Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 May 12

< 11 May	13 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of wedding guests of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, and Catherine Middleton

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

I nominated this for deletion only a few weeks ago. The AfD was highly irregular, with a wave of deletes followed by a wave of keeps, followed by an early close, followed by a review of the close. There were three major issues with the deletion discussion, which cause me to want to renominate this. First, a few people thought that this was a deletion discussion on the article on the wedding, not on the guest list. Second, a lot of people commented not on the article or the policies, but on their love for or hatred of the royal family. Finally, the close was done early because of the timing of the wedding.

I am renominating this for deletion. The guest list recieved coverage only because it was part of the wedding itself. That's why almost every other wedding article has a small number of notable guests in the article on the wedding, not as a separate article. WP:NOTINHERITED would be the relevant page for that. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTDIRECTORY were also brought up last time.

Please note that I am not pursuing some wild vendetta. I won't contest the outcome of this AfD, regardless of what it is. I just want a standard discussion in a more standard environment, with a standard closure, something that didn't happen last time. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the AfD - frankieMR (talk) 01:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per still standing arguments of the previous AfD (with the outcome 'Keep'). Good lord! Could you not have started a regular discussion at first? So.. if I understand well, you nominated the article for deletion the first time, but your intension was declined, and now you are trying it again the second time? As I said, why not held a regular discussion at the talk-page at first, before starting this whole procedure again? Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 01:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I made rather clear the reasons why I am deleting this again. The TLDR reason is that it was a huge mess, showcasing just about everything that can go wrong in an AfD (short of mass socking, which thankfully we were spared.) Sven Manguard Wha? 01:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, that's your point of view (and I don't agree with that). Again, why not starting a regular discussion at the talk-page at first?? Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 01:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - First of all, I'd like some proper due process for this. Second of all, I feel that a talk page discussion would be seen by just about no one, sadly that's usually the case. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - A talk page is not an effective venue for a deletion discussion. Edison (talk) 04:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - What Edison said; beyond which, you already asked the question, and the nom already answered it. You admittedly don't like his answer, but asking the same question repeatedly isn't going to get you a different one. Ravenswing 08:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, and per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Edison (talk) 04:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Sven that this needs to be considered again, as I stated at the DRV. Furthermore, I simply do not see this as a notable encyclopedic topic. Though there was some coverage of individuals who were invited or not, that coverage is and can be noted at the main article, within the narrow confines provided by the undue weight clause. There simply isn't coverage that would speak to the notability of the list as a whole. Chick Bowen 05:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The wedding guest list is of fairly major historical/social/diplomatic/political significance, is well sourced, and was the subject of an incredible amount of speculation, both before and after its presentation to the public. Irrespective of WP:NOTDIRECTORY, this is clearly a case where keeping this data serves the public and Wikipedia. Furthermore, I note the last AfD was recent, and that DRV endorsed the close, which makes this nom a little impolite and against previous consensus. Ray^Talk 05:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Utterly random list, as will become more and more clear as this media spectacle recedes into the past. Why not List of people who ate dinner at the restaurant on top of the Seattle Space Needle on New Years Day, 2011??? Carrite (talk) 05:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom; this is just plain an unencyclopedic content fork. (Alas, I'm expecting the tidal wave of OMG Wedding!!!!! keep votes) Ravenswing 08:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given the recent result of Keep, this immediate renomination is disruptive per WP:DELAFD. There is no case for deletion because this is obviously a spinoff from the main article about the wedding and so the worst case is merger into that article per our editing policy. If anyone should doubt the notability of the topic, here is one of many reliable sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not to have this sub-article should be an editorial decision. Whether it is merged or split out from the article about the wedding of Mr. Mountbatten-Windsor or not (and how long it should be) is best discussed at Talk:Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton. So I guess keep at AfD, discuss elsewhere. —Кузьма^討論 12:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—Leaning toward a keep, although the whole ceremony seems to be blown way out of proportion.—RJH (talk) 14:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has already survived one recent AfD discussion. Dont see why it should be deleted. Not when considering that the List got international attention has Syria for example was first invited an´d then barred from attending the ceremony for example. Also I am so tired of people using the WP:NOTNEWS as a reason for deletion, when infact Wikipedia IS news and IS built on news. I say Keep anyway.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep massive social and historical significance, as explained at the previous AfD by editor Lachrie and others. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The issue of who was to be at the wedding was a subject of much discussion and news coverage, so the final, well sourced list is noteworthy. Ordinarily it would be merged into the main article of the wedding, but due to it's size a standalone article is warranted. Seaphoto^Talk 19:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is disruptive. The first afd and DRV should have settled the issue. Szzuk (talk) 14:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject has received ample coverage in reliable sources to allow a verifiable and reliable list to be created on the topic. In terms of notability, WP:NOTPAPER applies just as strongly as WP:NOTANYTHINGELSE; if reliable sources exist for List of people who ate dinner at the restaurant on top of the Seattle Space Needle on New Years Day, 2011, to use the example suggested above, then yes, that article is also welcome in our digital encyclopedia. Notability here is indeed not inherited: it stands on its own merits. Inherited notability is invoked to allow a topic which does not have its own reliable sources to nonetheless meet the notability guidelines; this topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject; that is the definition of a topic that meets our standard for inclusion in its own right. I'd consider it no less appropriate a topic than a list of people who played in a sports team for one year 120 years ago, a list of people who participated in (but did not necessarily win) a dog sled race, or a list of everyone who is a member of a college fraternity. Happy‑melon 17:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not encyclopedic. Can we imagine Britannica ever doing an article on this subject, even if they had unlimited space and unlimited time for writing? Nyttend (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have to imagine. Britannica already has 14 pages on the subject of Prince William and Catherine Middleton: The Royal Wedding of 2011 including extensive details of the couple, their relatives and guests, the dresses (engagement too), the rings &c. What's more they've done this before - they refer back to their previous coverage of the weddings of Charles/Diana and Andy/Fergie (as they call them). So, your argument that royal wedding coverage is not encyclopedic is refuted. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable, since the guest list itself was subject to extensive coverage before the wedding, and even on the wedding day itself, so clearly WP:NOTINHERITED doesn't apply. WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply here too. Please stop citing that policy; it applies to routine news that people may blow out of proportion. WP:NOTDIRECTORY doesn't apply too because it refers to loosely associated topics, genealogical entries, yellow pages, catalogs, etc. It seems these WP: abbreviations are being flung out as loosely-interpreted one-liners to scare away people trying to make common sense arguments. - Yk³ talk · contrib 03:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep per Yk Yk Yk, this list has received significant coverage. I personally think this is a fairly poor topic for an article, but it's got plenty of coverage and meets WP:N. The only reason I'm weak is because IDONTLIKEIT. Hobit (talk) 01:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the guest list was a subject of immense debate, the news coverage I saw gave it no more significance than the dress. While yes, we do have a separate article for the dress (which I consider of questionable encyclopedic value) that does not justify creating a huge list article to give a listing of people at the wedding. Here is the additional consideration. That list almost can't possibly be anywhere near complete. My cursory scan of the list doesn't give me 1900 invitees. Is it of encylopedic value to say that this is the guest list, when it is only a subset of the guest list? Furthermore, I thought we were getting out of the business of making lists like this? Carl ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Perhaps a bit of commonsense will flourish this time around, and we'll realize that the Wikipedia is not a publishing arm of the Daily Mail or the Sun. Who attended a wedding is not even the slightest bit noteworthy, it is dumb tabloid obsession with All Things Royal^(tm). Tarc (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - for the reasons already given at length in the previous, spurious, AfD. Lachrie (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Yes, it's silly, but the British seem to like such silliness and have covered it in depth, so it's notable. WP:NOTPAPER allows us to keep notable and sourced silly content. Sandstein 06:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Its notable and is based on significant coverage. There are many many topics on wikipedia that I feel are crap, but others desire this information. There's no benefit from deletion.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep...again - Since the wedding, this page has been consistently upgraded. The list has been expanded, updated and corrected. Numerous additional citations have been added as well. This has made this list even more detailed and useful to users and the general public. It is far more complete than any media source that is currently available on the web. Thorough, complete and adds much to its corresponding article about a historic event. Scanlan (talk) 20:34, 20 May 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: speedied per db-g11 as spam, author notified. – Athaenara ✉ 07:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Jelly Moustache

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

I am unable to find any reliable sources mentioning this group to establish notability. Appears to fail WP:CREATIVE. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - I see this already went through Afd before with a delete result: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Jelly_Moustache. I'm going to suggest speedy. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 23:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I saw it right now. There has been a previous same article that has been already deleted. Agreed for this deletion.--Damirgraffiti ☺Say Yo to Me!☺ 23:36, 12 May 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 20 Y.O.. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 01:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy (Janet Jackson song)

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

Definitely fails notability for songs, no charting, no signficant coverage. Article details a failed fan petition (how many of these gain traction anyway) to get the song released as a single and claims that it was released as a radio single in Japan. Fixer23 (talk) 22:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 20 Y.O.. Non-charting song that was released only as a promotional single. -- Whpq (talk) 13:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 20 Y.O.. Fails notability - no video, no chartings, not many (if any) performances. Just a promo in Japan after fan petition. Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. fails WP:NSONGS, no charting, no perforances, no evidence of 3rd party coverage. and the articles detailing of a fan petition to make it a single are completely unsourced, so are they to be believed? Mister sparky (talk) 01:11, 15 May 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. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 01:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Water-balloon-pingpong

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

Proverbial "thing someone made up one day". Also, Wikipedia isn't a how-to guide. I would have requested speedy, but there doesn't appear to be a category for it. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I used CSD, because I considered calling a made-up sport a "famous sport" from Iceland vandalism. The author is purposefully introducing factually inaccurate information to wikipedia, which falls under Db:-vandalism. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He has only created this one article, I am pretty sure that won't fly as vandalism if it is possible (and it is) that the edit was made in good faith but with a very bad understanding of Wikipedia. ie: WP:BITE The "claim" is it being "famous". Yes, rubbish, but that is why I just brought to afd. Most admins (from my experience) wouldn't consider it vandalism, just a bad article. Dennis Brown (talk) 10:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a "thing made up one day" in "Gisli's garage whith Arni sverrir" with no reasonable claim of notability. Edison (talk) 04:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy delete~~Delete. Sounds like fun! However it was just WP:MADEUP one day in their garage. It even says so in the article. No sources in Google News, Scholar, or Books. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 06:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the regular way as this does not fall into any of the speedy criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 13:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I was thinking criterion A7 for content that does not indicate why its subject is important, and in fact in this case content that indicates its subject is not important. I am perfectly happy with it being deleted the normal way, though. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - A7 applies to individuals, animals, organizations, web content. This isn't any of those. -- Whpq (talk) 21:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Water-balloon-pingpong is a famous sport is a claim. Otherwise, I would have A7'ed it. My experience has been that even a weak claim gets kicked out. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - My apologies. I just checked, and of course you are right. I've changed my !vote to delete. I shall have to read the CSD page more carefully when I next have the chance. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 23:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note A7 only applies for individuals, animals, organizations, and web content. The only criterion that might have applied was G3. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Duh, me I knew that, don't know why I keep saying A7. Maybe we can get one or two more deletes and declare WP:SNOW. I'm pretty sure the outcome is obvious, even now. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment Maybe we should look for sources. It's unlikely, but it could actually be "famous" at least in Iceland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Themane2 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I did try looking for English language sources, but I didn't have any luck. That's not to say that there definitely aren't any, but I think it's unlikely. I wouldn't have the first clue about how to search for Icelandic language sources... — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 02:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - http://www.mybigcampus.com/items/water-balloon-ping-pong-ball?v4016fd00-57cc-012e-3b51-423c383b1978--Themane2 (talk) 20:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        How is that in any way relevant? -- Whpq (talk) 20:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        It is getting coverage in indepndent sources--Themane2 (talk) 01:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        That video is of something different than what the article is talking about. Inks.LWC (talk) 01:46, 17 May 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 Auckland. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 01:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mt albert primary school

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

Non-notable primary school. No claim of notability in article text. No references. Google News shows a tiny bit of press coverage but nothing that even begins to cover the notability requirements. Prod removed by author without comment or addressing the issue. DanielRigal (talk) 22:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete really clearly Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per established practice for non-notable elementary schools. We need some sort of Speedy Redirect process for these things, don't we? Carrite (talk) 23:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Auckland, New Zealand, per precedent for non notable schools. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:36, 13 May 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We Got Communication

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

fails WP:NALBUMS. no evidence of notability or chart listing. also nominating Mosaic (Love of Diagrams album) from same band. LibStar (talk) 03:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for Mosaic (Love of Diagrams album). Notability attested with a review by pitchfork media. sorry, couldn't keep away =( . riffic (talk) 16:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 29 April 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) 01:07, 5 May 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, Baseball Watcher 21:52, 12 May 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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Cowley (drummer)

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

No indication of meeting notability guidelines at WP:MUSICBIO. Played for non notable bands, no independent WP:reliable sources. noq (talk) 19:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I started the page as a Stub, hoping that someone with some more detailed information could flesh it out for me. He's on TV today if that helps. ITV 3pm! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markheslop (talk • contribs) 07:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It might - why is he on TV? Is he being interviewed about his career? Or is he just an anonymous figure in the background supporting someone else? noq (talk) 11:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, he's a drummer, so I guess that falls into your category of "an anonymous figure in the background supporting someone else"; that's what drummers largely do isn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markheslop (talk • contribs) 19:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:MUSICBIO and then explain how he fulfils the criteria for notability. Session musicians do not generally meet them. noq (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:33, 26 April 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, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am still trying to get someone with more knowledge to update the page, with a discography section, and a greater expansion on previous bands. Please bear with me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markheslop (talk • contribs) 15:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How does that meet the guidelines at WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG? Unless you can show that, the article will be deleted. noq (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that I don't have the knowledge need to satisfy the WP:MUSICBIO guidelines, but I'm hoping that when someone else puts the info in, it will then satisfy it. I thought the point of wikipedia was that anyone could create / edit an article, so why such strict restrictions on what can be placed. Even if he was just a session musician (which he is not, as far as I'm aware), what harm is there in an article on it? I have seen far more stubs on here that tell you a) absolutely nothing about something that b) can be looked up elsewhere already. Leave the 'suggested deletion' on for now, but please can we let someone other than me, try and add some more info please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markheslop (talk • contribs) 20:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And my point is that Wikipedia has policies about what should be created and what should not. Those policies explicitly state that article subjects should be notable. That WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not mean that this can be ignored in the hope that someone else will be able to show that. There are an awful lot of articles that should not exist according to policy because so many new articles are created every day that some slip through without being challenged. That does not mean that those that are spotted should be given a free ride. The afd will run its course - if someone can establish notability it does not prevent the article from being recreated. But they will need to do that to prevent it being speedy deleted. noq (talk) 23:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 27 April 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} 14:34, 5 May 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, Baseball Watcher 21:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: THREE relists? C'mon. No reliable sources attesting to his notability. Involved with no notable groups. No evidence of meeting any of the WP:MUSIC criteria. No argument to Keep or rationale behind the article's existence proffered, even by the article creator. AfD open for nearly a MONTH without any of these defects being cured. How about a little less of a search for a decisive head count and more towards a review of the arguments presented, which is (theoretically) how AfDs are supposed to be closed? Ravenswing 08:17, 13 May 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. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Dinkum Histories

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

No claim of notability. Unclear how this might meet WP:NBOOKS. Search on the article title brings up primary sources and a few blogs. RadioFan (talk) 11:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability ╟─Treasury Tag►condominium─╢ 12:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aussiereviews.com (see their review policy here) reviewed five parts of the cycle: Shipwrecks, Sailors & 60,000 Years, Grim Crims & Convicts, Rotters and Squatters, Gold, Graves and Glory, A Nation of Swaggies and Diggers. The last part (Booms, Busts and Bushfires) was reviewed by VISE (Volunteers for Isolated Students Education). We already have quite detailed information on Horrible_Histories#Spin-offs and I can imagine a decent article on this cycle. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:08, 19 April 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) 00:19, 26 April 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} 14:42, 5 May 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, Baseball Watcher 21:44, 12 May 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.

