Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 September 10

< 9 September	11 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Saturn (Dan Dare)

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

A non notable comic story without reliable or sufficent souces per WP:RS or sufficent evidence why its notable per WP:NOTE. Therefore it should be deleted. Dwanyewest (talk) 22:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is no evidence that shows that the story meets the general notability guideline. Jfgslo (talk) 15:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 16:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of decision software

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

A list with external links only. No evidence of notability. Possibly spam for one supplier. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#PROMO, pure spam.--70.80.234.163 (talk) 16:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 23:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as above; no reliable sources; linkfarm of spam external links. Dialectric (talk) 16:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the general notability guideline. Dzlife (talk) 13:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. causa sui (talk) 17:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edin Selimović

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

Article was orignially taged for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G4, but was declined as Novi Pazar were promotted into a fully pro league since the last afd. Important here is that the players in question have not played for Novi Pazar in the SuperLiga and therefore still fail WP:NSPORT. In terms of general notability nothing has changed since the last afd either. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for deletion for the same reason.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. According to the terrible and totally useless Superliga website, none of these players have actually played for Novi Pazar yet, or for any other team in a fully professional league, thus failing WP:NFOOTY. They all pretty much fail WP:GNG as well. (and something off-topic – Novi Pazar are doing awfully in the Superliga, poor guys haven't even scored yet...) Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 05:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Which exact website are you refering to? The official one? No one uses that website for anything, as even the licenced players for this season lists are incomplete, only the match reports are usefull, but they are anyway counted in utakmica.rs website, and for all historic data for each players you can use srbijafudbal.net which btw still didn´t updated this season squads totally. Anyway, if you find any difficulties in any of these websites, for SuperLiga and First League you can easily use Transfermarkt or Soccerway which have followed quite well the league appereances for the current and the last couple of seasons. FkpCascais (talk) 23:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, i was talking about the official one [1], so amateur and difficult to navigate to... And since i'm used to looking firstly at official league websites to find statistics, i was baffled. Utakmica looks so much better. Thanks a lot for your feedback on other websites, perhaps i should trust sites like Soccerway more, lol. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 05:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - All of them, Utakmica, Soccerway and Transfermarkt, have been quite precise with league appereances and goals, the only thing they get wrong is that they fail to remove former players from squads staying listed for some time while already gone, but they are often unclear situations of players on trials, or on loan somewhere. Also, sometimes they miss to add some less important players in squad lists, but that situation is anyway corrected at the time they make their first appereance for the club. I follow Serbian football, so if you need help anytime please feel free to poke me. Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 18:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - they have still been unused substitutes this season and they never played in pro league before. They are more a product of an enthusiastic club fan who keeps making all Novi Pazar players articles without being capable of understanding notability, despite having been already pointed out and explained to him in 2 languages already... If they come to play a match this season, we´ll easily restore them. FkpCascais (talk) 23:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Still fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Two accounts called Ludanoc now, I see, how delightful. Argyle 4 Life^talk 22:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Müller (footballer born 1991)

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

Plays in the third level of football in Germany. That may meet the bare minimun for notability, as the German 3rd_Liga is listed as fully professional at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. Yet I note it is the third level. One is not notable only for being a "professional something" ("professional baker", "professional cook") and third level national league is not notable, even if professional - note that the German Football Association official website highlights 1st and 2nd level (men), 1st level (women), Cup (men), Cup (women), and the League Cup (men)[extinct competition. That is, DFB itself seems to assume 3rd_Liga as not that much notable. And David Müller is not otherwise notable, in the WP sense. - Nabla (talk) 22:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification:The above refers to the english version of DFB's website. The german version has 3.Liga, as it has just about every level. - Nabla (talk) 10:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep If you want to delete this article you will have to change notability guidelines first. This would cause the deletion of thousands of articles. Football League Two is the English fourth division. But their players are also notable. By the way I consider the German 3rd League is more prosfessional than Egyptian Premier League. Obviously the German 3rd League is fully professional. [2] Important Sport magazines like Kicker (sports magazine) review the performance of every player of every game of the German 3rd League. [3] --Yoda1893 (talk) 12:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional Comment [4] In this source German Football Association explains that the German 3rd League has higher revenues and more TV appearances than any other third soccer division. --Yoda1893 (talk) 13:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point of 'strong' comments/keep/delete? Shouting makes any kind of stronger point?

The site used as reference also says :«And it is not an unbiased review either, since I'm writing from the perspective of a fan. If you don't like it, don't read it.» (main page) and «I make no claims as to the accuracy of the information on this site» (about). Actually it is a very good site, but is is just as it says: a unreliable fan site.

The Kikers site you pointed also covers amateur liga. Should we then write about every team and player there?

Should we write about every professional working for fully professional organizations as Wal Mart? Shell? Exxon? They are part of something way larger than the German 3rd level footbal.

