here. This is a company that looks like it's really right on the border--if they have the contracts that their press releases and website claims, they seem to have a significant impact on the field, but the problem is that we need reliable sources to keep the article. It may well be that in 6 months or a year this company will rise to the notability needed for an article. I would be happy to help them work on the article in Andrew Young US's userspace, if xe finds more sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thank you for your offer Qwyrxian, and I will be happy to accept your assistance if indeed the article is deleted. In the interim, I have applied a significant overhaul to said article, and have added some additional references. Over the course of the next day, I plan to increase these references in a clear and coherent sequence. I am hopeful that deletion will not occur prior to that time. If so, then the userspace option will become the focus. Andrew Young US (talk) 04:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I did not specifically reference advertising in my deletion nomination, because my main concern was the company's notability. However, I think it is noteworthy that the tone of this article has actually become more spammy since this deletion discussion began. It is always difficult to write neutrally about topics with which we are personally involved, and I am increasingly concerned that the creator of this particular article may simply be too close to the subject to effectively write about it. VQuakr (talk) 04:20, 22 March 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per lack of significant coverage from independent sources. Yaksar (let's chat) 04:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a a valid G7. Onthegogo (talk) 05:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Wave power. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Floating wave power plant

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

Not notable: I cannot find news paper articles on this technology and company, see e.g. this search. -- Crowsnest (talk) 00:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - The manufacturer of a product that harnesses this energy is not significant to the article. There are other articles that contain much of the same information such as Wave power. The graphics provided would also serve well on the Wave Power article. Golgofrinchian (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ivec01 - News and TV news can be found on http://www.youtube.com/AdvancedWavePower and on http://www.advancedwavepower.com. Floating wave power plant is a new and most efficient ocean wave energy converter. I think it deserves to have own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivec01 (talk • contribs) 05:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Ivec01 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I have tones of test data. Two large marine engineering companies do commercial design for Bass Straight. Please help me to improve Floating Wave Power Plant article. I really do not have editor experience but have plenty of data, video and images. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivec01 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But do you have reliable sources? Unless the plant has been written about in newspapers, journals, books, or other such sources that are independent of the subject, it fails the general notability guidelines. —C.Fred (talk) 05:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selected content to Wave power. As Golgofrinchian noted, some of the images and content may be usable in another article. However, given that the article was created by Ivec01 (talk · contribs), and given that the majority of links go to ivec.com.au, I have grave concerns about this article. At best, there's just an editor with a conflict of interest favouring links for his company. At worst, it's an outright spam attempt. However, it does look like there's some baby in the bathwater here that can be used elsewhere. —C.Fred (talk) 05:20, 18 March 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 B.T.R. (album). (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing Even Matters

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

Fails WP:NSONG -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Big Time Rush. Indeed it does fail WP:NSONGS, just like Count on You. MobileSnail 00:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to B.T.R. (album). Noncontroversial (this didn't really need to come to AfD.) - SummerPhD (talk) 01:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Well, there's no applicable CSD category, and the creator has a history of removing deletion tags so PROD seemed likely to fail -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]
Hmm, guess I wasn't properly awake earlier - I've redirected it now, and ask for this AfD to be closed. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus indicates that the subject is notable enough for inclusion as a New York Times bestseller author. (non-admin closure) Guoguo12 --Talk-- 02:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Becca Fitzpatrick

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

Fails WP:N —Eustress ^talk 14:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per best-known for having written the New York Times Bestseller . Notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- one of the best authors of our time and we should be able to acknowledge that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.18.170.207 (talk) 02:31, 20 March 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, -- Lear's Fool 13:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "The book is being published in 13 countries and 10 languages", says the Washington Post. Notable. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 19:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - NY Times bestseller author is confirmed. This article in the Manila Bulletin states that Hush, Hush was on the bestseller list for 45 weeks, and reviews her Crescendo. There's a lot more out there in terms of soruces. -- Whpq (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per best-selling author status cited above. Carrite (talk) 16:29, 28 March 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Claude L. Kulp

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

Does not appear to meet WP:ACADEMIC and has no sources to establish notability. —Eustress ^talk 00:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Notability is sound in that he has an auditorium named after him. However, the article is very weak with regard to WP standards. It needs a proper bio page and a photo of either the person or the auditorium would help. More references such as the ones found in this search shows he is mentioned by name in several books. If that list is added to the article then it would bolster the Wikipedia:Notability and would go to a solid Keep. Golgofrinchian (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The mere mention of his name in books would not satisfy WP:ACADEMIC. You might be on to something with the auditorium, although I can't find anything explaining why the auditorium was named after him (was he the benefactor?) and it is just a small high school auditorium.