Lewis Chambers

This discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aid Management Platform

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

I am unable to locate any reliable source mentions to establish notability of this software package. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Almost speediable as spam. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some third-party sources (i.e. not Development Gateway) that you might consider looking at:

Pbberg (talk) 09:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 15 May 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advertisement for non-notable software with a very small user base, described in the vaguest possible way: an aid information management system.... part of a package of services that includes a technical and institutional assessment, implementation of a pilot version of the system followed by full implementation, training, technical support, and institutional strengthening activities. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked at DRV to provide a closing rationale. I apologise for not doing this sooner but I have been away for a few days and wasn't approached about the close or notified about the DRV until later. In essence this is a classic case of where WP:CONSENSUS isn't the same as counting snouts on each side. There is widespread acceptance that spa voters and non-policy based arguments get very little weight in closes compared to opinions from established users who cite policy based arguments and unlike many recent AFD discussions this one was graced with contributions from a number of experienced editors who expressed concern about the lack of reliable sourcing and the view that the subject hadn't passed V or RS or BIO. Looking through the keep arguments there is an assertion that AVN is a reliable source but this contention isn't widely accepted by participants - which I can understand given issues with fact checking and regurgitation of press releases being frequently cited in the past to argue that AVN is neither peer/fact checked nor independant. Otherwise arguments about the number of films, contarcts signed, appearances on Howard Stern or who she married are not arguments grounded in any policy and were discarded. This leaves one opinion that this meets PORNBIO by multiple AVN award nominations but the actual nominations are group rather then individual catagories and it is not clear that this counts in the same way that a headline nomination would do so. Certainly the arguments about awards cut no ice at all with the majority of experienced editors and in closing I found their arguments to be well grounded in core site policy around the requirement to source articles of living persons. There clearly had been an extensive search for sources including *ahem* some off-line examination of magazines so I believe it is a reasonable assumption that there are no suitable sources for this article. Since sub-guidelines are supposed to be an indication of the liklihood of sources existing as the clear indication is that they do not I believe that it is right to discount the PORNBIO argument and go with the BIO/V/RS arguments. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Monika Star

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

Although many sources are listed, all but two of them are press releases (i.e. not independent). The other two are IMDB and a single AVN article about the launch of the subject's web site. I don't feel it passes WP:GNG. There was a claim (I removed it) that the subject had won a major award, which would squeak it by WP:PORNBIO but the source listed did not mention the award at all. The lead mentions the subject being a columnist but the text says nothing of this. Dismas|^(talk) 20:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-Absolutely one of the biggest porn stars to ever come from europe. She has been on Howard Stern show 7 times and is a favorite. 1. Let's start here: [1] - The best of Karina. Over 35 scenes from 22 movies. This alone sets her apart.

2. She was a sin city CONTRACT GIRL: A rare happening. She was signed exclusively by Scott Stein:[2] Her own collection with Sin City. She is one of only 11 girls ever to sign such a deal.

3.Sin City's Director of Marketing, Scott Stein offered, "We are very lucky to have signed Karina. Super Stardom is imminent. Karina is every bit as nasty - as she is beautiful. Oh ... and those genes - we couldn't be happier!" Sin City is promising to release additional information on the Blonde Bombshell at an upcoming "Adult Industry Only" luncheon. Details to follow shortly. For additional information on Karina, the upcoming luncheon or Sin City Entertainment contact Scott Stein @ 818.407.9990 / 310.837.5069 or e-mail at SMS10@PacBell.net.[3]

4.Karina on Howard Stern and on E Channel:Source: Sin City Entertainment by: Company Press Release (LAS VEGAS, NV) -- Sin City Entertainment is pleased to announce that their Exclusive Contract Performer, Karina, will be appearing on the Howard Stern Radio Show - Again - for an unprecedented - Three consecutive days. The shows will be taped from Las Vegas' Hard Rock Hotel during the week of April 21st. Never before has an Adult Film Star appeared on the Stern Show in such a fashion.

Karina first appeared on the Stern Show on March 13 in their New York studio. At that time, Stern was so taken with the Finnish Beauty that talks to rebook her began immediately. "Everyone at the show was very impressed by her beauty, as well as, her carefree yet professional demeanor. This is evidenced by her repeat appearance. No one can recall when an adult entertainer has been asked to be on the air for three consecutive days." explained Sin City's Scott Stein.

The premise of this appearance is similar to last month's, in as much as, listeners may have an opportunity to take Karina out on a very special date. The catch? In keeping with the Las Vegas theme - the listeners will have to win a hand of blackjack before given the opportunity. Karina will also be attending several of the parties and functions that the Stern Show has arranged for the week.

"I just loved Howard and everyone with the show. They all made me feel very welcome and I am so excited to take part in their remote from Las Vegas. Las Vegas is a very naughty city and I suspect that I'll add to that," cooed Karina.

The radio show will be taping the evenings of the 22nd, 23rd & 24th and will be broadcast the following mornings. Dates for the show's broadcast on the E! Channel will be announced at a later date. Karina can currently be seen in Sin City's Island Rain, Love Letters. Kiss & Tell, Surfer Girl, Riptide and Dreamgirls. For additional images of Karina, visit SinCity.com and for additional information on Sin City Entertainment or Karina, please contact Kylie Ireland at Kylie@SinCity.com or call 818.407.9990. [4]

5. New Website for Sin City Karina: May 11, 2004 12:00am Karina Launches her Official Site KarinaVIP.com Source: TheIndustryVoice.com by: Chef Jeff "She's the prototypical blonde bombshell, the embodiment of pure Scandinavian beauty and sex appeal, Karina is the best!" - Chef Jeff, Editor, TheIndustryVoice.com

Former Sin City contract porn star, Karina, announced today the launched of her official web site, KarinaVIP.com. The launch of the site coincides with Karina's scheduled appearance this week on the Howard Stern Show, which is broadcasting from the Hard Rock Hotel in Las Vegas.

"I can't tell you how excited I am to finally have my web site up and running!" Said Karina, "I plan to be spending the majority of my time working on the web site, my fans will love it, I am totally committed to this."

Karina will keep an office and studio in Los Angeles where her web site will be run from. "My live cam shows should be starting within the next 30 days. I will have live events featuring other hot porn stars as well as my own weekly live cam shows!"

Karina also wants porn producers to know that her studio will be available for rent as a shooting location. For more information please email KarinaStudio@KarinaVIP.com

Karina is scheduled to appear on the Howard Stern Show Wednesday May [12th.http://ainews.com/Archives/Story6732.phtml]

6. Karina, The Sin City Contract Girl - Mike South [5] By MikeSouth January 27th, 2009 Tom Writes:

Hey man, whatever happened to the old Sin City contract girl, Karina? I always thought she was sexy as hell and she was one of the few real squirters to ever do porn.

I heard she is living in Atlanta now so I thought you might know.

Matter of fact Tom....I do know. Yes she lives here now and she and I have been friends for ages. She recently decided to start doing more stuff in porn and has opened her own store at clips4sale. I have been shooting the content for it for her. Heres a few recent pics from those shoots.[6]

7.Karina Sinclair - former Sin City contract girl, SWEET as a hive-full-of-honey- See bottom of page with Pic with Lindsey Lovehands: [[7]]

8. KARINA SINCLAIR: NEW YORK: SEPT 29-30 ATLANTA: AVAILABLE NOW This former Sin City Contract Girl has it all! Brains and Beauty, not to mention some incredibly amazing talents that simply drive most of the male population crazy. This Finnish Goddess not only holds an MBA Degree, but holds her own in any social or private environment! Fun, Interesting, Sexy, Charming, Smart, and did we mention talented?? We did, we did! Call to schedule your appointment to spend time with this Blonde Bombshell and find out what all the talk is about! . Visit our website BodyMiracle.com at and fill out the Appointment Request Form NOW.[8]

9. Sin City had an interesting month with their new contract girl Karina Kean. Their first press release announced that the company had signed the younger sister of hot star Katja Kean. Just days later, Sin City released a second press release announcing that they had been duped by Karina's agent. It was discovered that is not the younger sibling of the former Sin City girl. Sin City's Director of Marketing, Scott Stein responded to the faux pas, "This situation is obviously something that we're taking very seriously. The documents presented to Sin City, in reference to Karina's identity appeared to be legitimate. I'd personally like to thank everyone for their e-mails and telephone calls alerting me of the deception. Unfortunately, this sort of thing happens quite often - even the ages of professional baseball players have been falsified. We are debating legal action against the person who apparently falsified the documents; however, proving that a specific person is accountable may be difficult to prove." As for Karina? "We are one thousand percent convinced that Karina had no knowledge of the misinformation. She, as well as, Sin City - were victims. She was under the impression that her name was simply being changed. We are still committed to having her serve as a representative of Sin City and are convinced that she will be a huge star," explained Stein. Apparently Karina has something even more interesting than a porn bloodline, a link to a celebrity athlete. Stein concluded, "The irony of everything that just happened is - that Karina's true story is even more sensational. The fact that she has a legitimate connection to the National Football League will prove to be more interesting than being a younger sibling to a former adult star. We will be holding a Press Conference shortly to offer more details on this episode, as well as, Karina's real NFL story." The NFL story? OH yA--- Her brother in law Sean Salisbury and was married to Brett Salisbury Karina's name? Isa Salisbury. - Need we prove any more? I can go on and on...Somebody help me. She is a huge megastar. No question. KEEP! WANT PROOF? GO HERE:[9] Then look who lived in the same city in the same house...be sure to scroll down to famous residents section on wikipedia: Notable people from or who currently live in Douglasville This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2011) [10]

Mike Tolbert - Professional football player for the San Diego Chargers, graduated Douglas County High School. Spencer Scott, Playboy Playmate of the Month for October, 2007 Mario West - Professional basketball player for the Atlanta Hawks, graduated Douglas County High School. Matt Capps - Professional baseball player for the Washington Nationals,played for the Pittsburgh Pirates, graduated from Alexander High School Alexandréa Lushington - American Idol (season 7), Top 24 Contestant, graduated class of 2009 from Douglas County High School. Walton Goggins - Professional Actor who stars in FX's The Shield Kasha Terry - Professional basketball player for the Atlanta Dream (WNBA), graduated from Douglas County High School. Brett Salisbury - College football quarterback ex wife is Monika Star Dave Williams - Professional baseball pitcher, currently lives in Douglasville Elana Meyers - Bronze medal winner for the U.S in the 2010 Winter Olympics and Silver medal winner in the 2009 World Championships Ricky Dobbs - Naval Academy Quarterback/ Record holder for touchdowns by Quarterback, graduated Douglas County High School

Brett Salisbury. Simply go here to put it all together: [11] CASE CLOSED. KEEP ABSOLUTE. SUPERSTAR

10. AND jUST FOR FUN? GO HERE: SCROLL DOWN ALL WAY- greatest living casanovas: "The one guy on this list your missing? a celebrity who has slept with over 2000 women. I should know, I dated him. Mr. Brett Salisbury, the ex-BYU Quarterback only kicked out due to pre-marital sex. If you think his famous brother [Sean Salisbury]is bad? Think again. No Sean doesn’t have Brett’s looks or “size,” but both of these brothers are quite a team and Brett was a top male model. Mr. Brett Salisbury ex wife is a now a famous porn star (Karina Sinclair). He has had more one night stands that Rod Stewart. That’s saying a lot. His website is http://www.TransformDiet.com and he is smooth and good looking. He also uses it to his advantage. Goodluck ladies. He is all yours. You control him? You control a “Tiger.” If he ever does become more famous, he will own Charlie Sheen. Sorry Brett for throwing you under the bus…It’s the least I could do." -Rebecca Desmet Editor in Chief AVN. [12] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radio29 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You addressed exactly zero points of my argument. It's no use copy/pasting what the press releases cited in the article say, or what people in forums or blogs say. In order to be kept, this article needs independent and reliable third party sources. The AFD discussion is not based on whether she exists or not, it's based on whether she is notable per any one of our notability guidelines. For those, you can see WP:GNG, WP:PORNBIO, WP:ENTERTAINER, etc. I see nothing in the article or outside of it that makes me think that she is notable. Dismas|^(talk) 22:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-The MOVIES SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES. YOU CANNOT DENY 51 MOVIES AND ONLY ONE OF 11 WOMEN IN THE WORLD TO EVER BE SIGNED AS A SIN CITY CONTRACT GIRL. SORRY YOU LOSE. Also LOOK WHO SHE WAS MARRIED TO AND HER BROTHER IN LAW? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? She is more notable than any porn star from Europe. Should we call Howard Stern and ask him? Call him, no copy and pasting...call him now, ask him just how "Notable" Karina is: - Stern Show Call In Number (888) STERN-100 - Howard 100/101 Call In Number (Wrap Up Show, Superfan Roundtable and other call in shows) SternShow@HowardStern.com - E-mail Address Stern Show Address SIRIUS 36th Floor Attn: The Howard Stern Show - Studio 69 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.253.98.165 (talk) 22:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You still don't understand and it seems as though you haven't read a single guideline that I've posted a link to.