- Nabla (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the website of Kicker (sports magazine) are not detailed match reports about matches of the German fourth division (Regionalliga). But kicker.de and other sports magazines review the performance of every single player of every single game of the German 3rd League. Even like the website of the German Football Association presents match reports for every match of the German 3rd League. [5] By the way I used the word strong because David Müller obviously meets the notability guidelines and because this here is the wrong place for comparisons of fully professional athletes with employees of business enterprises. I consider that the salaries of the German 3rd league are higher as the salaries of the Portuguese second division and I also consider that the audience numbers are higher. This comparison makes more sense. --Yoda1893 (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now I have checked it. The numbers speak for themselves. [6] (second Portuguese divsion) [7] (German 3rd League) --Yoda1893 (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I might agree that that playing at the Portuguese Second division is even less of a hint for notability than playing at the German 3rd division. I would clearly vote delete on any player from it (if that would be the only reason). They are both not inherently notable. But I miss the point of the comparison... That there are other things even less notable does not make one thing notable. - Why compare paid worked at XXX with paid workers at YYY? One criterion for having this player is that he is a paid professional for a fully professional organization. I'm simply pointing by means of example that such argument, per se, is a extremely weak one: most of the adult world population is or was a paid professional for a professional organization. Yet most of the adult world population is not (WP-)notable. And I doubt you want to add wage as a major criterion. (It may hint, yes) I do accept the individual performance review as a good hint, better than I thought there would be (I regularly use DFB's site, but only the english version). But I still think he is not (WP-)notable. Oh!, thank you for discussing politely, it is often not possible in here. Tks. - Nabla (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that players of the second Portuguese Division are (just like players of the German 3rd League or the English and Italian fourth division) notable according to the notability guidelines of the English (and also German) Wikipedia. There are thousands of articles about players of this leagues. If you want to change the notability guidelines this is surely not the right place. In my opinion a singer who was one time in his life on chart position 99 with his single is not notable. But the notability guidelines say that he is notable. --Yoda1893 (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Yoda1893 (talk) 13:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The third level in Germany is a notable league, as has been demonstrated by Yoda's posts. Eldumpo (talk) 14:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mr Müller has played for a fully professional league, thus satisfying WP:NFOOTY. End. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 14:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he has played in a fully pro league, and therefore passes WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete (no sources) - If he has played in the German third league this article should be kept. But as there are currently no sources to confirm this I have to say delete. Adam4267 (talk) 17:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article now has references which show he has played (and scored) in the league. This means he meets WP:NFOOTY. Adam4267 (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just take a look at the external links: [8] [9] --Yoda1893 (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nominator admits that this player meets existing notability criteria; smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Giant Snowman 18:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline says that it will «*generally* be regarded as notable» (my emphasys). My point is that in this case - plays at 3rd level, and not notable otherwise - it does not fit in the general case. That is, the nomination is entirely within the guideline. Please, assume good faith. - Nabla (talk) 20:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Generally means here obviously that a player who did not play in a fully professional league can also be notable if there are other reasons for notability and that a player who played in a fully professional league is definitely ( = generally) notable. I do not assume bad faith. But in this way the guideline was ever interpreted. --Yoda1893 (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Generally means "more often than not", "mostly", etc. (see: "generaly" at wordnetweb). That is quite different from definitely. I am aware that there are other similar articles around, I said so to begin with. As I see it, they are also not notable. - Nabla (talk) 21:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC) PS: I am also aware that it has been interpreted in the sense you say. I am arguing that it is too broad a interpretation. Actually I said so since the first line I wrote.[reply]
    - Generally can also mean (according to your link) without distinction of one from others. In this sentence it means according to the common interpretation that players of fully professional leagues are unattached of details definitely notable. The following sentence is: "A player who [...] has not played in any games [...] is therefore not generally regarded as being notable." In this context generally obviously does not mean mostly. By the way notability guidelines would not really make sense if they would not be clear criterias. --Yoda1893 (talk) 23:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I am sorry, but I could not understand a thing you are saying. (A german (?) and a portugueses talking in english... something got lost somewhere...). Anyway, thanks, it is clear we will not change our minds for now, and that our opinions are different. - Nabla (talk) 06:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep footballer has played at a fully-professional level, thus passing WP:NFOOTBALL. --Jimbo^[online] 18:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - fulfills ground rules Agathoclea (talk) 19:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has played at a notable level. Argyle 4 Life^talk 22:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Played at pro level thus passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Bacon and the Sandwich (talk) 12:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Whether the notability could be perceived the "bare-minimum" (per nom) or not is kinda irrelevent. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 19:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 02:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FILF

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

Neologism. Sources used are too weak to support the article. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 21:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just because the female equivalent is notable (though vulgar) doesn't make the male version notable. Sources provided are certainly not reliable, so this article fails our notability requirements. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn definitionCurb Chain (talk) 04:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not-notable.--Slon02 (talk) 17:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 02:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Air signature

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

I can find nothing to substantiate the content of this article or establish notability. Indeed, the final sentence ("It is made by a B-tech student of JIIT, Noida, India") suggest this is not yet a notable product. RichardOSmith (talk) 21:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No evidence such a device even exists. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable. The last sentence points to non-notability. SL93 (talk) 23:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Polyamorph (talk) 10:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence it exists, and to my knowledge the referances and external links dont prove its existance. mysterytrey (talk) 14:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also doubt that it exists, and am confident that even if it does exist, it is definitely not notable.--Slon02 (talk) 21:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well if it does, in fact, exist, then I think it would be notable (unless it was made in his garage in a trial and error fashion). Please note: I still agree with my above post. mysterytrey (talk) 02:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peg Norman