Unless some concrete evidence emerges in support, I still think this one may be a delete. —Eustress ^talk 18:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Have to disagree with Eustress. This subject has 'not notable' stamped all over it.. Associate Commissioner of the New York State Education Department is the highest he got; all the Gsearch reveals are trivial mentions or mentions within school bulletins, which are only to be expected. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:41, 24 March 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, Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 03:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After all this time on AfD the sourcing in the article is still completely inadequate, and there is no evidence that he passes WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no indication that the topics meets WP:PROF, and no other claim to notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ponca City Public Schools. Move the current article to East Middle School (Oklahoma) for the time being and turn East Middle School into a disambiguation. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

East Middle School

AfDs for this article:

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

Article is about a non-notable Ponca City, Oklahoma middle school. Please note that this article's school of topic is not the same school as in the previous nomination, so it does not qualify for speedy deletion. A relevant Google search [9] found no non-trivial and reliable third party references. Article also appears to be created from OR per a message on the talk page of the article. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 05:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, I'd redirect to the district, but this is probably a really common name for middle schools. Just look at East High School – and it's probably similar. The article should be deleted, but what to do at that site is a really complicated matter. Raymie (t • c) 14:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to article on school district as this is a non-notable primary school. No redirect, per Raymie above. Carrite (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no article on the school district of Ponca City...Ponca City Public Schools is linked in the Ponca City article, but it's a redlink. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 16:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So perhaps renaming this Ponca City Public Schools would be in order? Carrite (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about that...if the article needs (warrants?) creating, that would be fine, but it appears the only two schools in the district that have articles are this one and the high school. To me, a simple education section like can be found in Salina, Kansas would suffice (although perhaps with a bit more prose). Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 16:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, THEIR WEBSITE indicates the district has 7 elementary schools and 2 middle schools. That's plenty for an article, even if it's a bunch of redlinks for the time being... Conversion of this page to a page for the district (with a little introductory section) strikes me as a valid long-term option. Carrite (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I think I have to agree that Arxiloxos' solution below is probably the one I'm more inclined to go for at this time. At the same time, the article about the district could be created and when it's up to scratch the article could be rerouted to that article. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 16:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WP:OUTCOMES#Education may offer some additional information when assessing this discussion for deletion. Kudpung (talk) 16:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to East Middle School (Ponca City, Oklahoma) and then redirect it to Ponca City, Oklahoma (which already has a nice list of the city's public schools). Then re-start East Middle School as a DAB page: there seem a large number of likely targets, some of which currently have their own articles (though whether they should have articles is another question).[10]--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:50, 10 March 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) 00:04, 17 March 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sometimes, school pages are created as part of a week-long lesson that includes an introduction to Wikipedia, and this may be the case here [11]. In those situations, they stay up during the week and the hall monitors on the new pages patrol hold off on nominating until later. It's later. If I read this correctly, East Middle is limited to the 8th grade students in Ponca City, who come there after they finish 7th grade at West. I guess this could be merged to Ponca City, Oklahoma#Education, but even better would be for someone to turn this into an article about Ponca City Schools and write about the schools in general-- looks like there's a high school, an east and west public middle school, three private K-8 schools and eight elementary schools. Mandsford 14:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Ponca City, Oklahoma#Education per usual practice. As discussed, Ponca City Public Schools would be a better target, if created. TerriersFan (talk) 23:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a basic stub at Ponca City Public Schools that is pretty much written like my basic AZ school district articles. Raymie (t • c) 06:17, 31 March 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Home.co.uk

AfDs for this article:

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

Article contains only unreliable sources and is written like an advertisement. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 02:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 10 March 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) 00:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This website article lacks coverage in reliable sources needed to establish notability.Dialectric (talk) 02:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete -Please see Wikipedia is not a.... No other Wikipedia:Notability is found other than it being a website. Golgofrinchian (talk) 16:56, 17 March 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) 00:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rajhesh vaidhya

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

Notability questionable. No independent sources. Eeekster (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added some references, including one from The Hindu which establishes that he won the 2010 Kalaimamani award for his veena playing. I think that gives notability. I cleaned up the article and added a refimprove tag. A related article that should probably have an afd discussion is Vegam, a movie Vaidhya directed the music for. It has no references and (probably) is not notable, as the mentions I saw of it were minor and negative...but I digress. Oh, one more thing, the title of the article, should it stay, should be changed so that his last name is capitalized (I didn't do it, in case I'm wrong). Nihola (talk) 18:19, 5 March 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) 02:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Multiple articles about him in The Hindu, including this one, so meets WP:MUSICBIO criterion #1. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Y Bandana (album). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dal dy Drwyn/Cân y Tân