The sheer number of films doesn't matter. (not to mention the fact that many of those listed at IAFD are listed as "compilations" which could include scenes from other movies and not original content) There are many actors at IMDB and other databases that have many credits but that doesn't mean they're notable. Same story here.
Who she was married to doesn't matter here. Which, by the way, you haven't proven with any sort of reliable sources. Notability wouldn't necessarily be inherited. See WP:INHERITED for more on that... though I doubt you'll read that either.
I don't need or want to call Stern. He's had thousands of people on his show and not every one of them is notable.
And finally, you still have not shown where the subject has been written about in multiple independent and reliable sources. Dismas|^(talk) 22:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. I do not see a section there called "PORNBIO," which creates a shortcut to notability for people who perform sex acts for money in front of a camera. The basic requirements of WP:BIO apply to all such sex workers, just like anyone in any other profession. Where are multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage? Press releases, lengthy blathery arguments and handwaving are insufficient. Edison (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - When the impassioned defense at AfD is three times longer than the vapid stub article, you know there are issues. Sources? IMDB, which is user-supplied. Some porn variant of IMDB. And a bunch of flack pieces from a single source, Adult Industry News, which counts as one if you take the leap of faith to presume such a promotional venue is in any way "reliable" in Wikipedia terms. Does not meet GNG, plain and simple. Oooo, I forgot she was nominated for an award by Adult Video News. Wooooooo, I am so impressed. Carrite (talk) 06:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adult Industry News is nothing but company press releases to a blog. Which leaves this article with nada in terms of sourcing. Carrite (talk) 06:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Karina/Monika Star/Karina Sinclair/ with so many aka's she has more than 300 video titles. What set her apart and still does is there are over 37,000 women each year participating in the adult industry. Each year only 40-50 girls signing contract including Vivid. Karina signed in September of 2003. There were 14 girls in the industry total that signed as CONTRACT WOMEN. To date, over 250,000 women have participated in mainstream porn. Of that, 117 girls have signed contracts in the past 8 YEARS. It's unprecedented. She is 1 of only 117 girls to ever sign as a CONTRACT GIRL. And she did it with Sin_City_(studio). Say what you want, but 117 out of 250,000 women? In 8 years? A contract girl with a major studio? KEEP and ONLY 76 VIVID EXCLUSIVE CONTRACT GIRLS EVER.[13] So the sarcasm of getting the AVN award to even be nominated? It's a bigger deal the Carrite "wooooo, I am so impressed" arrogance. Isn't that 0 tolerance on here? Arrogance and cockiness? Who is Carrite anyway? When you can shoot over 300 movies which I could easily prove, you come see wikipedia. You will probably be notable regardless of what career it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike south atlanta (talk • contribs) 03:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When one does "come and see Wikipedia," one brings with them two or better yet three pieces of significant independent coverage of the article subject or one is apt to quickly find oneself running afoul of WP:Notability at Articles for Deletion. So, let's stop cheerleading for this world heralded mondo mega superstar of porn and start coming up with those three sources, shall we? Last I checked, merely appearing in 300 fuck flicks doesn't open the gate... Carrite (talk) 03:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 03:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted a statement with a couple of unacceptable personal attacks.)--Floquenbeam (talk) 19:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Stern will have any woman on his show who is willing to strip. PornWikiLeaks is yet another unreliable source. AVN would count as independent and reliable but so far all you've shown is press releases and databases. If being a contract girl for Sin City is so rare, then someone (who she wasn't paying for the story) must have written about her somewhere. You keep making claims but don't back it up with anything reliable/verifiable/independent. The way you make it sound, she should be as notable as Jenna Haze, Belladonna, or Nikki Dial but they all have independent sources. Dismas|^(talk) 08:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted another comment with numerous personal attacks. I've had enough of your disruption; do this again and I will block you.)--Floquenbeam (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC) keep AVN Insider, Fresh off the bus with Monika Star by writer Wayne Hentai: [14][reply]

2. Joey Silvera AVN News on "Superstar" Monika Star.[15]

3. Almost looks like Monika Star is being "black balled" in the industry. Here again, every star in this movie from Craven Moorehead has a wikipedia page. EVERY STAR except Karina aka Monika Star?[16] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.253.98.165 (talk) 13:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have blocked User:Mike south atlanta and User:24.253.98.165 for disruption, personal attacks, and abusing multiple accounts. I've allowed him to use his remaining unblocked account, User:Radio29, in case he would like to try once more to make clear, rational comments, but I've had enough disruption. Someone please ping me if he's obviously created another account, or he makes another personal attack, or he pastes the same screed saying the same thing one more time, and I'll just block him and delete the article. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I added reliable sources for awards (clearly IMDB was not reliable)... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cavarrone (talk • contribs) 09:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she passes PORNBIO due to her nominations over multiple years ~~plus her AVN award~~. The multiple appearances on Howard Stern don't hurt either. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Radio29.--Johnsmith877 (talk) 08:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP, WP:V. There are few if any reliable sources cited in this article that contain enough verifiable facts to support an encyclopedic biography. Even the award win is unverifiable, as it is referenced only to a list of nominees, rather than winners. Sandstein 07:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just checked my copy of outnumbered 4 and it's a different Karina so she did not win the award. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The World's Hands

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

I searched for any reliable sources to establish notability for this film and have been unable to discover any using Gnews. The only sources I find are user generated sites such as IMDB, which is not enough to confer notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 20:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. I also searched under the French title "La Main du monde" and was able to find a passing mention in this review of the director's first feature film, but that is a far cry from what is needed to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 14 May 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chief Barons of the Irish Exchequer

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

This is unimportant list of non-notable people. Already dicussed at the other article about this subject. Themane2 (talk) 20:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you indicate the location of the discussion you referred to so that we can understand your case? --AJHingston (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I digress. Firstly its a list so its adifferent barometre, secondly it is an important position and the history of it is relevant to researchers (after all th e point of an encyclopeadia)Lihaas (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Baron_of_the_Exchequer --Themane2 (talk) 00:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - no afd tag on page. --Anthem of joy (talk) 21:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks fine to me and well referenced. Just the type of list to see in a reference work. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Say what? A list with over thirty bluelinks one of "non-notable" people? My, that's a rather startling assertion; has the nom filed AfDs on all those bluelinks? And, by the bye, we're talking a list of (effectively), the chief justices of the Irish national tax court for a few centuries. The nom claims to have discussed this at the "other article," whichever that might be, but a review of his contributions list shows no such discussion. Ravenswing 08:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable. I had seen the discussion at the article on the English office and do not understand the relevance either. As pointed out above, many of the office holders listed already have their own articles and others will doubtless be created in time. But as for the notability of the office itself, it is difficult to fit its origins into our modern understanding of government in the west. It was a sort of hybrid between an arm of government and high judicial appointment and existed to ensure the proper administration and enforcement of the law in relation to national (crown) taxation and evolved over time. An equivalent office today at national level would be regarded as notable. I too would hope to find this list in Wikipedia. --AJHingston (talk) 10:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The deletion request by me has been pulled.--Themane2 (talk) 11:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 15:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

I searched for any reliable sources to establish notability for this film and have been unable to discover any using Gnews. The only sources I find are user generated sites such as IMDB, which is not enough to confer notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This documentary was awarded a bronze, at the WorldFest-Houston International Film Festival, as well as receiving award nominations for a Gemini Award and a Prix Gémeaux. It is verifiably aired as part of AMC's Tarzan marathon, and the coverage in the Seattle Times is actually beyond simply mentioning it as it is about one thrid of the article. -- Whpq (talk) 13:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep So far, this has become THIS I've found enough to convince me we have enough notability per WP:NF to allow the article to remain and be further improved for the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 11:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination - Thank you for turning up additional sources which I was unable to find. I see from one of your links you utilized a hyphen when searching for it, which seems to have done the trick in finding the references. Thank you! ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:43, 16 May 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prometheus class starship

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

Non-notable starship class, no independent third party sources. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 20:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Message in a Bottle (Star Trek: Voyager) as the ship was a central plot element of the episode. -- Whpq (talk) 13:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Message in a Bottle (Star Trek: Voyager), the only episode in which it was a major plot element. Not notable in its own right. Robofish (talk) 14:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Message in a Bottle (Star Trek: Voyager) per arguments given by Whpq and Robofish. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 14:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirection is probably the correct ultimate fate of this article but some information might be smerged to the episode article or List of Starfleet starships ordered by class covering additional appearances of the model in the series finally and Star Trek Online. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as a compromise. Article lacks sufficient sources to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The fictional starship, as a subject, does not meet the general notability guideline and the content is a plot-only description of a fictional work. The two references within the article only support the opening paragraph, so the content has no verifiability which makes the article original research and an unneeded content fork. I favor deletion over a redirect since the starship participation in the series is quite limited, barely one episode and a couple of cameos, so I do not think that it is a plausible search term for the majority of Wikipedia users. Jfgslo (talk) 23:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, to whichever of the two targets suggested above at editorial discretion (the initial choice being left to admin discretion based on this discussion), and allow to merge content at editorial discretion. Redirects are deleted only in extreme circumstances, there are no reasons to delete this redirect, as the guideline on deleting redirects makes clear; moreover redirects do not have to be "plausible search terms for the majority of WP users", such a high standard would ensure the deletion of the vast majority of redirects and is certainly not recognized by the community (there is a recognized "plausible search term" standard though, which this redirect satisfies). In addition, keeping the history of those pages can provide for the merging of appropriate encyclopedic information in the relevant articles. Cenarium (talk) 00:32, 21 May 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. a10 slakr^\ talk / 06:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CNR Weird al yankovic

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

Article has no references or sources. In need of tons of repairs. maucho eagle _(c) 20:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I'm listing this one on speedy delete, there is an article existing about this topic on Wikipedia already. (CNR (song)) which redirects to Weird Al's album where this song appears. There is more info in that little chart than there is in this article. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 20:33, 12 May 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. I see enough support for a rename that I'll do that, but feel free to discuss/override the naming at the article talk page if that proves controversial. joe decker ^{talk to me} 21:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cactus Garden

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

PROD for notability was removed and then a similar minor copyvio reinstated, concerns about notability raised and a citation challenged. Basically, the contributor seems to have justified the PROD s/he removed! AfD on the grounds of lack of non-trivial sources for notability. Sitush (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

edited to add !vote: weak keep It appears there is some confusion about what actually happened at this article but ... It looks like there may be a source in india today that supports a claim of "largest cactus garden in Asia" which would make me lean towards keeping, but the actual text is not visible in the snipped view [17] The remaining sources appear to be only trivial and so if we cannot verify the india today claim, I am OK with deletion. Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify the confusion, I used Reflinks in automated mode (ie: via a "Favourites/Bookmark" link) immediately after PRODing. It fixed the (then single) reference but appears to have auto-deleted the PROD. It looks like a bug. I shall revert to using Reflinks manually, which provides the ability to preview changes. I have apologised to Active Banana for this casting of an aspersion. I had previously seen the same snippet in India Today but dismissed it as probably being a regurgitated piece of PR. I think we need more than just the one source for the statement, whether snippet view or otherwise. - Sitush (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have registered my opinion as "week keep"- we have a Time of India source that clearly supports claim of "largest of its kind in Asia", although the other coverage appears to be fairly trivial. Active Banana (^bananaphone 18:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This does seem to have significant coverage from national sources like The Times of India [18] and The Indian Express [19][20].--Oakshade (talk) 05:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would question the description "significant coverage" The Times of India coverage is little more than a regurgitated press release. similarly the first Express india article being a puff piece about the opening of a local attraction. Active Banana (^bananaphone 09:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True. The article's not exactly a rock. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG, has good sources. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Chandigarh themed gardens are sufficiently unusual and extensive (in Indian or any context) to be notable; work to be done, of course Crusoe8181 (talk) 06:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~I will note that the creator of the article left a keep !vote on the article talk page [21]~~ That opinion is now repeated by the creator on this page Active Banana (^bananaphone 10:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note if this article survives the AfD it should be moved to its official name National Cactus and Succulent Botanical Garden and Research Centre [22] Active Banana (^bananaphone 10:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, a good spot. Using the correct title may have avoided the PROD in the first place. - Sitush (talk) 18:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article's topic is notable, the garden is very popular in the region. http://www.google.co.in/search?hl=en&q=Cactus+Garden+panchkula&oq=Cactus+Garden+panchkula&aq=f&aqi=g1g-v2&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=2524l5562l0l12l12l1l4l4l0l390l1252l2-1.3 Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 10:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Popularity is not a wikipedia criterion for notability, as far as I am aware. - Sitush (talk) 18:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Weeeell it is if verified by reliable sources. A Google search page does not fit the bill. Drmies (talk) 01:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, which is what Mahesh was told before he posted here - Sitush (talk) 01:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks, I saw that, Sitush--I came here via a thread at ANI. Have a look. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and if the title had been correct at the onset, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I don't want to appear bitey, but there have been a number of concerns raised about things like this from this user as of late. PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep A notable garden and a tourist spot. Article has been cleaned up now --Sodabottle (talk) 05:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If a subject is cited in multiple references and is locally popular, it is of course notable. As a user above stated, google searches often do no justice. It seems that this place is a locally popular place, and hence I feel, we should have no further say on this as this page has to be kept, as this would necessitate a redefining of the term wide coverage.. Manorathan (talk) 07:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If kept, as seems to be the trend, it should be renamed, because there are numerous places around the world called Cactus Garden, including one in San Diego, one in Arizona, one at Stanford ... you get the idea. How about Cactus Garden (India)? Or its formal name as suggested above. If moved, it should NOT be left as a redirect because of all the other Cactus Gardens out there; maybe the redirect page could be converted to a DAB page. --MelanieN (talk) 01:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I note that no reliable sources have been adduced in this discussionl. In fact the keep side have declined to provide them - as it would detract from the experience to list them. I'm afraid that AFD doesn't work that way. Source it or lose it essentially sums up the GNG. I'm open to reviewing further sources but in their absence the delete arguments are the policy based ones. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Indoor Football League