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

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN as a necessary article. Only uses one source and lacks content. Aaaccc (talk), 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 23:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Editors might decide to look at her film My Left Breast and decide if its having multiple awards and nominations,[10] and being the recipient of multiple review and critical commentary[11] bring her in under WP:CREATIVE AS the filmmaker, even if her coverage as a politician [12] is seen by some to be weak for a Politico. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the My Left Breast article is only two sentences wouldn't it make more sense to merge Norman's article with it? Aaaccc (talk), 11 September 2011 (UTC)

We don't usually merge larger articles into a smaller artricle simply because the smaller is "smaller". And being a sourcable part of her overall life, information about the filmmaker's years of political aspirations has no place in an article about a film. As it has been the recipient of multiple critical comemntary and review, far better to allow the film article to itself grow through the course of normal editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per having filmed a notable film. Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN by itself, but still notable because of the film. Should not be penalized for not meeting one type of notability. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 04:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, guideline does not say that someone failing WP:POLITICIAN cannot otherwise show notablility under WP:FILMMAKER. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above AdamCaputo (talk) 17:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to My Left Breast. Google News search finds several other Peg Normans and Peggy Normans, but only one small item about her political campaign, and nothing about her connection to the film. All the coverage, reviews and awards cited above by Schmidt are about the film; I could find no evidence of any such coverage, reviews or awards for her personally or for her part in making the film. This suggests that the film may be notable but she is not; notability is not inherited. The article about the film needs to be expanded to show these awards and reviews, and there could be an added sentence or two about Peg Norman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MelanieN (talk • contribs) 17:08, September 17, 2011
- With respects, WP:INHERITED is an essay, and guideline itself clarifies how an individual can be notable through their work. WP:FILMMAKER quite specifically states that an individual can be determined notable if "The person has created a significant or well-known work that has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" and/or if "The person's work has won significant critical attention"... and as you yourself note, her her work HAS had such atention. This individual qualifies as notable per her work and per guideline, and such notability is not to be dismissed through misapplicatiuon of an essay. The sources offered above were to show her meeting the applicable guideline WP:FILMMAKER, and they do just that... showing this filmmaker notable through her work having received "significant critical attention", and the coverage of her work need not be about her personally. As I explained above, the article on the film is about the film and BLP information about the filmmaker's years of political aspirations has no place in an non BLP article about a film. And in your own searches, perhaps you missed the quite substantive article about her in The Hour? [13] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" arguments, unlike the ones for deletions, are not made in terms of Wikipedia's applicable guidelines and are thus less persuasive. Sandstein 08:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beaver (color)

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

Non-notable colour of crayola, verging on dicdef bobrayner (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A color that has been in use since 1705 would seem to be notable enough to keep. The color is just sourced from Crayola. It could have been sourced from other color lists that it is on. Keraunos (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All colors are notable, this one around for centuries. Dream Focus 04:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All colors have been around for, well, forever. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you have sources which address the subject directly in detail, please share them; I couldn't find them. If you don't, then it thoroughly fails the GNG. Lots of colours exist; but existence is not a sane threshold for creating an encyclopædia article. bobrayner (talk) 09:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there is virtue in having all the colors from a standard color chart, even if some individual colors are not so notable. I don't think there is an explicit policy based argument for this, so I will have to fall back to Wikipedia is not Paper and Ignore All Rules. Francis Bond (talk) 09:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See also:
Thanks for your time; bobrayner (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of significant use of this term as a colour name, let alone substantial coverage in reliable sources. The only source given is a mere list on which the term appears, but inclusion in a list is not substantial coverage. Also, the article is no more than a dictionary definition, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary. To answer the reasons given for keeping:

The fact that a word has existed since 1705 does not make the subject which the word refers to automatically notable. There are many thousands of English words which are recorded from many centuries earlier than that, but we don't have articles on them all, nor even on most of them. Wikipedia is not a dictionary.
"All colors are notable": why? Who says so? Is there a guideline or consensus that says so? Simply stating that it's notable without giving any explanation why is not helpful: see the last paragraph of WP:ITSNOTABLE.
"I think there is virtue in having all the colors from a standard color chart". "I like it" is not a reason for keeping an article. Other editors have different opinions, and presumably if I say "I don't think that we should have an article on every colour from a colour chart" then that carries as much weight as Francis Bond saying he thinks we should. We have guidelines to indicate what is acceptable as evidence of notability, and "some editor likes it" isn't in any of those guidelines. I think if any administrator used "Ignore All Rules" to justify keeping an article without evidence of notability just because some editor likes the article but can't think of a policy- or guideline-based reason, then that administrator would be liable to be subjected to to some questions. And when the user who thinks we should have articles on every one of the entries in a colour chart actually says "even if some individual colors are not so notable", we clearly have, in effect, "Keep: It's not notable, but I think we shouldn't require articles to be only on notable subjects". That is totally contrary to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The colour chart referred to is an inclusive list of pretty well every word that the authors could find referring to a colour. Wikipedia, by contrast, is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and requires evidence of notability.