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

Unremarkable songs. Article's creator claims that the winning of an award by a magazine establishes notability, but I disagree. Strikerforce (talk) 01:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Plenty of scope for merging the track into the article of the band who wrote it. And for notability sake, I would be happier if the award the song won had its own article or even the publication that runs the award. FruitMonkey (talk) 09:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge A search result all points back to the original band. The song shows no other notability even when using alternative search methods.Golgofrinchian (talk) 16:39, 17 March 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy yuan

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

The article fails to address the WP:POLITICIAN guidelines. Searching GNews I find some mentions in the local press of being a political candidate, as would be expected for any election process, by itself this is not sufficient to demonstrate the significant impact required. Being a CEO is no guarantee of encyclopaedic notability either based on the WP:BIO guidance. Fæ (talk) 08:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 08:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 08:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion
Wendy Yuan is a noted local politician who has been featured in numerous news reports and interviews in both local and national media. On top of that, she is also a significant community figure in Vancouver, and has received awards and sat on boards of important associations. (sorry about the format of the response) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkl524 (talk • contribs) 08:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please take some time to check the WP:POLITICIAN criteria, this is has been evolved after much discussion and represents a firm consensus. If Yuan's community work or corporate work is particularly notable and supported by reliable sources (such as national papers or respected books) then you may have a case against the general guidelines but she would have to be notable in her own right (as opposed to the notability of her company) and the impact must be demonstrably significant. AfDs run for at least 7 days, so you might find it useful to discuss detailed options for improvement on the article talk page (rather than here) in the meantime. Thanks Fæ (talk) 08:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative note (with my admin hat on) the AFD was improperly transcluded on the talk page. I've fixed it as of today, but it may be wise to let this AFD run long. tedder (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That puzzled me until I saw this change where an anon IP capitalized the name in the template, probably without realizing this would stop the notice working properly. Thanks for fixing it back. Fæ (talk) 16:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I'm sure it was good-faith. I find the "broken" ones on a bot, but it doesn't run very frequently. tedder (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (with my user hat on) Per Fæ. tedder (talk) 16:27, 22 March 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. As an elected politician and MP she meets WP:POLITICIAN. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She's only a MP candidate, no? Or am I misunderstanding "candidate" and "riding" because of my south-of-Canadia education? tedder (talk) 05:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops - overlooked the word "candidate. Delete per WP:POLITICIAN. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a candidate, and not a notable person otherwise. Rawr (talk) 13:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:POLITICIAN, without prejudice to re-creation if and when she wins a seat in the House. PK T(alk) 14:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to M60 machine gun. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mk43 Machine Gun

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

The Mk43 Machine Gun is know as the Mk43/M60E4 General Purpose Machine Gun. The topic seems to be covered sufficiently by M60 machine gun#M60E4/Mk43 Mod 0/1. The article sources itself to a copyrighted editorial uploaded into wikimedia.org. See http:/upwiki/wikipedia/en/0/02/MK43Editorial.pdf (How is such an upload even possible?) M60E4 was deleted in 2005 as blatant copyright violation from M60E4.Mk43.pdf.[12] -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've listed this article at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2011 March 10 due to Uzma Gamal's concerns, which seem plausible to me. I've also tagged File:MK43Editorial.pdf as a possibly unfree file (with noth notices to the editor). Jeez, it feels a bit like biting the newbie, but I'll monitor this guy to make sure he doesn't get overwhelmed. bahamut0013^words _deeds 16:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to M60 machine gun: Even if we can resolve the copyright issues satisfactorily, this variant still has issues with redundancy and lacks notability independant of the M60. We don't need a content fork here. bahamut0013^words _deeds 16:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. —bahamut0013^words _deeds 16:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I separated this from the existing M60 page is because there are MANY variations of the M60 and the Mk43, although called a M60E4, is different enough from the M60 that it shouldn't be under the M60 main header.

Additionally, the M60 page is HORRIBLE. I am not being defensive here, but why not nominate IT for deletion? It is a blatantly skewed by someone favoring the 240 and pretty much only references design flaws. It doesn't even give a sufficient history of the weapon. It has been flagged for being biased and needing citations, etc, for months, why isn't it up for deletion?