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

Procedural nomination. 2009 Southern Indoor Football League season & 2010 Southern Indoor Football League season just expired as endorsed prods (given argument: Non notable sports league, fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:ORG). Before deleting these two season articles, it's probably worth analyzing whether the league meets the relevant notability guidelines. Does the league merit a Wikipedia article? If so, what should be done with these season articles? What of the 19 or so teams listed at Southern Indoor Football League#Teams? — Scientizzle 20:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment see also the recently-closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Southern Indoor Football League season. — Scientizzle 20:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —— Scientizzle 13:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I gotta say to remove all these at this point. The sources are suspect and the articles seem to be more of an ad for the league than anything else.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:05, 16 May 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article about the league. There's plenty of news coverage, and this is as worthy of basic coverage as any other minor sports league.[23][24] I do not have a strong opinion whether the seasons deserve their own articles, maybe it would be better to include a suitable amount of info into the main article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all The league article fails WP:ORG requiring WP:Independent sources. The article is based on the league's own website. There are sources on Google on a local team in the league from a local paper, however this also fails WP:ORG, as "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." There is not interest beyond local team coverage in the league as a whole or other teams in the league. There are some hits from oursportscentral.com, however the website's contributions are from fans and does not have editorial oversight to be consider a WP:Reliable source. As for the season articles nominated for deletion, they do not list sources except for external links. Those links are to websites that are not reliable and a non-independent source (the league's own website). At best local sources can be found, which is not sufficient for notability per reasons already stated. —Bagumba (talk) 19:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. There DO exist several independent sources, but it would detract from the experience to list them all. And here I thought Wikipedia is not a repository of links. Just give it a chance and don't demolish the house while it's still being built. (PS, These OurSportsCentral articles link to reliable newspaper sources). Tom Danson (talk) 00:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Tom Danson (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. —Bagumba (talk) 00:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MINDREADER says that notability should be established before an article is put into WP:Main namespace. Otherwise, the article can be developed as a user subpage until its notability is established. Please provide a sufficient number of reliable sources with significant coverage for this AfD so the league's notability can be evaluated. —Bagumba (talk) 00:52, 25 May 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, -- Cirt (talk) 07:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And how much longer are you going to relist this? Why not just call it like it is: no consensus. Tom Danson (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Danson, can you provide any sources that discuss the league in detail that are above the modest number of local paper stories about the local teams? That would really help. — Scientizzle 18:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RELISTINGISEVIL might be worth a review.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There seems to be a disconnect here. For instance, why are only articles pertaining to the Southern Indoor Football League, a professional indoor league with a nearly national scope, being targeted for deletion, but other, more questionable leagues are not? For instance, the user has not targeted for deletion any articles regarding the Independent Indoor Football Alliance, Ultimate Indoor Football League, Eastern Indoor Football League, World Indoor Football League (2007), or one of the SIFL's predecessors, the American Indoor Football Association, all of which have fewer sources and claims to notability than the currently active SIFL, nor the American Professional Football League, which has only one reliable source. I know I had a dust-up with Paul McDonald when he was putting all the semi-pro league articles up for deletion, but at least he was attempting to ensure a modicum of consistency when applying the rules of Wikipedia. I don't see that in the nominations at hand; the sole nomination of the SIFL seems a little gratuitous to be honest. (Note: This is not meant to be a "Pokemon test" in which the sole arbiter of notability is comparability to other like leagues; I am merely stating that the notability guidelines should be applied equally. If the SIFL can be brought up to standards, but some of the others cannot, then by all means nominate them for deletion.) J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 21:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- - quick comment yeah, but I've moved on. Hope you have too! It's not personal. We've agreed on stuff at times too (you did a good job on one particular article I can rememeber).--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you bother to read the nomination, it clearly explains the why the SIFL is at AfD. To spoon-feed it: The season articles were expired prods and could have reasonably been deleted, but it seemed to me like the topic would benefit from wider discussion on the ideal breadth of Wikipedia coverage. Feel free to nominate any other articles for deletion that makes sense to you...Can you provide sources for these articles? Do you have anything to add beyond WP:WAX? — Scientizzle 01:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you want a broader discussion, don't single out just one article or one particular league. Apply the rules consistently. That is all I ask. When you just pick out one article in general, it looks gratuitous and it looks like bad faith, which, despite Wikipedia's assertions to the contrary, is far too common. The fact is, by Wikipedia notability standards (which is not what WAX discusses), none of the aforementioned leagues are significantly distinguishable from the others. If we have a discussion on this one league alone, then we should have a discussion in general regarding all the leagues in question. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 02:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:ALLORNOTHING seems relevant. Discuss this article on its own merits. —Bagumba (talk) 02:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agreed, Bagumba. As if this discussion wasn't broad enough already, I should try to include an undetermined number of superficially related articles? Why? I have little knowledge of and even less interest in leagues like this one. I was simply trying to clear out CAT:PROD with a modicum of consideration for consistency. Namely, is this league notable and, if it is, does it merit these individual season subpages? Why don't you quit wasting my time with "it looks like bad faith" junk and nominate the articles you feel should be deleted or fix this one? — Scientizzle 12:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - To answer your question, I don't know and don't have time to find out. My hunch says keep, but it would take several days for me to prove it. And if you have no interest in this, then why did you nominate it for deletion? J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 12:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. There definitely should be editing, however the primary page on the SIFL should remain. The season-by-season pages however could be incorporated into the solitary Southern Indoor Football League article, and those seasonal pages DELETED. Considering there are pages on football leagues that never even played a game, a league that's had more than a couple seasons is what it is.Sturmde (talk) 23:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are not particularly convincing. Please expand on this article's merits with respect to WP principles. —Bagumba (talk) 02:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep the league article. Delete season articles, merge any useable content into the sections on the main league article's page. Bhockey10 (talk) 04:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:!VOTE, please provide an explanation to justify keeping, or discuss sources that establish notability. —Bagumba (talk) 06:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's stubbornness like this that makes me proud to be an inclusionist. Tom Danson (talk) 06:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a vote (one word Delete, Merge, Keep). It's already been pointed out a few times on here and been pretty clearly stated by a few other users. Minor league articles are generally notable, as almost all pro and college sport leagues have some indy verifiable sources available. Individual seasons for minor leagues are a different story and team are generally not, esp the ones listed here that don't have much info that's not already included on the main article. A quick Google search shows some references. Does the article need work? Yes, lots! Should it be deleted? No. Bhockey10 (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've already !voted above and I don't wish to belabor the discussion here, but given the continuing commentary on each of the foregoing "keep" !votes, I think it may be worth restating that GNews shows literally thousands of articles covering the activities of this league, in newspapers all over the country, over the course of the last several years. It is argued that these articles cover the local teams in each community, but I don't see how this makes the league a "local" establishment unworthy of coverage here. This is a real league of national scope playing games that are being covered extensively in real newspapers all over the country. The detailed season-by-season articles need not be kept, but I can't see how the encyclopedia's coverage of the sport of arena football would be improved by deleting the main article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 07:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its WP:WABBITSEASON until someone discusses specific independent reliable sources that have significant, non-routine coverage. WP:LOTSOFSOURCES says "Whilst showing the subject is mentioned in a number of sources, not all sources are reliable and may only be trivial mentions." WP:ORG says they cannot be local. The coverage as I have seen is for the a local team, and not for the league as a whole. Let's not exaggerate the "national scope" either; the league itself is named "Southern Indoor Football League" and is reflective of the teams locations. —Bagumba (talk) 07:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the name. It's somewhat of a misnomer dating from the earliest years of the league. The league merged with another league that includes areas not in the South, but for reasons unknown never changed its name. I don't think very many people would consider New Jersey or Erie, PA as the "South." I'm not making a judgment keeping or deleting (quite frankly, I have a busy work schedule this week and don't have time to examine the news coverage and filter it into the articles), but keep that in mind. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 12:32, 2 June 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coloniality of power

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

Reads like an essay, and a large percentage of its content appears to be an unpublished synthesis of its references. It is quite possible that this may be a notable subject, but this articles content does not appear to be usable in an encyclopedic article. Da.squirrels (talk) 19:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. OR essay. Might be something worth merging to colonialism but I can't see it. Redirect. Szzuk (talk) 19:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This isn't really a synthesis, that's pretty much exactly what the main authors that have discussed the idea, Quijano and Lugones say about coloniality of power and gender. What I'm not sure is whether it's notable or not, as I'm not certain of the specific requirements for notability of academic theories. I'll come back later once I've worked that out. Kate (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rescue by reframing as less essay oriented and treating "coloniality of power" as a conceptual object. Notability exists but is not shown here.--Carwil (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AFD is not cleanup. See WP:BEFORE. Google book search shows 2,060 results from books using this term. References already exist in the article to prove the subject is notable. You can easily read through the book results and find others talking about this notable concept. The talk page for this article has never had any discussion on it at all. Any problems with how it is written should've been discussed there before sending it to AFD. Dream Focus 19:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite. Andrevan@ 06:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable concept. Needs copyedit/wikfy/rewrite. --Anthem of joy (talk) 18:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - very well known concept, but needs work, no reason for deletion.--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Dream Focus 06:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete [or Redirect to Anibal Quijano ]: WP:OR essay. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Anibal Quijano. Seems to be his baby. --MelanieN (talk) 01:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Article is a mess but its a worthwhile search term. Redirect could be undone if someone re-wrote. Szzuk (talk) 07:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect/merge. The citations currently in the article do not establish its notability as they are mostly to works by the authors whose theories are summarized (in ridiculously impenetrable jargon) in the article. That is, there's insufficient evidence of substantial third party coverage. Sandstein 07:03, 20 May 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, Baseball Watcher 21:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Again) Since this got relisted and I found the books associated while packing, I'm going to have a go at rewriting to make this more encylopaedic. Probably take me a day or two to get to it though. I really do think it's notable, it's just in terrible shape. Kate (talk) 21:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just completed a major edit on this article, taking out all the fluff and unsourced material, adding more sources and broader applications, and making it much less jargony. It still needs some work, and I'll come back to it (if people have suggestions for improvement that would be grand! - I know the language still needs work and it really should be a broader discussion) but I think it's now good enough in terms of penetrability and reliability and shows enough notability to !vote keep. Kate (talk) 13:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep New version looks good, thanks to Kate for the rewrite. Francis Bond (talk) 01:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, my original nomination criteria of OR and ESSAY no longer apply. Thank you for the rewrite Kate. Da.squirrels (talk) 22:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: although clearly superior to the original WP:OR essay, the new version relies heavily on WP:PRIMARY sources, particularly Quijano(2000). It is therefore unclear as to whether the topic demonstrates "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What type of secondary sources? It's really not clear what sort of sources should be used for academic theories. I've looked at a few similar pages but they weren't much help, and it's not exactly the sort of thing the New York Times talks about a lot. Kate (talk) 09:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Third party sources exhibiting sufficient intellectual independence and depth of coverage, such that a WP:NPOV presentation can be made (which cannot happen when the topic is presented mainly from the viewpoint of its originator). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commment on notabality — "Coloniality of Power" and "colonialidad de[l] poder" both have hundreds or thousands of Google scholar hits. These aren't secondary sources, but suggest notability. Likewise foundational texts on coloniality circulate in required reading compilations like the Latin American Cultural Studies Reader, or the Latin American Subaltern Studies Reader, and a slightly broader topic has a reader of its own in Coloniality at Large. I'm not sure how best to insert these facts, but the cited quote on notability does not stand alone.--Carwil (talk) 16:35, 22 May 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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geo Jex OS

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

Not clear how this unreferenced, orphaned article might meet notability guidelines. Lacks coverage in 3rd party source. Zero Google news or book hits on multiple spellings of the title. Primary sources only hits on Google web search. contested prod. RadioFan (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no coverage in reliable sources about this particular 6 month old linux distribution. -- Whpq (talk) 13:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean with "relible sources" ? I'm the creator of this project and when Geo Jex OS will be deleted their must delete Easy Peasy, because its based on Ubuntu Netbook Remix too like Geo Jex OS. I haven't enough money to pay a website thats call geojex.org or other. Geo Jex is a new oprating system created by me and my team. We're a small team ,but this is not reason to delete this article.--Memorix101 (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's standard on reliable sources is available here. We really shouldn't discuss other articles here, lets focus on whether or not Geo Jex OS meets notability guidelines. Since you are one of the creators of this OS, I've left some information on your talk page about conflict of interest.--RadioFan (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What can I do to keep this article in Wikiedia. What do you need to keep this article ?! I doesn't understand what is missing. I added sources, websites , information and references. Which informations is missing ? --Memorix101 (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is not much you can do personally. WIkipedia is a community effort. If the consensus here is that this article might meet notability guidelines, it will stay, otherwise it will be deleted. Given that the article was created by the creator of the OS and reads like a promotional brochure for the OS, it's not looking good. Wikipedia is not here for promoting your products, regardless of what it is.--RadioFan (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Andrevan@ 06:52, 15 May 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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Paths Center

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

Non-notable organization lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Article references are primarily blogs and other items that fail to support article meeting WP:RS criteria. Fails WP:ORG. ttonyb (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find any in-depth coverage in independent, reliable sources, just a couple of passing mentions. Cullen328 (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not seem to be independently notable. Could be redirected to Paganistan. --MelanieN (talk) 01:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response The problem with a redirect to Paganistan is that is a neologism seemingly used only by Twin Cities neo-paganists, and one of those folks wrote a thesis with that name. When reliable sources use the term, it is only in passing when looking for a colorful quote by people active in that community. There is no in-depth independent coverage of that topic in reliable sources that I have been able to find. Therefore, it is not a good redirect target. Cullen328 (talk) 05:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the term DOES have a Wikipedia article. Does that article need to be looked at as well? --MelanieN (talk) 14:30, 19 May 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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forsa institute

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

Promotional, machine translated grammar, no refs. Ich (talk) 18:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fix & improve. A cursury look at the interwiki linked de-wiki-version gives a number of references. In part this includes discussion of the institutes methods in a major German broadsheet. While the content of the refs and the possible article needs to be checked it appears that it satisfies WP:GNG. Agathoclea (talk) 23:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Agathoclea Andrevan@ 06:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the article states, forsa is one of Germany's top polling firms. I have retranslated what was there, inserting the reference that had been omitted, and translated the remainder of the article, adding a reference for material that was sourced but did not have a reference. The article now has numerous references, many from a variety of major newspapers, all mentioning the firm more than incidentally. Notability is therefore now clearly established. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:47, 18 May 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We Are Everywhere

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

Considering the article's history, it looks like a recreation from somewhere, but I can't figure out where. In any case, it seems to fail WP:NALBUMS. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had an initial search and found some sources. punktastic.com - This one may have been written by an amateur reviewer though. I can't tell. AbsolutePunk.net This one looks like a professional site. Also scenepointblank.com and soundwavetouring.com (Only a passing mention but it does back up the significance of the album), There are also reviews on music selling websites, but that's fairly standard. The coverage isn't vast, but the album has received attention from independent 3rd parties, so unless there's a problem with the sites, I will say keep. --Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 27 April 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, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:40, 5 May 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, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:58, 12 May 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) 00:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lupe Fiasco's Food & Liquor II: The Great American Rap Album

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

This article does not cite any reliable sources. This album will be released around November/December 2011, it's too early to create a page for it as there is not enough information about this album. MariAna_MiMi (Talk) 22:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 27 April 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, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:38, 5 May 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, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Millions of Dead Cops / John the Baker

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

Someone else PRODded this article recently, claiming it was not notable, but I removed the PROD because the nominator did not provide a reason. Here's the reason: this release has not received notice in any reliable third-party sources, and all sources found are download sites or band-generated promotional/social networking sites. (Also note that one of the two bands does not have a Wikipedia article, and this article consists only of unsupported fan trivia, although these are not immediate criteria for deletion.) DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:35, 27 April 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, Baseball Watcher 03:12, 5 May 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, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:57, 12 May 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 MERGED. Errant ^(chat!) 18:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Major Moves

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

Dubious notability. Sources are all primary. Article is laden with biased sources and [citation needed]s. Delete and move Major Moves (album) to this title. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slight merge to Indiana Toll Road#History... that is, this should be trimmed down to anything that can actually reliably sourced about the proposal and its current legislative status, and then presented there. Too much of the article is based on unsourced speculation. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:45, 28 April 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) 01:48, 5 May 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, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Merge to Indiana Toll Road. This was a major political and news event in the State of Indiana, but would probably work best as part of the toll road article. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:29, 18 May 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) 00:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Elysian Fields

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

fails WP:NALBUMS. media coverage merely confirms existence of this album. [25]. album never charted and not really reviewed in major press. LibStar (talk) 03:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 5 May 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, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:44, 12 May 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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Island of pedagogy

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

No independent sources demonstrate notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Virtually nothing in English. Searches for "Isola della Pedagogia" are more productive, but I am unable to evaluate either their content or their suitability as reliable sources.[26][27][28][29] This one probably needs an Italian speaker to examine. Serpent's Choice (talk) 17:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 29 April 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) 00:44, 5 May 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, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Great name. But it's a theatre class with 30 people! Should have been speedy deleted at inception. Szzuk (talk) 19:45, 12 May 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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Hannah