The long and the short of all that is that not a single one of the "keep" reasons is grounded in Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per JamesBWatson. The existence of a shade of colour is not a justification for an article. -- Whpq (talk) 15:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:AWW. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Color names are chosen arbitrarily, subjective, and different at each paint manufacturer. There is no standard on what each color should be named. Moreover, some of these color articles have no content other than a weak dicdef (WP:NOTDIC). As for the X11 colors, the listing at X11 color names is more than enough and really all you can write about it. The articles on the primary colors could have a list of common names of some shades of that color. What's next, an article for each Pantone code? -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—No evidence that this is a widely accepted name for a color. Beavers themselves vary in pelt color. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as well argued by P199. Various manufacturers invent various names for their paints or dyes or crayons, but that does not mean that every one of them should have an article. They are simply manufacturer's designations and not notable in themselves. (I guess it isn't enough to say "delete all"; since they each have their own AfD discussions, only some of which have closed, I guess I need to go to the others with the same opinion.) --MelanieN (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. JamesBWatson hit the nail on the head here. Sure, the color exists. Sure, the color name is centuries old. So what? An article on some obscure color just doesn't cut our notability requirements.--Slon02 (talk) 17:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 02:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flavescent

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

This sub-stub is a Dictionary definition. It's already in Wiktionary; we don't need to mirror wiktionary here. bobrayner (talk) 21:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dicdef of a Latinate adjective that has no potential as an encyclopedic topic. Deor (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Any color that has been in use since 1666 should be kept in Wikipedia. This color is widely used in ornithology. Keraunos (talk) 00:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flavescent is an adjective, not the name of a color. Saying that flavescent is a color is like saying that sad is an emotion. Deor (talk) 01:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keraunos, did you actually read the article before commenting? What it says is that "flavous" was used in 1666, not "flavescent". In any case, there are many thousnads of English words that have been in use since the middle ages or even earlier, let alone the 17th century. We don't have articles on concepts just because words relating to them have been around for centuries: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See also:
Thanks for your time; bobrayner (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – flavescent is an adjective for yellowish or turning yellow. But it's not a color. Not a notable topic. Dicklyon (talk) 06:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (1) No evidence of notability. (2) Little more than a dictionary definition, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary. (Note: The primary meaning is "turning yellow". There are a few cases of its use to mean "yellowish", but it is not really the name of a colour.) JamesBWatson (talk) 14:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, but rename to Flavous which is an actual English color name. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wouldn't that still be a dictionary definition? bobrayner (talk) 03:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - How would it be different than an article like Fulvous? It simply needs a little expansion in regard to animal coloration. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fulvous should be deleted as well, since it is basically a dab page consisting entirely of partial title matches and non–title matches. Deor (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fulvous is really otherstuff, but personally I feel that Fulvous is a dab masquerading as a colour article, and it may be better to just convert it into a genuine dab (ie. remove the preamble and photos, keep the list). Though I wouldn't object if somebody else felt it was worth AfDing. bobrayner (talk) 12:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change to extremely strong keep per WP:AWW. VMS Mosaic (talk) 11:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would be grateful if you could cite an actual policy rather than a vague group of editors who want to keep some articles but not others. bobrayner (talk) 11:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't really care if some ancient Greek used an adjective thousands of years ago, much less if some 17th century Englishman did. That doesn't make the word notable. There is no significant coverage of this word, and therefore it fails our notability requirements.--Slon02 (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICDEF. The term is widely used in naming birds, so it is a real and notable word, not a manufacturer's invention like most of the items in this AfD series. But not all real and notable words need to be defined here. I assume this entry already exists at Wiktionary; if not, move it there. --MelanieN (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 02:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attacks on nonconformists and alternative lifestylers

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

I was originally for this article. However, the topic has very few sources and is wrongly categorized as discrimination. It is trying to push a POV that attacks on certain subcultures are discrimination. I have informed the author that comparing it to forms such as Racism, Sexism, or Homophobia is not appropriate because that these are unchosen facets of one's self and that comparing it to religious discrimination, classism, adultism, or weightism would be more appropriate since these are possible (although sometimes difficult) to change. The fact of the matter is that these subcultures are chosen. An article about bullying againist these groups is definatly appropriate but it should not be considered discrimination with the above circumstances not addressed. Not to mention as stated before the name is extremely unencylopedic. Rainbowofpeace (talk) 03:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC) (Note I completed the deletion request procedure laid out at WP:AFD, which had not been followed initially. Hekerui (talk) 20:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Delete The first paragraph of the article falls under "original theories and conclusions" as synthesis from reports of specific attacks (albeit from reliable sources). The topic itself, which is very specific, should be proven notable, which didn't happen. The little there is in that paragraph is also forky to goth subculture and punk subculture. The rest is merely two specific accounts of violence, which don't directly contribute to an overall understanding of the topic of violence. The article style is unencylopedic and the questionable title makes me doubt this could be salvaged at all. Hekerui (talk) 20:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research about a huge category of human behavior, poorly defined, with two overly detailed examples that are already covered elsewhere in Wikipedia. People have attacked nonconformists for millennia; the hostility toward Jesus and his followers could be included in this category, as could the historic intolerance toward Jews and Roma, as could the "witchcraft" prosecutions of early American history, as could .... well, you get the idea. If punks and goths think there is something unique about their persecution for being "different," they need to read a little history. --MelanieN (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a collation of a wide smattering of WP:SYN Curb Chain (talk) 23:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article can be divided into three parts- the lead and the two murders. The descriptions of the two murders takes up most of the article, even though they should be- and are- covered in the articles about the murders themselves. The lead is just a synthesis of news articles about specific attacks, which I'd call original research. I'll say that maybe the topic deserves to have an article, but I'll also say that this isn't the way to go about making it.--Slon02 (talk) 23:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to SpongeBob SquarePants (season 1). If there's anything worth merging that hasn't already been done, it can be done from the history. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scaredy Pants