And I do feel like it's "biting the newbie" just because it's not perfect. I would like to learn how to do it right! I would like to be able to write a flawless article that doesn't get flagged, but it is hard when you're starting out! Why not HELP me? p.s. Bahamut I am a girl :) but thank you for not wanting me to get overwhelmed. I just feel like people are saying, x, y and z are wrong instead of trying to teach me how to make it better. Thanks. Littlemslawandorder (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, apologies for the gender issue (there's actually been quite a bit of buzz lately about the gender gap on Wikipedia, so I'm pleased to see a new member of the fairer sex). Try not to take the deletion nomination personally; it's all part of the encyclopedia improvement process, and if you take it as a lesson learned instead of harsh criticism, you'll be writing better articles in no time.

The main issue (after the copyright isues, which can be easily resolved by some re-working) here is that the references don't really establish that this particular variant is notable independently of the main weapon platform (i.e. the way the M4 carbine is independent of the M16 rifle). We generally try not to split off sub articles like this unless article size demands it, and that's not an issue at the M60 article.

If you really have the resources you claim, then you'd be helping out much more effectively to edit the M60 article and improve it. Much of what you've written for this version could easily be transferred over, if properly referenced. Your efforts there would be much better appreciated, and if you do build the article up to the point that splitting makes sense, then that's an option you can take up for discussion at talk:M60 machine gun.

It also sounds like you could use some editor support and collaborative tools. Since you seem interested in firearms, you could try joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Weaponry task force. If you ask there, somebody might be willing to mentor you in the specific nuances of writing these kinds of articles. Another good place to start is reading policies and guidelines and the Five pillars. bahamut0013^words _deeds 12:41, 11 March 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) 00:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to M60 machine gun#M60E4/Mk43 Mod 0/1. This topic appears to be covered sufficiently there, but this title is absolutely searchable. I would prefer to keep the history intact underneath a redirect in case anything needs to be merged. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: it looks like lifebaka and Moonriddengirl have taken care of the copyright issues, so now we can just address the notability. The rationale I presented in my merge !vote still stands. bahamut0013^words _deeds 14:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of The Venture Bros. characters. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Triana Orpheus

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

This article has only one source, and it has no third party or real world coverage. Most of The Venture Bros. are not notable, it currently fails WP:PLOT and WP:GNG. JJ98 (Talk) 10:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 10 March 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) 00:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - to the character list article. Yaksar (let's chat) 04:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for the sake of building a consensus. The source doesn't really go into reception. Need independent reliable sources that can WP:verify notability and why this is significant. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of The Venture Bros. characters. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Byron Orpheus

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

Only one source, this Venture Bros. character has no citations and no real world or third party coverage to establish the notability. I doubt that the character is notable, this article currently fails WP:GNG and WP:PLOT. JJ98 (Talk) 10:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 10 March 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) 00:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:PLOT and lack of sources to indicate notability Yaksar (let's chat) 04:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only one ref, which is not reliable. 50% is the plot and other 50% is the "History and activities on the show", which is original research.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 15:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - The lack of sources is concerning. This character is however shown on almost every episode of The Venture Brothers. A good deal of effort went into this page and it seems the main editor is making good faith effort in presenting the character. However, if they cannot provide more reliable sources it should be removed. Golgofrinchian (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to no reliable sources to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:43, 19 March 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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forumosa

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

Unreferenced article about a Taiwanese PHP Bulletin Board and classified ads website. No evidence to subject meets the general notability guideline or Wikipedia:Notability (web), and I could find no sources out of which to construct a rewrite. -- Rrburke (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can bring this article up to standard given a few days - please hold off deletion while I tackle this. Taiwantaffy (talk) 05:33, 14 March 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) 00:02, 17 March 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. High number of ghits but being unreferenced and promotional it should be deleted. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:21, 24 March 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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelo Del Debbio

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

another editor had prodded this and the prod was removed. tagged not notable since october 2009. no verifyable sourcing. just bringing to afd to determine if this person is in fact notable. Original article creator appears to have been a SPA account with no activity other then related to this person. and not activity at all since. also one of the references appears to be what his username was based off of. So there is a definate question of conflict of interest.Tracer9999 (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The article as it stands does not demonstrate notability but the Portuguese article, while under-referenced (at least by English Wikipedia standards), looks as if it might (or, if my almost non-existent knowledge of Portuguese isn't misleading me, at least suggests the existence of RS in Portuguese). Any Portuguese-speakers around to confirm or deny this? PWilkinson (talk) 19:41, 16 March 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, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to be notable based on sources from Brazil, although I do not speak the language. BOZ (talk) 18:04, 22 March 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:30, 24 March 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Fox Brothers