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

Article on a footballer who fails WP:NFOOTY for two reasons: According to sources, he signed with Bradford City today and has not appeared in any games. Also, his previous club, Matlock Town, is part of the Northern Premier League, which as far as I can tell is not a "fully professional league" according to WP:FPL. As far as WP:GNG goes I found little reliable source coverage outside of routine local coverage. Article can be recreated if/when he appears in a game for Bradford City, which as I understand is in a fully professional league. I'm not an expert on the workings of football/soccer outside the U.S., so if I have misinterpreted the criteria please let me know and I will reconsider this nomination. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete (probably) Standard WP:FOOTY would suggest to delete. He did score 7 goals in an FA Trophy game though, and won a golden boot for the NPL Premier, so there might be reasonable press coverage of either or both of those events. There are a couple of Derby Evening Telegraph articles (this one in particular) but most of it's match report coverage as far as I can see. Close call though - press coverage in Bradford press over the next few days might just push him to meet the GNG in this case. I'm sure he'll play in August, so worst case is that he gets recreated then. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Article was created because he signed for a big club today. He'll get a game almost certainly. Nom is technically correct, but I don't feel the need to WP:Bite new editors, I'd have seen this and left it. Szzuk (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he has never played in a fully-professional league, failing WP:NFOOTBALL; he also fails WP:GNG, due to lack of "significant" coverage (i.e. nothing more beyond match reports/transfer news. Recreate if/when he makes his pro debut - Saying he definitely will play violates WP:CRYSTAL. Giant Snowman 12:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. He currently fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Recreate if and when he makes his debut. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 18:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep The article was created because he has signed for Bradford City who are a big club and I'm almost certain he'll get an appearance for them. I know officially he isn't considered notable per football bios until he gets an appearance however he is almost certain to and I don't see the point in deleting in the article now just so we can recreate it in August when the season starts again. IJA (talk) 15:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, stating that you think you're "almost certain he'll get an appearance for them" is against WP:CRYSTAL. Thousands of footballers pass through clubs signing professional contracts and never making appearances. --Jimbo^[online] 16:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If and when he makes his professional début, recreating a deleted article is no big deal - it's simply a matter of clicking a few buttons. —BETTIA— ^talk 09:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG due to a lack of significant media coverage beyond the stuff that fails WP:ROUTINE and WP:NTEMP. Recreate if and when he makes his debut for Bradford City (or any other team at a fully-professional level). --Jimbo^[online] 16:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL because he has never played at fully-professional level; having a contract is not enough. No evidence of enough non-routine media coverage to pass WP:GNG. Recreate if and when... Struway2 (talk) 09:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above NFOOTBALL comments and CRYSTAL, coverage is only general. - recreate if and when. --ClubOranje^T 11:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete routine delete, fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG and maybe a bit of WP:CRYSTAL.Liam Taylor 15:18, 19 May 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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

J.L. Ch. Abineno

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

Prod was denied. Article is made up almost entirely of one first-hand source and is poorly written to the point that it would have to be remade anyway. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ?No notability apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ACADEMIC. Appears to be part dust-jacket bio and part summary of the contents of the subject's book. LordVetinari (talk) 10:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete .. please. It's a terrible article, the subject is not notable at all. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 02:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I note that nobody above has made any attempt to address the hundreds of potential sources found by the Google Books search linked in the nomination. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well maybe, but why is there so little in GS and GN? Xxanthippe (talk) 09:47, 19 May 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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miller Beach Arts and Creative District

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

Speedy tag removed by an IP that appears unconnected to the article creator or article subject, so bringing this here. ~~Unreferenced,~~ promotional article for an area that does not demonstrate how it meets notability criteria. No news hits, one possibly reliable source found, though that source only confirms that this district exists and what its planners' aims are. Existence ≠ Notability. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC) edited 17:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC) to strike "unreferenced", as refs were added as I was typing up this nomination. —KuyaBriBri^Talk[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN organization/area. Article written to promote the area. Claim to fame is that a famous author (De Beauvoir) once purportedly lived there. That does not confer notability to the place. Article extensively expanded by COI user of an organization doing promotional work. -- Alexf^(talk) 18:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up: While I applaud the article creator's efforts to improve the article, most of the content that has been added since this AfD was opened speaks to the notability of Miller Beach itself, not this arts district, and some of it might be useful for inclusion in that article. According to the one possibly reliable source I identified in the nomination rationale ([30]), as of 5 May 2011, this district was in the "tentative plans" stage. While including noteworthy events that happened there before the establishment of the arts district are great facts, they don't establish how the arts district has independent notability from Miller Beach or Gary, Indiana. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:21, 13 May 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing in gnews. fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 02:42, 20 May 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flygrossing

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

An aerial training system with no indication of notability - indeed no evidence that it even exists. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability whatsoever. If it takes off (!) it will no doubt get coverage in mainstream sources, and then we can have an article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No mention in reliable third-party sources, only videos and social networking sites. ... discospinster _talk 19:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article does not fail to meet the relevant notability guideline! Coverage include an article in an Estonian Financial newspaper, an article in an Italian newspaper, Innovation Festival in Tallin, just to name a few. References and external links have been added. The fact that the references are in Italian and Estonian does not mean that there is 'no coverage' or that these sources are unreliable! English Wikipedia also accepts references in foreign languages, but only says that if both are available and are of the same value, the English-language ones are preferred. "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, if English sources of equal quality and relevance are available." (Quote from Wikipedia, note the words 'preferred' and 'if'). The sentence does NOT say that sources in a foreign language are unacceptable or unreliable! Also Wikipedia stipulates that the sources must exist, but specifically states that ease of access does not constitute a point in favor or against the case of verifiability. The article was not even on-line for 24h when it was suggested for deletion. It still needs to be improved, not deleted. Discospinster, where did you see 'only videos and social networking sites'?? ... Cleyn _talk 19:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC) — Cleyn (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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The technique/company/whatever you'd call it, is real, but it does not appear to have achieved notability yet. Google News finds just two articles, both from the same source and both from March 2011. Could be recreated in the future if the subject gains wider coverage. --MelanieN (talk) 14:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW joe decker ^{talk to me} 04:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Dave Song

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

Declined prod, a "song" quite literally made up in school one day. 28bytes (talk) 16:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is clear from the contents of the article that the song is not notable (nor does the article creator claim that it is). Should be eligible for speedy deletion, except there is no speedy criterion for this kind of article content. --bonadea contributions talk 16:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Doh5678 Talk 16:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sing along with me from St. Louis to Washington: Delete delete delete one more time delete! I just made that song up. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete frivolous non-sense. The kindergarten teacher must have left the room during nap time.--Hokeman (talk) 18:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this was not declined; the tag was removed by the author.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 19:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Bonadea. However, contrary to the statement above, the PROD was in fact declined, because the article creator removed the PROD tag (and he must have done so intentionally, because he has continued to edit the article). Anyone, even the article creator, has the right to decline a proposed deletion, per WP:CONTESTED. That said, this article obviously does not belong in an encyclopedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Bonadea. This is a useless article that should have been speedy deleted. Were the speedy deletion guys sleeping at the wheel?--tHeMaNe2 Talk 19:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A9 is only for musical recordings in the music branche, not for all songs. "This criterion does not apply to other forms of creative media, products, or any other types of articles. ". Regards.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 21:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no credible claim of notability. On the talk page it says "This is a small little song sang in our school. We will have students edit it later on. We ask that you do not delete it!" so maybe they intend to use this page to help teach the kids to edit Wikipedia, in which case it might be kind to the user to USERFY the page so the kids can edit it there, even though it has no hope of ever surviving in the mainspace. Just a thought. Robman94 (talk) 17:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ...can we please have a CSD criteria for WP:MADEUP ? --Anthem of joy (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 1. This is TECHNICALLY a real song.

2. I guess it's too late anyway. 3. There is no notability CSD so that's off the table. 4. We will have to wait, sadly. I've been staring at this for days, day after day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Themane2 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malls in Chandigarh Capital Region

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

Unreferenced article with no obvious notability Sitush (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are numerous articles for list of malls in other regions also, like List of shopping malls in India, List of shopping malls in the Philippines, List of shopping malls in Canada, List of shopping malls in Toronto, List of largest shopping malls in the United States. So there is consensus that list of malls can be made. I would try to improve the article with references.Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 15:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prominent cities in India have smilliar lists, Chandigarh should be allowed to have one.

Dear Sitush, I would be thankful if you stop personally attacking my articles, I would love if some other admin or user review my articles, instead of you. I hope you will co-operate. Thanks. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 15:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, admins don't have any special powers or abilities really then do other experienced users, except that they enforce the consensus of the community on deletions and blocks. See WP:MOP, Sadads (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maheshkumaryadav, please read other stuff exists. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 16:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of shopping malls in India (or one of its sublists if there is a more appropriate one). Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge with List of shopping malls in India, which I've been looking after for a while. I'd be happy to babysit said section, in its rightful place. No need for this to be standalone. Doesn't server visitors. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom or merge, no proof of notability and unreferenced with no serious attempt at trying to prove verifiability, Sadads (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Show me refs and it can have a home at List of shopping malls in India. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Nom comment - I am content to see this merged as per above comments as I am confident it will be in good hands. Wasn't aware of the Indian list, for which my apologies. - Sitush (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Struck out because the primary proposed list maintainer is now unhappy with the content as it stands - Sitush (talk) 16:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is, quite simply, minutiae of the smallest possible kind. Time to have another talk with this user; he has been really trying the patience of the community at large for the past several days. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 12 May 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:10, 27 May 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, Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as per WP:NOTDIR. these lists do not contain hardly any notable entries so having a list of non notable entities is hardly worth it nor notable. LibStar (talk) 02:42, 7 June 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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mat Hennek

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

Article about a published photographer with no sourcing whatsoever save his own website. The article is written by his management/publicity company, from an IP, and when blocked, continued by an account created for the purpose (as it has not posted to anything else). Flowery promotion text has been removed. Claims exhibits in galleries but links provided are to the galleries themselves, nothing on his contributions, amounting to no more than spamlinks for the galleries. Lots of claims, which only saved him from A7, but self-published material/self-promo does not an article make. Alexf^(talk) 13:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 14:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, unless you count his own web site. I have also searched online and found absolutely not a single independent source giving any significant coverage. Personally I think it does qualify for CSD A7: I don't see any claims of significance, unless you count things like "Mat Hennek also took advertising pictures for major brands", and a list of famous people he has photographed, but notability is not inherited from something notable you photograph. The fact that he has had exhibitions in a number of commercial galleries does not establish notability: that is how artists sell their work, and how the galleries make a living. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above. No objective sources, thus far just persistent attempts by subject's agent to create a promotional page. 99.184.134.27 (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Some of what's above seems over the top. The nomination says: Claims exhibits in galleries but links provided are to the galleries themselves, nothing on his contributions, amounting to no more than spamlinks for the galleries. Well, he now has four "current" exhibitions, according to the article. Three of these aren't actually current by my understanding of the word; they're instead future. As for the fourth, I can't see anything on the gallery's site about the specific exhibition, but this may be because it's in Flash (which my browser doesn't show); the site does have this. (And of the three in the future, one, we're told, is at a Leica gallery. This Leica gallery is in Austria, and I don't know it; but to be exhibited in the Leica galleries I do know is not easy. Of course some of the exhibitions there are duds, as are exhibitions anywhere, but it does suggest that the photographer has "arrived". Although yet again this is an exhibition in the future, and no documentation has yet been proffered.) ¶ Further: The fact that he has had exhibitions in a number of commercial galleries does not establish notability: that is how artists sell their work, and how the galleries make a living. Well, yes, partly. But commercial galleries don't sell photos in the same way that, say, bookstores sell books. The range is much smaller in the former than the latter, and being exhibited commercially is not a negligible achievement. ¶ And so? I'm tending toward deletion, but in the meantime I point out the curious imbalances in this encyclopedia. (Consider: The fact that he has had played soccer in a number of commercial matches does not establish notability: that is how footballers earn their keep, and how professional clubs make a living.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see what you mean. However, what I was trying to convey is that any successful artist is likely to exhibit their work in galleries, so that the fact that one has done so does not in itself indicate any more notability than the general mass of artists, so that we need further evidence of notability. Perhaps I didn't express it very well. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point in the soccer analogy, which I do understand, but after re-reading and thinking it over, I still maintain my original opinion. Thanks. -- Alexf^(talk) 18:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. -- Alexf^(talk) 18:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per the above discussion, the analogy between exhibiting in a commercial gallery and participating at the professional level in sports is an apples/oranges comparison. Being exhibited commercially is not negligible, but it does not establish notability, especially if the exhibitions have not received objective coverage. If such analogies are used, I think a better comparison re: notability would be between an athlete competing professionally and an artist as subject of a museum exhibition--generally, solo exhibitions in those venues take on greater significance. WP:ARTIST is helpful here, and underscores what the article lacks, as well as what neither a Google search nor the agent's edits have yet supplied. (Not to be counted as a separate 'vote'; I'm the same contributor as the above IP). 99.156.68.228 (talk) 21:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being exhibited commercially is not negligible, but it does not establish notability, especially if the exhibitions have not received objective coverage. This is not unreasonable. However: I think a better comparison re: notability would be between an athlete competing professionally and an artist as subject of a museum exhibition--generally, solo exhibitions in those venues take on greater significance. They certainly do have a greater significance, and they are surely enough for "notability". However, in much of the world (e.g. Japan, where I happen to be), they're only staged for people who are already notable -- it's rare to be the subject of a solo museum exhibition if you're under 60, vanishingly rare if you're under 40. And people who are interested must decide to devote thirty minutes and (almost always) some money to the appreciation of work by that single person. Contrast the soccer player, who merely needs to be one of 22 people to whom people direct their attention. -- Hoary (talk) 00:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to jump IPs again--I'm traveling while attempting to retain anonymity. I'm not sure where the artist/athlete comparison is going, but it seems like a side trip. I think Wikipedia too easily includes biographies of professional athletes who don't appear notable based on achievment or reliable sources, but that's a discussion for notability guidelines regarding athletes. As a practicing artist, I can vouch that there are probably hundreds of thousands who, like me, attempt to eke out a living in part by exhibiting commercially--one's notability is not established by virtue of such shows, but by published articles about the artist and their work. 64.222.237.179 (talk) 02:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD A7 Web content with no indication of importance or significance. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

51seer

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

Not clear how this might meet notability guidelines. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. RadioFan (talk) 13:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Article is about a chinese browser-based game. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under criteria A7 - web content with no indication of importance. Marasmusine (talk) 08:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The nominator's concerns have not been successully addressed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shinese

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

Note: I am relisting this so soon after the previous AfD because of the outcome at DRV (Deletion Review, May 2nd).

The sources in the article are as follows; I was unable to find any others that did not have boilerplate mixed-breed text:

Four designer dog registries or lists. Please note that two say that other crosses will be added on breeder request, and one says "All new combinations are welcome to be submitted for review to be included." None of them give any information about the Shinese whatsoever aside from it being a Shih Tzu x Pekingese cross
Two articles that literally mention its name and nothing else
A page on dogster, the sole content being "Shineses are hybrids of Shih Tzu and Pekingese dog breeds." along with random dogs with "Shinese" listed as breed
Dog Breed Info page. This is not a reliable source, but even if that is ignored, the only content is their boilerplate text for mixed-breeds and some user-submitted pictures. Take a look at another, like the Afollie, for evidence
A broken link, archived in the Wayback Machine here. Fails the policy on self-published sources: http://www.mixedbreedpups.com/about/
Finally, we have a slew of books + one website related to Shih Tzu and Pekingese individually. Although a significant outcross to a Pekingese within the Shih Tzu breed may have occurred, it does not mean it has any relevance whatsoever to the current designer dog known as the "Shinese". In the 1940s, a significant outcross to a Newfoundland was made within the Bernese Mountain Dog breed, and I've seen crosses of the two. Does that mean that it's notable in any way, any more than a Dalmatian-English Pointer cross is notable because of a very real health-related outcross? It's significant to the breed in question, undoubtedly, but that does not mean that the modern-day designer dog has anything to do with it. In fact, I have seen no evidence of a relationship whatsoever. I'd be happy to see evidence to the contrary, but nobody has given any so far nor have I been able to find any myself.
Other generalized books relating to dogs or mixed breeds. I have read through most of these myself in the past, and know that they do not cover the Shinese; none of these are used to support specific information about the Shinese itself, which is the article's topic. There is some information about how the two breeds (Shih Tzu and Pekingese) are similar, but this does not cover the Shinese as a (prospective breed)/cross.