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

This article has no sources to establish the notability. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 20:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to SpongeBob SquarePants (season 1). Not a notable individual episode. JDDJS (talk) 03:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to SpongeBob SquarePants (season 1): The single episode does not meet the general notability guideline. Since the episode name is not in conflict with any other possible subject at present, a redirect should be a good alternative to deletion. Jfgslo (talk) 14:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This epsisode will be followed by Ghoul Fools and I will try to keep this article. Canihuan300 (talk) 20:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources, nothing more than someone's WP:OR plot summary and observations about the episode... Sergecross73 msg me 21:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to SpongeBob SquarePants (season 1) per Wikipedia:Television episodes. That guideline suggests AfD only for episode articles that are OR- this qualifies. It's unsourced original research on an non-notable episode. The guideline on television episodes calls for mergers or redirects in these cases. Since the season's article already has a plot summary, a redirect will suffice.--Slon02 (talk) 23:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Adventure Time episodes. If anything is worth merging, it can be done from the history as per normal. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adventure Time with Fionna and Cake

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

Clearly non-notable. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 20:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Adventure Time with Finn and Jake, but weak keep. The fact that the special was aired deserves mention, but possibly not its own article. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 20:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Adventure Time episodes. I see so many mentions and CN's promotions, but I think it's not worth a Wikipedia article. You can mention the crew members' creativities in the main Adventure Time article, but I think an article is too much for (at least) a one-off event (on television). (It's not that male supremacy) JSH-alive ^{talk • cont • mail} 23:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Adventure Time episodes. No mention of notability. JDDJS (talk) 21:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Adventure Time episodes: No evidence that the single episode meets the general notability guideline and the content in the article is unreferenced, so there is nothing worth merging. A redirect should be the better alternative. Jfgslo (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Adventure Time episodes per Wikipedia:Television episodes. No evidence of notability and no content worth merging.--Slon02 (talk) 00:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. causa sui (talk) 17:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Fly (video studio)

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

Seemingly self-promotional page for a non-notable video studio. Google search turns up almost no relevant hits (except a Facebook page), and article cites no sources claiming credibility. Running Google Translate on the pages it links to gives a website that is largely under construction. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 20:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found zero significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 21:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ditto. Seems to be self-promotion. Lagrange613 (talk) 03:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I removed all the spam and copyedited it :Jay8g ^{Hi!- I am... -What I do...} _{WASH- BRIDGE- WPWA - MFIC- WPIM} 01:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:I still feel that it lacks notability. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 02:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite the cleanup, this article still fails our notability requirements.--Slon02 (talk) 00:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. causa sui (talk) 17:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Di Saia

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

This is a person who is occasionally quoted by newspapers on plastic surgery, and sometimes acts as a medical pundit on his local fox news affiliate. However, there are no third party reliable sources that are actually about this person, and so I believe he does not meet the general notability guideline or the notability guideline for people. This article seems to be an accessory to a promotional campaign with the goal of inserting his blog as a source in various cosmetic surgery articles. MrOllie (talk) 19:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 21:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 21:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Di Saia is quoted in the Orange County Register frequently. A search at their site reveals over 100 citations in the last few years alone : http://www.ocregister.com/search/?q=john+di+saia&fistype=site

The entry I wrote on him at Wikipedia and the sourcing for the links I have posted at related topics related to that which he has written at his blog on the topics discussed on those pages. You are looking for validation at Wikipedia. He is a source for that validation. The guy is a real plastic surgeon and a good one.

The sourcing includes television spots, newspaper articles, invited quotations in the local newspaper and a medical publication that he has written. I also read his site for the educational background.