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

Subjects fail notability guidelines as all major searches return things from their own sites. Also, article is written like a press release and advertisement Canyouhearmenow 18:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 11 March 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, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not much results on Google and no results in Amazon and Allmusic. The article fails WP:BOLDFACE, WP:NPOV and WP:YOU ("For a full list of awards, go to The Fox Brothers official site www.FoxBrothers.com"). In my opinion: Delete!--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 14:58, 17 March 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As a sort of BLP and unreffed it should be deleted. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:23, 24 March 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 Dreamcatcher (novel). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Ripley

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

Majority plot summary article that completely fails WP:N; no evidence of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Cites only primary sources: the book & film. Nothing here that isn't/couldn't be succinctly covered in those aritcles. I redirected it some time back, but the creator reverted requesting "due process, take it to WP:AFD please", so here it is. The creator himself described it to me as "an ancient piece of trifle that I wrote many eons ago that I think could go. It should be done the formal way though, as several people have contributed besides myself." So, here it is. IllaZilla (talk) 18:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While I believe the current article is certainly less than stellar, given the number of in-universe characters that have pages on wikipedia, there is potential for this article to explain what is an extraordinarily complicated character central to a Stephen King novel. However, that being said, I have no attachment to the present article. It can always be remade, or the article on the novel expanded, when some deeper discussion can come of it and be referenced to secondary sources. I'll leave it to the community to decide what to do. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That there are other in-universe character articles out there doesn't excuse this one. The only way to explain "what an extraordinarily complicated character" it is would be to cite secondary sources remarking on that extraordinarity/complexity, and even then I don't see why that couldn't simply be done in the novel/film articles themselves, since the creature has no notability outside of the singular story in which it appears. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. If and when. The complexity is my opinion, but the character can be described using the novel/film as primary sources. However, notability can only be established with secondary sources. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 11 March 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, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because Wikipedia is not a WP:PLOT summary. No sources to WP:verify notability or provide anything significant outside of a summary of the book or film. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:47, 19 March 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article relies exclusively on primary sources, and even then, one is the film adaptation of the book. It does not have notability since there are no reliable third-party sources independent of the subject about the fictional creature The Ripley. There is no significant coverage from reliable sources to presume that the topic meets the general notability guideline and, on top of that, the article is a plot-only description of a fictional work so there are no valid reasons to keep the it around. Jfgslo (talk) 18:30, 24 March 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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RPGQuest

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

appears to be a self published board game. article was created by a spa account. the creater of the games article was also created by a spa account which has the "publisher's" name in its username. no evidence of notability that I can find other then author owned sites. "official site" appears to belong to author of articles. Tracer9999 (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, also per WP:SOAPS. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 19:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note the article is also a stub, and does not follow any Wikipedia's criteria/style to be an article, so unless it gets formated, and expanded, it is going to get deleted. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 19:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article clearly lacks depth to be an article. There appears to have been a failure in the wikipedia bots as portuguese wiki has a page [13]. The problem is that some wikipedia don't bother in sorting out references for games.

comment I think this game has some features that probably have some novelty. There is mentioned in the portugese article that it was covered by a magazine. I suspect that there are quite a number of sources in portuguese to find. I think that there will be mentions in RS, i.e. presumed sources what I am not sure about is whether they will have the content to prove notability.Tetron76 (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 17 March 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:29, 24 March 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 Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005 film)#Music. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. & Mrs. Smith (soundtracks)

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

Orphan dab; navigation better served by hatnotes Fortdj33 (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per. Also I proposed the deletion of the two following articles that are related to that disambiguation page (Mr. & Mrs. Smith: Original Motion Picture Score and Mr. & Mrs. Smith: Original Motion Picture Soundtrack).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mr._&_Mrs._Smith_(2005_film)#Music - why is this even on afd? I'd do that and be done with it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:37, 24 March 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 with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kerry McLean

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

No independent sourcing to demonstrate notability, fair bit of primary coverage (the Belfast Telegraph appears to have republished her PR bio, etc.) but nothing independent. Essentially a question of whether a gig on Radio Ulster conveys notability that overrides WP:BASIC. If so, the article should be stubbed to only things that can be reliably read from primary sources (e.g., I'm sure she has a program on BBC Radio Ulster), if not... Reliable truly secondary sources of course welcome. -- joe decker ^{talk to me} 21:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - A long time national radio presenter. There is some third party coverage from the Belfast Telegraph which appears to have some depth. [14] It seems to be a feature where the let the subject write about themselves, which might appear "primary", however the publisher is secondary that decided to give her the platform.--Oakshade (talk) 05:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominator has not only read, but understood, WP:PRIMARY.All too rare a thing. Grats. Anarchangel (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 17 March 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:29, 24 March 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.