Thus, although it has many sources, I would appreciate it if voters (!voters, if you prefer) would look carefully at them to decide whether they actually cover the mixed breed. Like I said above, no evidence has been found by me that indicates a reliable source about the Shinese exists, period. Thanks in advance. – anna 11:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is a nasty habit of Wikipedians saying "it has lots of sources = it is notable = keep". What we need here is a serious debate as to whether the sources are reliable, and even if they are, do they give facts that support the article and allow us to have solid content, or do they just give passing mention? I call on any keep voters to indicate what sources they think the content of this article ought to rest upon. If they can do that, keep. Otherwise we must delete. Closing admin: the question to you is "have the arguments that the nominator has presented been rebutted in the course of the debate?" If they have, keep. If they have not, delete. this nomination is not based on notability but verifiability. --Scott Mac 11:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable hybrid. I really can't see any significant coverage in the sources above which can be termed reliable. --Anthem of joy (talk) 12:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has been kept twice at AFD already and shouldn't have to suffer this triple jeopardy. Crosses between Shih Tzu and Pekingese are quite notable and there are plenty of sources which discuss them in detail. As this is the topic of the article, there is no case for deletion. One might discuss the matter in the article for those breeds but one would then have to repeat the material and so a page for the cross seems reasonable. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The "triple jeopardy" argument is invalid. If you look at the previous nominations, then the specific objections raised here were never debated (indeed there was no debate). The question isn't a procedural one, it is whether the article complies with our core policy of verifiability. The nominator has at length outlined an argument that it doesn't. A keep voter needs to explicitly refute. Vague gesturing at notability and multiple sources are not a reply. Specifically, which sources do you think allow us to create a solid article - and why is the nominator wrong to dispute this. Something AFD has a tendency to one-dimensional thinking, and reduce everything to "notability". The question here is not notability, it is whether sources exist to support and verify a factual article. Any response which doesn't engage with that is simply irrelevant to the debate.--Scott Mac 17:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sources exist; I looked through them last time and was satisfied. A key point to note is our policy that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The topic here is crosses between Shih Tzu and Pekingese. It is abundantly clear such crosses have occurred and are documented in reliable sources; the nominator admits as much. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. Our emphatic deletion policy is that "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.". Editors should therefore please not use AFD as a general purpose tool to resolve content disputes. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, you are misreading this. The topic here is not "crosses between Shih Tzu and Pekingese" the topic is Shinese. The nominator is suggestion that there are, in fact, no reliable sources discussing the Shinese. You disagree. Fine. All I'm asking is which specific source(s), relating to Shinese, you consider to be reliable enough to support an article?--Scott Mac 17:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The issue here is associating two concepts that are unrelated at their core. Here's a true, very similar situation: there is a modern designer dog called the "Bernefie", a Bernese Mountain Dog x Newfoundland cross. It's about as verifiable as the Shinese. In 1948, there was an outcross to a Newfoundland within the Bernese Mountain Dog breed that undoubtedly had some kind of impact on the BMD breed. However, connecting these two events is not entirely logical unless evidence can be found; differences abound between making an outcross to improve one of the parent breeds and crossing two breeds in order to cultivate the resulting mix, especially when considering the amount of time that has passed between the two events. The same can be said of connecting the Shinese to an outcross by Elfreda Evans in the 50s. Shineses lacks reliable sources, which was the whole point of my argument. – anna 17:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument that Shinese are unrelated to crosses of the parent breeds is nonsensical - this is exactly what they are. You just seem to be nit-picking about nomenclature but Wikipedia is not a dictionary and so we are not here to argue about words. The breed name is recognised by the American Canine Hybrid Club and other similar registries. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems nonsensical to connect two things with entirely different histories and intentions (and constitutes "original research"). The burden of proof is on those who want to keep the article by arguing the two are intimately connected -- where does it say so? Superficially, sure, but there's a huge difference: early Peke-Shih Tzu crosses were carefully incorporated back into the Shih Tzu breed, while the Shinese, in the same way as designer dogs generally, is bred specifically as a mixed-breed dog, keeping the 50/50 mix of each parent breed. (According to various reliable sources, most designer dogs are generally bred because they're in vogue, which is another factor that sets the two apart -- the outcross was the exact opposite at the time, so there were other motivations at play.) No historical connection has been pointed to, and a tenuous practical connection. The American Canine Hybrid Club accepts any crosses that are submitted -- how is that an arbiter of anything? "OTHER HYBRIDS WILL BE ADDED AS DEMANDED BY BREEDERS": straight from the horse's mouth.
Here's a non-dog analogy: one person sets fire to a famous house in 1940, for political reasons. This event has no particular name but has some coverage in a few newspapers. Later, in 2003, a delinquent sets fire to the same house for shits and giggles, and the event is dubbed "The Bungalow Burning" by locals and a few blogs, "self-published sources", et al, but no reliable sources give it a mention. Would you argue that both incidents should be dubbed "The Bungalow Burning" within their own Wikipedia article? Does that strike you as misleading? Although one could argue that perhaps the first burning was the reason that The Bungalow Burning occurred, that line of reasoning would be nullified if there were a slew of similar burnings around the same time to different famous houses -- which is, in essence, what designer breeding is (substitute "burnings" for "breedings" and "houses" for "breeds", although that's obvious, I know). It's likely we won't agree on this, but I hope that summarizes it decently. – anna 19:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources provided in the article are not sufficient to demonstrate notability under the WP:GNG. All the same, the basic existence of the breed (at least in terms of meaning something to dog-fanciers) is not in question and the sources in the article do serve to verify that. Is that enough? If this was a species of beetle instead of a breed of dog, there would be no doubt - we do not delete articles on verifiable species, no matter how uninteresting. There is no subject-specific notability guideline for dog breeds, though there was an attempt to establish one some years ago in WikiProject Dogs. Nor is there a precedent in the form of common deletion outcomes. The WikiProject discussion is interesting, because there is a strong suggestion that recognition of the breed by the various major kennel clubs would be a bare-minimum requirement for meeting the proposed notability standard. I checked the databases of the American, Canadian and UK kennel clubs, and none of them list any of the variant names of this breed. So this article doesn't meet the GNG, and probably wouldn't meet the subject-specific guideline either, if it existed, which it doesn't. So in the end, sorry, but there's just no basis for calling this notable. If it was recognized as a mainstream breed, I'd probably be arguing along the lines of inherent notability, but it just isn't, so I just amn't. Delete. Thparkth (talk) 02:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as the author, I apologize for the extensive discussion this has caused, and applaud Anna for her diligence. I have to say that I still kind of feel that even though it didn't have the name "Shinese" during early and modern crossbreeding, it still was in essence a cross between the two, even without the actual modern assigned name. I will continue to look for references offline, I am determined there must be something out there! However, if this ends up being closed as delete, I ask that the closing admin please paste the contents into a sandbox of mine, as I remain hopeful it will one day be inarguably notable. - Theornamentalist (talk) 01:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I said at the DRV, someone typing "Shinese" into Wikipedia's searchbox has probably made a typo for "Chinese" or "Shinies" or something, but it's plausible that they're looking for information on this non-notable kind of designer dog, so there probably ought to be a redirect to List of dog hybrids where shinese are mentioned.—S Marshall T/C 18:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unfortunately until independent reliable references are available, the breed isn't sufficiently notable. I've had dogster and dogbreedinfo thrown out of articles at the GA stage before for being unreliable. Any cross breed registry is only sufficient to list that it is recognized by that registry as often they are pay to register. If it ends up being as popular as a Puggle or a Cockerpoo, then the article can be recreated then. Miyagawa (talk) 18:37, 17 May 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 video game console emulators. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IDeaS

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

Contested prod. Article is about a non-notable software/hack, with no reliable sources provided and none found. TN X Man 11:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is notable software and must not be deleted, regardless of sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.186.162.12 (talk) 14:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no sources out there available, then there is no way to gauge notability; simply saying that it is notable does not make it that way. –MuZemike 21:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 16:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This software seems to be known among the specific group of people who use it[31][32][33] among others which can actually emulate and function. However if we are going to delete it we should probably also look at things like DeSmuME and NO$GBA too. Some Wiki Editor (talk) 21:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-significant coverage suitable for verification:Joystiq, Ars technica. Marasmusine (talk) 12:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the controversial nature and limitations of the software, coverage is mostly limited to websites dedicated to emulation. another problem is that these don't bother with detailed articles because both performance and compatibility (which are the most important features for most people) change very rapidly ndsemulator(outdated)
Redirect to List of video game console emulators, citing those two sources. Special pleading aside, I could not find significant coverage to satisfy notability guidelines. Marasmusine (talk) 18:38, 14 May 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~weak delete~~ redirect the grey market quasi-illegal nature of these programs makes it hard to establish notability, no one is tracking which one is the most popular/best rated/ect. That means that the bar might be lower than otherwise. But even so, GNG is absolute and the sources just don't exist. HominidMachinae (talk) 05:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC). update: on second thought patitomr is right, redirect is more appropriate than deletion here. HominidMachinae (talk) 12:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of video game console emulators, per Marasmusine. It is already included in the dab for "Ideas" - frankieMR (talk) 06:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The scope is discriminate; the fact that the content is underdeveloped is not a reason to delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of snooker players

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

Article is an extensive violation of WP:LINKFARM and has almost no context. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 10:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – No context, no structure no references, no information beyond a list of names. You can get this content by clicking on the snooker player categories. Betty Logan (talk) 11:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perfectly reasonable list - content is limited to professional snooker players which is sufficiently discriminate. We don't get rid of lists simply because we have similar information in a category. It would perhaps be useful here to add nationality, years active, etc. and expand the lede to provide more context - both easily done by editing. WP:LINKFARM is about external links and there are none here, so that's a pretty bizarre rationale for deletion.--Michig (talk) 16:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The second paragraph of says: "Mere collections of internal links", which is applicable for this article. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 18:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:LINKFARM's second bullet does discourage the overuse of internal links, but it also states that navigational lists such as this can be an exception. A little more prose and information on individual players might be enough to overcome the problem. And it's not entirely redundant to the category, as redlinks can't appear there. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please read the whole thing. That paragraph states "Mere collections of internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for lists to assist with article organization and navigation; for these, please follow the guidelines outlined at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lead and selection criteria." (my bold). --Michig (talk) 18:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but greatly clean up. This can stay but it needs to be different from the category somehow, listing redlinks and referencing them rather than it being just an unreferenced list. This is a good starting point. - filelake shoe 16:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clear inclusion criteria for a notable topic. Lists go hand-in-hand with categories, per WP:CLN. AfD is not for cleanup. Lugnuts (talk) 18:05, 12 May 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ammar Aziz

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

Non notable student film maker. Lacks coverage past a single article (first Daily Times link in page) which provides a little coverage of him in relation to a documentary he created which won a non notable school award. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AFD notice removed from the page by 111.68.102.73 duffbeerforme (talk) 15:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, unsourced "controversy" claims. No more notable than during previous AFD. Hairhorn (talk) 16:24, 13 May 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per first AFD and salt as well to prevent re-creation. ArcAngel (talk) ) 03:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He was neither the producer nor the director of the (possibly) notable film Taqwacore mentioned in this article, but just one of many people featured in that documentary. I was unable to find any reliable sources that discuss this person in depth. Cullen328 (talk) 05:56, 19 May 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hemi-Sync

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

Subject is not notable and appears to promote a product, which is not the purpose of Wikipedia. AUN4 (talk) 22:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: 1) There are ample (3rd party) references in the news articles, books and scholar link bar above that demonstrate notability. 2) I have deleted advertising copy from this article before but don't see rampant promotion currently. Article deletion would be complete overkill. I suggest moving whatever individual sentences are deemed promotional to the talk page, where they can be objectified with references or lost as appropriate. K2709 (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1st AfD material:

AfD initiated by 119.12.40.197: "Proposing article for deletion as it presents scientifically unsound information as sound, refers entirely to a commercial product, and references [from? to?] the vendor of that product"

Speedy keep: invalid reasons for deletion.

1) "Scientifically unsound": This isn't a researched viewpoint. Here's a paper from another field that finds it sound for example. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14742401?dopt=AbstractPlus

2) "refers entirely to a commercial product": Untrue. The article mentions only the name of a technology, not one single product. It doesn't even omit competing technologies like Holosync. Besides, even if product names were plastered all over it, that's not grounds for deletion - commercial products such as books, videos and music CDs are entirely valid Wikipedia article subjects.

3) Stating the originator of a technology isn't an AfD matter. If the problem is lack of third party references, the solution is merely to find some. Dig out the 1994 Wall Street Journal article where Kai Sui Fung talks about it for example. K2709 (talk) 13:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 6 May 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, SilkTork *^{Tea time} 09:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not clear about the focus of this article. It appears that hemispheric-synchronised sounds is a viable topic, but this article focuses on the product which uses hemispheric-synchronised sounds. I feel that a change of title to Hemispheric-synchronised sounds, and moving the article to an explanation of the use of hemispheric-synchronised sounds would be of value. I don't think that deleting the article is appropriate, given the scholarly sources - but a rewrite would be appropriate. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 09:46, 12 May 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this relisted? I don't understand.—S Marshall T/C 11:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. Looks like it has clearly received non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Qrsdogg (talk) 01:42, 25 May 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, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Big History Association

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

fails WP:ORG blatantly. created in 2010 yet nothing in gnews [34]. 1 hit in gscholar [35]. LibStar (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Does not lack notability. But maybe there needs to be more information to give evidence of notability to this hospital article. -Porchcrop ^{(talk|contributions)} 08:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE. no demonstration on how WP:ORG is met. LibStar (talk) 08:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Porch, you may want to revisit your recommendation. You can find more information about how to participate in AfD discussions here. In all regards, please take another look at the article, just to make sure we're looking at the same one. This particular article is about an organization whose focus is history, rather than medicine. No hospital here. Cind.amuse 10:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not seem to pass the general notability guidelines. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not established through sourcing. All references (external links) lack independence as primary sources. Cind.amuse 10:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At the moment, subject appears to fail notability requirements. However, considering the nature of the organisition's mandate, I expect that won't always be the case. Could this article somehow be put on ice for a couple of years? LordVetinari (talk) 04:26, 16 May 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, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kannabiran (film)

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

The article fails WP:NFF. The only sources available in GNews are clear that this film is at the "groundwork" stage and is a long way from starting filming. PROD removed so obliged to raise for wider discussion. Fæ (talk) 06:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Fæ (talk) 06:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - The article does not show any evidence of notability yet. But the article says that it is an upcoming movie. So wait until the movie comes out. -Porchcrop ^{(talk|contributions)} 08:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It might be notable some day, so let's keep the article just in case? Cind.amuse 10:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability has not been established in accordance with the general notability guidelines or the criteria for films. Cind.amuse 10:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not yet. Can be recreated if filming begins.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:48, 15 May 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 Starfleet ship registry and classes in Star Trek. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic class starship