I am not a paid writer and as Wiki links are nofollow there is minimal promotional benefit. Jen 111 Smith (talk) 21:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC) — Jen 111 Smith (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Jen, thanks for your contributions. However, you need to read the Wikipedia notability requirements at WP:B and WP:ACADEMIC. Being a "real plastic surgeon" (even "a good one") is not enough. Being quoted a lot is not enough. There has to be significant coverage ABOUT him by independent reliable sources in order for him to qualify for a Wikipedia article. This may seem awfully stringent, but it is necessary to make sure that the only articles published here are about things and people that are important enough to include in an international encyclopedia. --MelanieN (talk) 15:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He does not meet the requirements at WP:ACADEMIC since he has published next to nothing in peer-reviewed journals. Google Scholar finds the one article cited at his page, and PubMed also finds one comment (not an article); that appears to be it. Looking at the general Wikipedia requirements for notability, Google News search finds mostly quotes from him in the Orange County Register, where he appears to specialize in gossiping about the plastic surgery results of celebrities. There appears to be no independent coverage ABOUT him so he fails the general notability guideline as well. --MelanieN (talk) 15:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable "Blog writer".--Gagg me with ah spoon (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the academic issue he has unfortunately published as John Di Saia and John DiSaia. His CV (http://www.psinteractive.net/cv.htm) shows more medical journal publications than you have listed. Google scholar is not inclusive apparently. "Significant Coverage" is a pretty vague term. He has been on several television news programs as a source of general knowledge on plastic surgery in particular liposuction and fat removal technologies. I figured your medical section here was pretty sparse and reviewing the American plastic surgeons you have listed, the pages have much less on them than I was able to construct on Dr D. Being a good plastic surgeon can't be a criterion as you have Jan Adams listed and we all know what he did. It's your wiki. I figured quality professionals who obviously contribute to their fields and the internet was enough.

If you were to look into Dr D's representation on the review sites on the net, he is very well regarded by patients:

http://www.ratemds.com/doctor-ratings/36292/Dr-John-DiSaia-Orange-CA.html http://www.realself.com/find/California/Orange-County/Plastic-Surgeon/John-Philip-Di-Saia http://www.healthgrades.com/physician/dr-john-disaia-y75lk/ http://www.yelp.com/biz/john-di-saia-md-orange

Than again that might not matter here much either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jen 111 Smith (talk • contribs) 22:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that patient review sites don't carry any weight here; they are anonymous and anyone can write anything they want, so they are neither WP:INDEPENDENT nor WP:RELIABLE as sites. I did search under both spellings of his name in both Google Scholar and PubMed. I don't know why the JAMA letter-to-the-editor didn't turn up on that search, but like the thing I cited above, it is a comment, not a peer reviewed article. The bottom line is that he has had only one article in a peer reviewed journal, published in 1998, in which he was one of three authors. The other items on his CV are things like a presentation at a meeting, or publications in non-peer-reviewed journals. That bibliography is a long, long way from meeting the requirements of WP:ACADEMIC. Since he doesn't qualify as a "professor" type who has had a major impact on his field, he would have to qualify under the general guideline for biographies, and that requires that independent reliable sources write ABOUT him - not just quote him or his blogs. --MelanieN (talk) 02:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(NOTE: The following comment was posted at the top of the page; I am moving it to the appropriate place. --MelanieN (talk) 02:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

he does not meet the requirements to be published here since he has done nothing of importance. he writes a self promoting blog and that is it... he is not significant to anything... a one man shop... please, give us a break from self promoting people that have achieved nothing notable.--Lexus765 (talk) 02:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC) — Lexus765 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. causa sui (talk) 17:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huntsman cheese

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

I believe that either this page should remain a stub, or be merged with either Gloucester cheese's or Stilton's articles.Lady Noremon (talk) 08:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 19:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a real thing, commonly available in NYC at any shop with a large cheese selection. Agree it should remain a stub. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It may be a real thing, but it has no coverage in reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A Google search reveals a seemingly endless number of descriptions of the product, sellers, recipes, even wine pairings. Some of the sites obscure, no doubt, others fairly well known (e.g.--> http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=hunstman+cheese). --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First off, don't nominate an article unless you want it deleted. Secondly, always remember to follow WP:BEFORE and spend a few seconds clicking on the Google news archive search and book search. The Milwaukee Sentinel in Feb 1, 1995 called Huntsman Cheese its Cook's Choice recommendation.[14] Plenty of cookbooks surely mention it, plus books showing the history of cheese to those who buy books about such things. I'm certain there are cheese encyclopedias out there. Dream Focus 23:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Added reference to article from reliable source, The Milwaukee Sentinel. Northamerica1000 (talk) 05:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could find very little about the cheese. The Milwaukee Sentinel Sentinel article doesn't establish notability as it doesn't proved significant coverage. I'm not sure it isn't an ad. Found this non-reliable source that states Huntsman cheese has only been around since the 80's and it is a trademarked concoction of Long Clawson Dairy in England. There are a tonne of specialty cheeses produced by a tonne of producers. No reliable, significant sources of a cheese that a company owns, therefore delete. Bgwhite (talk) 06:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bgwhite. "Coverage" of any sort does not guarantee notability. The coverage must be significant and it must be in reliable sources. That has not been demonstrated here. —SW— ^confess 23:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, delete. Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources for either the brand or the variety. Possibly worth a mention at either of the constituent cheeses. ^Bongo_matic 03:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, with sources, to Double Gloucester, Stilton, or both. The concept is genius, but it's basically just those two cheeses eaten together. Yunshui (talk) 10:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This should be closed because nominator does not advocate for deletion, but some other editorial outcome. "I believe that either this page should remain a stub, or be merged with either Gloucester cheese's or Stilton's articles." Well, I believe the moon is made out of cheese, so what?--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But the moon is made out of cheese! Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge: as above. That the nom hasn't advocated deletion doesn't mean we can't. Ravenswing 10:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of British cheeses where it is worth a mention. Insufficient sourced content to support its own page but no reason why we shouldn't retain a mention. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. Rlendog (talk) 02:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Out from Under