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

this Star Trek starship class only ever appeared onscreen once, in one episode, as the USS Pasteur. The other examples of the class are from a book, which a compendium of every starship in Star Trek is listed (official Star Trek product). Onscreen the ships are only mentioned in passing, and the class of those ships are not mentioned. This belongs on Memory Alpha, and is already there, not Wikipedia. 184.144.163.181 (talk) 06:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this spaceship has no real in-universe significance, and there is no third-party coverage in reliable sources to substantiate real-world notability. --Anthem of joy (talk) 07:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment an editor has removed the deletion notice from the article. This seems a violation of deletion policy? 184.144.163.181 (talk) 07:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, I would say yes, but since I didn't check here first, it doesn't apply. So I will be closing this as I have not !voted on the discussion. ArcAngel (talk) ) 08:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restored the AFD, the 1 day discussion on the talk page does not override am AFD discussion here and there was a delete recommendation when this AFD was speedy kept. GB fan (talk) 11:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the in-universe significance of this ship class is absolutely irrelevant to Wikipedia. And this class is covered in the sources given in the article, although I am unsure how these sources would be classified according to WP:THIRDPARTY#How to meet the requirement. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 11:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per comments given at WP:RSN#Do the sources in an article count as third-party sources?. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 12:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - into a broader article on the topic of "Star Trek starship classes" (perhaps List of starships appearing in Star Trek, by class). The fact that the creators of Star Trek invented many different types of starships, and invented "classes" for them is definitely noteworthy ... and wp:notable enough to justify a broad focus article outlining what the different classes were and giving information about them (both "in universe" facts and production/modeling facts) ... but the majority of the individual classes, as separate topics, are not notable enough for stand alone articles. Blueboar (talk) 13:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or as a last resort Merge - Im just going to copy and paste what i wrote last time:

"This article has been here since 2004 without any major problem until now. I see nothing wrong with this article as it is. Yes, its at Memory Alpha...but that doesnt mean we shouldnt have it here. I disagree with it being non-notable, it played a large part in the FINAL episode of an entire series. That enough makes it notable in my personal opinion."
However, as someone seems SO intent on deleting it, i ask at the very least that it is merged with Starfleet ship registry and classes in Star Trek, with much of the detail that it currently contains. Bailo26 23:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Do we have a list of Star Trek ships somewhere on Wikipedia? We have a list of Transformers ships, where we merged all those articles. Trek is at least as notable as Transformers, so we need a list for them. Mathewignash (talk) 01:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If, as it appears, there are 22 (!) claases of starship in the Star Trek continuity, and 21 of them are (so far) uncontroversially notable, no useful purpose is served by treating the 22nd differently. From WP:OSE: In categories of items with a finite number of entries where most are notable, it serves no useful purpose to endlessly argue over the notability of a minority of these items. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; also most of those others have more than one onscreen appearance as more than one ship. The ones that only appear as one ship onscreen, or only have one onscreen appearance should also be deleted. 184.144.163.181 (talk) 04:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Keep. This is a reasonable search term and there should be a mention of this design at List of starship classes in Star Trek at the very least. The notability for a stand alone article is questionable (i.e. I know that I can find sources but they would be of dubious independence) but deletion is not the solution. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep lists three different non-vanity published RS'es. Unless Pocket Books and Simon and Schuster are owned by Paramount Television, they're independent sources. Just because producers of the show wrote the books doesn't make them not independent RS'es. The fact that there's a separate editorial oversight and decision making process ("Will this sell enough to make us a profit?") unrelated to the promotion of the TV show is what counts for independence. Having said that, there's no reason an editorial merge proposal would be inappropriate--it does appear that of the Star Trek ships this one is likely the least notable... but still: this is Star Trek, and published sources abound for everything. Jclemens (talk) 05:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Simon and Schuster owns Pocket Books, *and* they are the license holder for Star Trek books. So, they are *not* independent sources. Pocket Books is the publisher of all those books you seen in the book store in the Science Fiction shelves for Star Trek novels. Clearly S&S is a primary source for Star Trek, being a licensee of official products. 184.144.163.181 (talk) 04:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, holding a license does not make a publisher editorially dependent on anyone else. They decide what they publish, they decide how they're going to try to make money off of it. That's a far cry from the production company's own publications. Jclemens (talk) 05:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - They publish original material, Star Trek novels, therefore, they are a primary source for Star Trek (just as the comics companies are primary sources for Star Trek, since they publish officially sanctioned original stories). The Star Trek Enclopedias etc are the production company's books published by S&S. 184.144.163.181 (talk) 05:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - All three books were published under Paramount's direction and Paramount still regains the copyrights, so they are not independent source. The books were written by Paramount's staff and Simon and Schuster had no editorial control over them. All Simon and Schuster did was print and distribute the books under license. "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject. The authors of the books, Paramount, and Simon and Schuster are all affiliated with Star Trek, therefore they cannot establish notability of fictional elements within Star Trek. —Farix (t | c) 12:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article is well referenced, and the topic shows notability. It is also needed to complete the set. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "complete the set"? Do you mean we should write an article on each and every Star Trek starship class, and then to every starship class in fiction? 184.144.163.181 (talk) 04:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWe could replace every reference to something about StarTrek in Wikipedia with a link to an appropriate page at Memory Alpha, but that would just be petty of us. Notable, sourced, and as relevant as any StarTrekian article could be. I do wish they'd look at and write about other science fiction, but at least they are reading and writing. htom (talk) 21:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Comment' Seeing all the keep !votes here makes me wonder if this AFD was a complete waste of time and WP resources. ArcAngel (talk) ) 22:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The OP has a right to have their arguments for deletion to be heard. Verifying the rough consensus found on the article's talk page by the wider community at AFD is never a waste of time or resources. GB fan (talk) 23:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Sorry, but are any of the sources in this article non-primary? If this article has enough non-primary sources to keep, I want all my deleted Transformers articles back. Mathewignash (talk) 23:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'd call them secondary since they aren't actual cites to the TV show itself which would be the primary source material. They are, however, all or at least mostly to the official secondary materials and thus not really independent. I don't have an informed opinion of the Transformers articles but note that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an argument to avoid because similarly situated articles are not necessarily identically situated. On the other hand, certain very popular fandoms do sometimes seem to get a pass do to lots of fans voting keep at AfD. There isn't much that can be done about it, but if we do want to equalize treatment of say Star Trek and Transformers (an another pair of similarly situated areas) I'd "vote" to equalize up rather than down. We need better sources than DVD screen captures and action figure packaging but where we can get them we can and probably should have articles. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment, well recently we had a rash of anti-Transformers deletion nominations where several editors insisted that guide books and the like were primary, so they deleted article after article. I guess they wanted to see a Transformers guest host on Johnny Carson or something to consider him notable. It was rather overboard on the proof requirements. An article cited like this Trek one would have been deleted QUICKLY. Mathewignash (talk) 10:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is nothing to imply significant coverage from any reliable secondary source. Mentions in dedicated Star Trek compendiums are not this. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 11:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I remember the starship Pasteur, commanded by Captain Beverly Picard the alternate universe created by Q. It was a notable episode for her.14:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Delete The subject has not received significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to pass WP:NOTE. The Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion, The Star Trek Encyclopedia, and Star Trek Chronology are officially licensed books and therefore primary sources. In fact, the copyright page of all three books state that the copyright is owned by Paramount Pictures. Secondly, mentions of the Olympic class are very brief. The other references also doesn't provide any significant coverage and most of them are likewise owned by Paramount Pictures. —Farix (t | c) 18:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note I don't think any one exsept Paramount have the coppy wright, so it (like the rest) will have littel other sources. Sir Patrick Moore can't help either since his telliscope is too weak!82.14.52.155 (talk) 15:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no coverage in reliable sources independent on the subject (which precisely excludes any work affiliated in any way with the Star Trek franchise), so the subject is not notable.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' merchandise sold by licensed business partners does not WP:verify notability because business partners are not independent under the general notability guideline. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:04, 18 May 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) 00:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toni Datkovic

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

Junior footballer who currently fails WP:ATHLETE, initially prodded but immediately removed by author. (This is first listing as previous attempts failed to be listed in daily logs for unknown reason.) Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 05:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as he doesn't appear to have played at the requisite level yet - unless there is clear notability. The sources shown seem to mention him only in team lists rather than in any form of clearly notable format. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't know anything Croatian football, but from what I know about Wikipedia notability guidelines, it appears that Blue Square Thingis quite right. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 14:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hmm there are three guys named Datković at Rijeka at the moment, two of which were born in 1993 (Niko and Toni). Niko had four appearances for the club in Croatian top level but Toni had none. Toni might have his debut in the 2011/12 season but currently fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Timbouctou (talk) 15:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 18:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. LibStar (talk) 07:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lars Slagsvold

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

fails WP:BIO. admitted he died 50 years ago but gnews seems to mentions namesakes. he gets passing mentions in gbooks [36]. but including LLC books we use Wikipedia as a source. LibStar (talk) 05:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are articles about him both in Store norske leksikon (linked directly from Wikipedia) and in Norsk biografisk leksikon (linked as an "in-depth" source from the SNL article). The NBL article has a list of further sources. --Hegvald (talk) 11:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, this time a subject with entries in at least two paper encyclopedias, as currently shown. That "we use Wikipedia as a source" is positively wrong. Geschichte (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

see Books LLC. LibStar (talk) 00:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: cited bios, roles and honours seem sufficient to me to indicate notability. By the by - LLC books like that mentioned in the google book search above are often I think just assembled from wikipedia articles. Eg this [Norwegian School of Veterinary Science Faculty] is I think just a collection of our articles but our article doesn't reference that so no need for us to worry here. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 21:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Keep as above. Entries in two paper directories suffice. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, who are we to tell the printed encyclopedias that valid articles can't be written about one of their subjects? Nyttend (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Pavkovich

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

Non-notable minor league baseball player. As far as I can conjecture, he is not playing anymore. References are lacking. Alex (talk) 05:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't pass WP:BASEBALL/N and, although he gets a few hits in the google news archive, they are fairly routine and not the significant coverage that is required by the WP:GNG. Jenks24 (talk) 10:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination.--Yankees10 23:46, 17 May 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario Bros. X

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

Dubious notability. Sources are all tagged as unreliable and/or dead. I found nothing reliable at all, nor any sort of notability beyond unsourced wank about an alleged copyright scuffle with Nintendo. The tone of the article is very fancrufty and informal, and I'm just not seeing anything that makes it truly notable, nor am I seeing any reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:16, 12 May 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) 16:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per Nom. I tried cleaning it up once in the past, as it was once much worse, with all these comments about how messageboard members and fans reacted to the game. In the end, it's not worth saving though. Sergecross73 msg me 18:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My prod was deleted and the talk discussion has not convinced me. « ₣M₣ » 18:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Delete per above. Andrevan@ 06:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As above, the short Joystiq piece is all I could find. However, this at least verifies it, so we can optionally redirect to Super Mario Bros. and mention in the "legacy" section. Marasmusine (talk) 10:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I beg to differ, if Nintendo cares enough to sic their lawyers on the creator of SMBX, doesn't that make this game notable in its own right? In other words, Nintendo sees this game as problematic, yet doesn't sue over Mother 3? Just my 2 cents I guess. Like all good articles, it needs love, and perhaps needs to be looked at a point of view that isn't a fan's point of view, that way anyone can understand what SMBX is all about. 67.150.84.254 (talk) 04:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC) — 67.150.84.254 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please read WP:GNG. It's possible to have a lawsuit filed against you but not be notable yourself. Also as I said, there's absolutely nothing that verifies that Nintendo even filed a lawsuit in the first place, so using it as a defense for notability is moot. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:22, 17 May 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Less Narrow" Banking

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/"Less Narrow" Banking

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

Proposed economic system posted on some blog. No third-party references or evidence of notability. (The article claims that the idea is being discussed among American economists; it gives no reference for that.) Delete. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also proposed for deletion by Cindamuse (talk · contribs): "Original research; theory based on a blog". Previously speedily deleted by me as "Less Narrow" Narrow Banking. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was well-written. Is not a problem to me and should not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.165.173.71 (talk) 01:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dang edit conflict. As stated above, I recommend deletion of the article based on original research presented in a blog. Cind.amuse 05:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a blog, nor is it a soap box for one's ideas. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable but also disqualified on many other other grounds as noted above. There have been countless thousands of reports, articles, essays, letters, discussions, blogs etc on the topic of banking regulation stretching back centuries. None of the particular ideas here are original and it is improbable that the combination is either. The guidelines exist precisely to determine which should be in Wikipedia and how they should be covered. --AJHingston (talk) 10:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Against deletion- the idea has been going around the internet and at this point is more than just a blog entry. The ideas are all original content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nxt1 (talk • contribs) 17 May 2011

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all (procedural). Consensus is that this AfD is trying to cover too wide a range of schools, which are distinct entities and should be evaluated by their own merits. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jack and Jill School

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

Non-notable elemetary and pre-elementary schools in the Philippines. Most of them contain promotional stuff and glorious statements. Many are poorly formatted, and tagged accordingly. ~~They are 53 in all.~~ Moray An Par (talk) 04:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Count is down to 32. Moray An Par (talk) 13:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mangagoy Free Beneficial Pre-school (MFBP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
EMD Carmelite School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) No indication
Our Lady of Hope Parochial School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Thompson Christian School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
St. Bridget School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) No indication
The Palmridge School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
St. Albert the Great School (Dagupan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Santo Nino of Lower Bicutan School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) No indication
Saint-Sebastien Elementary school (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
St. Peter Chanel School of Cavite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) No indication
Papaya Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Solo Elementary School (Mabini, Batangas) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Francisco Balagtas Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
San Pablo Central School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sekolah Santa Maria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) No indication
Sun Hwa (Filipino school) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
PAREF Northfield School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Aldersgate Christian School of Pampanga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Canaman Central School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kubota Japanese School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) No indication
Immaculate Conception Cathedral School, Cubao, Quezon City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
La Verne Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mandaue City Central School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bagabag Child Development Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Apalit Christian Ecumenical School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dadiangas West Central Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Felipe G. Calderon Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jose Zurbito Sr. Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cesar M. Cabahug Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Communal Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Immaculate Conception School for Boys (Malolos, Philippines) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) No indication

~~JCCMI Christian Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)~~ High Sch

~~Bannister Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)~~ has Grade 8, will reach Grade 12 in 2015

~~Bohol Wisdom School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)~~ Teacher training college

~~Bacolod Christian College of Negros (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)~~ High Sch

~~Academe of St. Jude Thaddeus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)~~ No indication

~~Don Carlo Cavina School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)~~ High Sch: ...1997 –1998, the school opened its High School Department.

~~Mandaue City School for the Arts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)~~ High Sch

~~Manila Waldorf School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)~~ High Sch

~~Saint Vincent of Quebiawan Integrated School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)~~ High Sch: according to the Bureau of Secondary Education

~~La Salette of Roxas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)~~ High Sch

~~Great Christian Academy, Paranaque (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)~~ High Sch

~~Gabriel Taborin Technical School Foundation, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)~~ poss. High Sch

~~Hillcrest Heights Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)~~ poss. High Sch

~~PAREF Westbridge School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)~~ poss. Jun. High

~~Tagbilaran Accelerated Christian School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)~~ High Sch

~~Don Bosco Academy, Pampanga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)~~ High Sch: according to alumni reports and photos, since at least 1963.