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

Doesn't have any sources, can not stand for it's on. Sauloviegas (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's concerns. — Status {^talk_contribs 20:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Josh Zuckerman (musician) per WP:NALBUMS. I was not able to find sources that could establish notability for this album.--Slon02 (talk) 00:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Josh_Zuckerman (musician)#Out From Under where it is already suitably covered. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 01:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pink-orange

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

Non-notable colour. Some ghits mention it in passing when describing the colour of another subject but no in-depth discussion of pink-orange which would establish notability. bobrayner (talk) 19:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No substantive content -- this article does not say anything that one could not already infer from its own title. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See also:
Thanks for your time; bobrayner (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – the entire article contents is "Pink orange is a mix of the colors pink and orange." And even that's unsourced. Dicklyon (talk) 06:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability, Wikipedia is not a dictionary: either of those would have been sufficient reason for deletion. In fact in my opinion it qualifies for speedy deletion under criterion A3: "Any article ... consisting only of external links, category tags and "see also" sections, a rephrasing of the title, ... (etc)", as there really is practically nothing more than "a rephrasing of the title". JamesBWatson (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Color names are chosen arbitrarily, subjective, and different at each paint manufacturer. There is no standard on what each color should be named. Moreover, some of these color articles have no content other than a weak dicdef (WP:NOTDIC). As for the X11 colors, the listing at X11 color names is more than enough and really all you can write about it. The articles on the primary colors could have a list of common names of some shades of that color. What's next, an article for each Pantone code? -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not sourced and not notable. Now please wait while I mix "amber" and "mahogany" to create a new color. We're not a dictionary, and we're not a color manual. Let's keep the hordes of colors at List of colors.--Slon02 (talk) 17:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD G4. I agree, it's close enough to the version deleted at the first AFD. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maharana Pratap The Film

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

Film does not seem to meet notability guidelines, all links provided in the article link to promotional videos or primary sources BOVINEBOY2008 18:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G4 The content is not a verbatim match, but it's close enough, none of the issues raised in the original AfD have been addressed. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pratap (Film). —SpacemanSpiff 19:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clear consensus that Fran Wagstaff fails to meet the notability standards. TerriersFan (talk) 22:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fran Wagstaff

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

I have attempted to find reliable source coverage of the notability claims made in the article and have not turned up significant coverage. I have found some passing quotes in local papers, but have been unable to turn up significant coverage that focuses on her individually. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Take another look; I just did a complete rewrite to put the article into encyclopedic style. She gets seven pages of hits at Google News; unfortunately most of them are behind paywalls so I couldn't cite them. Most are not "about" her, but I think the awards make up for the relative lack of news coverage which is specifically about her. --MelanieN (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about numbers of hits. It's about substantive, independent third party coverage. [15] is the only reference that comes close. I'll be more than happy to reverse my vote if more coverage comes to light. In particular an official reference with citation for “Woman of the Year”, California State Legislature would be gold. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: MelanieN's argument is not persuasive. The pertinent guidelines explicitly state that a source quoting an individual can neither be used to support the individual's notability nor that of the organization which she might represent. As such, rafts of Google News hits that merely quote the subject are worthless. That being said, there is no criterion under which Ms. Wagstaff winning awards confers notability absent coverage in reliable sources of the same. Ravenswing 10:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 17:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not satisfying the general notability guideline. 11coolguy12 (talk) 07:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:BIO excellent point made above about lack of in-depth coverage. LibStar (talk) 10:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 01:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phase Displacement Space Drive

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

No notability, chiefly primary sources, no peer reviews, probable original research, possibly fringe Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment: And apparently very similar to this deleted article created by the same editor. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks WP:RS to satisfy WP:GNG … repost of article deleted by prior WP:AfD … WP:OR by subject's "inventor" … Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Happy Editing! — 70.21.12.213 (talk · contribs) _{17:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)}[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Recreation of deleted article. SL93 (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero Gnews hits for the subject or Moacir L. Ferreira. Zero Gbooks hits for the subject, one passing mention for Moacir L. Ferreira from what appears to be a vanity press. Edward321 (talk) 13:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. causa sui (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yareah Magazine

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

I found zero significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 13:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find anything that's both notable and third-party aside from blogs, but anyone else is welcome to try and find sources. SwisterTwister talk 04:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 16:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - There do seem to be a few sources out there, but none reliable enough to assure notability. ItsZippy ^{(talk • Contributions)} 17:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 01:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abdu'r-Rahman-i-Talabani

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

Delete as unsourced, non-notable article stub. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 13:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 16:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources, non-notable article. --Cox wasan (talk) 09:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest closing out as uncontested. Thanks. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 13:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable per WP:BIO. No sources to establish notability.--Slon02 (talk) 00:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kohinoor One