~~Benito Soliven Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)~~ High Sch

~~St. Paul American Christian School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)~~ High Sch

~~San Vicente Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)~~ poss. High Sch

~~Our Lady of the Most Holy Rosary Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)~~ High Sch

~~San Isidro Catholic School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)~~ High Sch

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Moray An Par (talk) 04:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Moray An Par (talk) 04:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get a bot to notify all major contributors of the articles being considered for deletion. They're quite many. I've done the trouble of substituting {{afd1}} in all the articles but I've stopped notifying major contributors at the eighth article. I got tired. Moray An Par (talk) 05:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per usual for non-notable elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 05:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep all this is too many to nominate in one shot, and the first four I checked Bohol Wisdom School, Bannister Academy and Bacolod Christian College of Negros had high school components and so should be kept by established practice. Academe of St. Jude Thaddeus also seems to be beyond elementary. They are not so promotional that some eidting would not fix. So I would suggest that Moray An Par goes back and checks more carefully which ones are elementary only and then strikes the others off the list to withdrawn them from this nomination. In fact they shoould all be withdrawn if proper notification does not take place. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and nominate each school that is non-notable separately. ~~Keep~~ at least all of the high schools, per WP:NHS and also per the general argument given by Jimbo Wales with specific reference to high school articles as an example. Also this list is too long. Each school's article should be given individual consideration, because the justifications will be different. I suggest that you begin by removing the high schools. --EPadmirateur (talk) 06:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Treat each school separately. There is no way to resolve this issue otherwise. A blanket delete like this just will not work. --EPadmirateur (talk) 23:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per usual for non-notable elementary; middle, and junior high schools. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep any high schools on the list, which should then be listed at WP:WPSCH#E for further treatment. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PROD per WP:ORG any schools left that clearly provide no indication as to what kind of school they are, have no website, and can't be traced for sources. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sorry I wasn't aware that some schools nominated contained high school components. They've must have slipped my eyes for some reason. I'll withdraw those with high school divisions. Sorry for the inconvenience. Moray An Par (talk) 12:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've now spent a staggering 2 hours going through this list to annotate what the schools are. (Many of them don't even say). Those without a comment are primary/elementary schools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to have consumed your time. I've withdrawn all those with high school components. As for those that were marked as a high school or a possible high school that have not been withdrawn, can you please present your sources that indicate that they are high schools? Moray An Par (talk) 13:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I do feel that where you are in the Philippines, what I was able to do, you could have done too, and perhaps more easily. It is research you ought to have done before listing them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update All major contributors of the nominated articles ~~(except those annotated as high schools and still not withdrawn)~~ have been informed. Moray An Par (talk) 13:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am wholly in favor of deleting non notable schools, but I don't have the time to go through a list this long. I can't in good conscience ever give a nod for delete unless I have a chance to really look at an article and make some decisions ... this is just too much all at once. LonelyBeacon (talk) 13:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will divide my vote into three parts, precisely because this vote is complicated by the fact that several schools are on this AfD, and several of the schools listed are private schools (not public ones, which complicates the redirect process should that be successful)
- Keep and clean up all public elementary schools as these should be automatically notable. Given that only Congress has the power to establish public schools in the Philippines by virtue of its law-making powers, these schools should automatically be notable, the same way public high schools are.
- Keep and clean up all private schools with high school components as these should also be notable per the precedents surrounding the notability of high schools. One of the private schools not stricken off the AfD per Moray An Par's withdrawal of nomination for schools with high schools is the Immaculate Conception School for Boys (Malolos, Philippines), which has a high school component (proof: one of my classmates in the Ateneo is from ICSB).
- Neutral but clean up all other schools since I haven't been able to give a lot of thought into them as to whether or not they should be deleted. I will probably release judgement on this later. However, I can say that if poor writing quality was such a problem, why take the effort to proceed with AfD when cleaning up the articles themselves would probably be more practical. I don't buy the argument that just because the articles are written poorly, praise and all, it becomes indicative of their non-notability and they should automatically be deleted. I really believe more thought should have been put into this AfD. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 22:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - mass nominations are wholly inappropriate for schools which merit individual consideration. If the nominator brings these back singly, then he needs to provide a specific rationale for each nomination. TerriersFan (talk) 23:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all elementary schools To their locality or school district, which is the de facto standard for dealing with elementary or middle school articles. Keep all public high school articles, which is also a de facto notability guideline. Public schools (elementary or middle) with a high school should be kept. Edison (talk) 04:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is that the majority of the schools listed in the AfD are not public schools, but private schools. Only a handful of schools listed here are public. So what about those schools? --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 05:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Schools are schools whether public, non-profit (such as these), or even blatant commercial undertakings. The policies, guidelines, essays, and precedents, AFAIK, do not differentiate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Private parochial and "home" schools must be examined to make sure they are equivalent to public high schools. A "high school" with just a few students is not as deserving of a presumption of notability as a public high school with hundreds of students which has been around for many decades. Edison (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable schools. Keb25 (talk) 07:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - really? Please explain for each school what searches you have carried out for sources. TerriersFan (talk) 15:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thompson Christian School, which had references at the time of nomination showing that it is a high school. As for the rest, just close this discussion without prejudice to future individual nomination. There's no way that a single discussion about so many schools can come to a sensible conclusion, especially when the nominator has made no effort to establish what type of schools they are. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:09, 18 May 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of Tom Cruise's films

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

OR and possibly SYNTH. 'delete - UtherSRG (talk) 03:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC) UtherSRG (talk) 03:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. We have articles on every movie mentioned in the article. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SYNTH, at least at the moment. I would recommend the author look at TVTropes. Kyle Barbour 04:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tom Cruise. Doesn't seem like original research and original synthesis if you look at the sources. Most of the info is paraphrased from Roger Ebert's work, so we can't pass it off as nonsense. - Yk³ talk · contrib 04:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly some of the information is salvageable. This is a good idea if limited to only fully citable claims and not broader statements about the existence of this theory. Kyle Barbour 04:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SYNTH. Moray An Par (talk) 05:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - original essay. Carrite (talk) 05:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure original research and synthesis. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I believe information should be merged rather than deleted; in order to retain some of the salvageable bits of wisdom found in this article. GVnayR (talk) 14:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a very close paraphrase of this source it cites, so I can't agree OR is quite the issue here. A larger issue in my mind is copyright violation concerns, as the paraphrasing of the source is minor; most of the text appears byte-for-byte identically in both, with this article moving some information around, rewording some sentences, and cutting large amounts of text. While the tone of the article is that of an essay, rather than an encyclopedia article, it is for copyright reasons that we must delete. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 17:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to copyright issues, it's based on only a single review of Ebert's, so not worth merging to Tom Cruise. There is already mention there that should be edited as it suggests this is a widely held idea. Jeffwimbush (talk) 00:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lifebaka and Jeffwimbush. Among the other problems with this article is that it is about 20 years out of date; while the analysis described in the article can be applied to a few of Cruise's films, it would be difficult to apply it to, say, Eyes Wide Shut or Collateral. While changing the title to Analysis of a few of Tom Cruise's films would make it more accurate, it would also illustrate why the subject is not really meant to be the topic of an encyclopedia article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears to be mostly random musings violating SYNTH and OR. -- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. Some detail I missed. WP:TROUT. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain Youth School (North Carolina)

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

Alternative school. Nothing special about it. A redirect to the school district was reverted by the creator, who took the trouble of notifying me. Delete and redirect per WP:MILL, per WP:SCHOOL, and per countless AfD precedents. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't precedent currently that high school level schools are inherently notable? Kevin (talk) 03:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah! Sorry about that! WP:TROUT. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Kevin. That was the assumption I was operating under. I could list a thousand schools (or more) that are just as notable or less than Mountain Youth Center. Ncboy2010 (talk) 03:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to point out that this article says "Our normal practice is to retain articles on high schools." Ncboy2010 (talk) 04:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:CSD#G5. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Ter Horst

AfDs for this article:

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability criteria. Damiens.rf 01:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not a Playmate, but a model who's appeared in various less prominent Playboy publications; most such models are clearly non-notable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 14:21, 4 May 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) 01:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable of her own right, just being a model is not enough. No reliable sources unrelated to Playboy either. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:42, 5 May 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) 01:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [37]. Monty ₈₄₅ 03:21, 14 May 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 Pretzel Logic. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Freak

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject is non-notable. "Charlie Freak" is no more well-known than any of the dozens of other songs in Steely Dan's recorded output. Furthermore, though the article has been in existence for over five years, it has no true content. The first paragraph consists of info from Pretzel Logic, and the second paragraph simply summarizes the song's lyrics. I reviewed the article's history for possible vandalism but found nothing. It never had any real content, and given the song's lack of notability, it is unlikely that it ever will, due to lack of mentions in third party sources. Martin IIIa (talk) 02:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pretzel Logic. This song article is just fan trivia about the lyrics, and non-encyclopedic. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:47, 10 May 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) 01:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pretzel Logic. The nom makes all the relevant points. The song does not appear to pass muster at WP:NSONG. Googling the song reveals the usual assortment of lyric sites and Youtube videos. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 03:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pretzel Logic as is the standard for non-notable songs. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I hadn't realized that merging was the standard for non-notable songs. Thanks for mentioning that. Now if I find any other articles like this, I'll know to take them to a merger discussion instead.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:13, 15 May 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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Slack

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

Non-notable child actor, article reads like a promotion. "He has appeared in a Lego advert", for example. Having done a google search I can't find any reliable third-party sources for him, sure he's appeared in a BBC tv series, but apart from that he isn't a public figure. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 8:28pm • 10:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet notability guidelines Johnclean184 (talk) 12:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a child actor who appeared in a recurring role on a major BBC show, Grange Hill. Bearian (talk) 20:20, 3 May 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} 14:41, 5 May 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, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The actor notability guidelines look for significant roles in multiple television shows, films, etc. I imagine a recurring role in one major television show clears the "significant" hurdle, but there's little evidence that he's clearing the "multiple" hurdle and, given the lack of additional reliable sourcing, I think this is a delete, perhaps a bit on the too soon side. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 03:17, 12 May 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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DKB Group

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

No references and a Google search for the term DKB Group or Dai-Ichi Kangyo Group turns up nothing. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 14:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Undecided. This article is about a keiretsu, apparently a Japanese conglomerate business. The article claims it is the largest, but the keiretsu article claims Toyota is the largest. I do find two incidental mentions of this business in The Economist stories.[38][39]. According to the second story this one is now part of a group called Mizuho; see if that fetches anything. I find it difficult to imagine that a conglomerate of such apparent size and importance has so few sources. I can't search in Japanese or interpret Japanese results, which may be where the paydirt lies. Vagaries of transliteration or translation may also mean that it's better known as something else in English. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article Dai-Ichi Kangyo Bank is much better formed. We also have Mizuho Financial Group. Perhaps this should redirect to one of those. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A quick scan of the first few results from this Google Books search shows obvious notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:08, 6 May 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) 01:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Phil Bridger's GBooks search is very compelling, even given the existence of an article on the Dai-Ichi Kangyo Bank. The conglomerate group covered by this article appears to be notable independent of the bank, based on the GBooks results. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 03:21, 12 May 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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Veronica Jett

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO, no indication the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other SNG. No nontrivial GNews or GBooks hits. No multiple-year award noms, no awards. No reliable/nonpromotional sourcing. The music video appearance is trivial and appears to have no secondary source coverage; she appears in three brief (1-2 second) shots, in one of which her face is obscured. The referenced AVN article grossly overstates her role and is based only on her own self-promotional comments. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 6 May 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, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced porn cruft. Several nominations, no awards, as if the awards have any significance whatsoever... Carrite (talk) 23:38, 12 May 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 - spam. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OverDrive Supplement

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

Non-notable product lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. ttonyb (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contesting Deletion I would argue that this supplement is notable because of it's novelty. The product is one of the only non-prescription 'nootropic' drugs legally available on the UK market. (I can get the ingredients up if you think that's appropriate, but I thought that might be a CoI, I wanted to make an informational page about the product without it being a CoI, in other words, I'm trying not to make this into an advert or product placement or anything of the sort, any suggestions to reinforce that would be appreciated). I also think it is a matter of interest when products are aimed at the young. Admittedly it does not have many GHits, but I predict that it soon will. If this means it is worth deleting and recreating when this is the case then I understand, but to me that seems a waste of energy. Charlesmacnamara (talk) 18:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 6 May 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, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Novelty cannot establish WP:Notability. Kevin (talk) 04:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. This page currently exists only to promote a product, and would require a top to bottom rewrite to become an encyclopedia article rather than an advertisement. So tagging: a brand of supplement sold in the UK, aimed specifically at student athletes. It is a neural and cognitive support supplement, marketed as a neural accelerator. It is notable due to its novelty, acting as one of the only legal non-prescription nootropic drugs in the UK market. This represents a large change in government legislation, allowing certain previously banned substances to enter the marketplace as a result of clinical trials showing their efficacy and benefits. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I will contest deletion no further. Charlesmacnamara (talk) 17:34, 12 May 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interactive Pager Backup

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

Insignificant, non-notable file format type. Wikipedia is not a collection of miscellaneous information. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 6 May 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) 01:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be Non-Notable Bailo26 23:20, 14 May 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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Triple Accounting

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

This appears to be a neologism of uncertain notability, added as part of several edits by the same individual to highlight the work of one particular individual (Michel de Kemmeter). Ckatz^chat _spy 18:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ckatz, don't know if I'm doing right commenting here, but here I go asking your advice, as at first was marked as requiring linking to the article. The individual is a writer in Economics and Human Development in Belgium and had one of his books as best seller in the country (as a matter of notability). Actually the subject of the article is being worked with companies, but as well with the Belgium government for assessment of human knowledge to multiple puporses, like for the development of the Jobs of Tomorrow for older people in part of new's Economy paradigm. Some considerations on improvements to make it work? Brunogiacomelli (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I met the guy a couple of time, in different conference, The UHDR.net Network is not one man project, there are many persons connected to it. I believe here (in Belgium) the concept of intangible assets and liabilities is getting more and more visibility. Triple accounting is a nice concept and tool being used by more and more companies. I know there have few article published and a Ted talk. I will try to find out some links and more references. Olivier C (talk) 12:04, 11 May 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) 01:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a research and concept in accounting in research .... that aims to add Emotional Balance and Knowledge Balance to traditional balance sheets in business, enabling wider view of value in companies. Does this mean that I can go to a bank and ask for a loan, and put up my emotional well-being as collateral? This would appear to be original research and a non-notable neologism. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:50, 12 May 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paper Rival

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

Non-notable per WP:BAND. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Mr. Credible (talk) 19:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Mr. Credible (talk) 19:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Using popular search engine Google found these: Allmusic bio, Phillyist, The Tennessean: [40], [41], Nashville Scene, The City Paper, Boston Globe, PopMatters. Enough there to satisfy WP:GNG and criterion 1 of WP:BAND.--Michig (talk) 20:18, 5 May 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) 01:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have sourced the article using some of Michig's finds, meets WP:BAND. --sparkl_!sm ^hey! 12:32, 16 May 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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boosterthon Fun Run

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

Artice about some fundraising event which does not indicate importance of the subject. Also is wrriten like an ad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Username1234567891011 (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 6 May 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) 01:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To honor the Republic of Macedonia --MoonLichen (talk) 02:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Delete: not notable, per nom. --みんな空の下 (トーク | I wanna chAngE!) 03:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass the general notability guidelines. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Gnews merely confirms it occurs but no indepth coverage about the event itself. LibStar (talk) 12:39, 13 May 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.