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

I found zero significant coverage for this mall. SL93 (talk) 12:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I believe that if it hasn't shown any good change since it's birth in July 2006, then I doubt it'll be any different if we keep it for another year or two. I didn't find any notable coverage on this mall, so I guess not many news outlets covered (at least that we know of). SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 16:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable mall, fails notability criteria. Keb25 (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Share

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

Although much of what is said is unsourced, Share appears to be someone who attempts to do things but doesn't succceed. In some cases he buys his way into a position. I don't see any basis for notability. Bbb23 (talk) 15:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ontario United FC where he is head coach. Off2riorob (talk) 21:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If that isn't deleted (AfD).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dude has never managed a team in a fully professional league, nor does he feature in any third-party media sources. Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 19:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 20:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 22:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buffalo City FC

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

How is a team that played only one season and then sold themselves to another club notable? Bbb23 (talk) 15:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although I thought it was implied, to clarify my nom, the article does not meet WP:GNG.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In the same way that some 22nd division amateur league in England is notable. Mohrflies (talk) 19:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - As per all other teams that have played in the NPSL. JonBroxton (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If every team that has ever played for the NPSL, even if for only one season, is deemed inherently notable, I would consider withdrawing my nomination pending non-sports editor comments (if any), even though I think it counts more as practice than as satisfying notability requirements. I would note, though, that Buffalo City FC doesn't appear to be listed on former teams on the NPSL article page, but maybe that's just an oversight.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The key thing though is ensuring the data on Buffalo City is accurate. The vast majority - if not all - of the sources quoted stem from Mike Share's own websites, which he himself edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genericgenie (talk • contribs) 22:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Level 4 of American football is not notable per WP:FOOTYN. The above comments reek of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 19:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the fourth tier of the United States soccer pyramid is notable as the highest amateur level. Giant Snowman 20:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Nominating comment is useless to me. "How is a team that played only one season and then sold themselves to another club notable?" There is no inherent "oh yeah, its not" response to this, it depends on coverage. TV shows that have only aired one episode have been found notable. It appears that every current(and a score or so former) team in the National Premier Soccer League has a page, i don't see an advantage of deleting this one and having a comprehensive encyclopedia.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Smelling a hint of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS there... Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 14:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can smell my farts if that suits your fancy, my main point is that the nomination statement is worthless.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 14:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: Nom has neither proffered a valid ground for deletion, nor advocated deletion, nor advocated any action at all. Come to that, there is nothing in any guideline precluding notability for a team that has existed a single season; there are hundreds of examples of the same which meet applicable standards. Ravenswing 10:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get these kinds of !votes. If the nominator's reason for nominating the article is unpersuasive, that is not a rationale to speedy close the AFD, especially where other participants in the discussion have offered better arguments. causa sui (talk) 17:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's lovely to be a punching bag.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that the nominator has given an unpersuasive reason to delete. It's that the nominator hasn't given ANY reason to delete, nor even advocated deletion or any other action. That being said, it's not that the two Delete proponents have offered "better" arguments so much as they've expressed arguments at all. Nonetheless, a speedy close is a perfectly proper way to handle a broken nomination. In the nom's shoes, I would have worried less about hurt feelings than about fixing the AfD to reflect a proper nomination, complete with valid deletion criteria, but that's just me. Ravenswing 19:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is it's a waste of time to argue with you. I gave a reason to delete. I just phrased it as a question instead of as a statement. I nominated several articles in this area at about the same time. Two have already been deleted. This one is apparently a closer call. What you should have done is simply stated your reasons for why the article should be kept rather than rant about the alleged shortcomings of mine for nominating it. I'm not "hurt", just annoyed.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Why one advocates a "Speedy Keep" result is through a belief that the nomination is deeply flawed and/or improperly tendered, on procedural grounds rather than on the merits (or lack thereof) of deletion. I'm somewhat flabbergasted that someone active in AfD, with over 14,000 edits, would need that spelled out, because people advocate Speedy Keeps only about several dozen times a day at AfD, and for just those reasons. Ravenswing 20:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was annoyed, and now you're flabbergasted. I feel better. What I've seen of speedy keeps is that they are usually made when the voter thinks the nomination is patently meritless, not for "procedural" reasons. I'm hungry now and want to have lunch, but I'll look later to see if you're technically correct, despite my personal observations. It sounds completely contrary to common sense to me, but a lot of editors here don't believe in common sense. You can take that as a mild dig if you like.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy lunch (heh). WP:SK states the reasons for a speedy keep, not one of which meets your definition.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bridgeplayer (talk) 10:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This was a very minor team in a very minor league. The WP:FOOTYN essay suggests that it is not sufficiently notable. There are virtually no independent sources describing the club. Even its External link to http://www.buffalocityfc.com produces a web site selling Viagra. Any information about the team can be captured in the article about its league (or, perhaps a new History of the league article). --Noleander (talk) 13:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a record of the history of the NPSL, it is encyclopedic.--Feddx (talk) 16:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps a read of WP:ITSUSEFUL will help explain why we don't keep articles for that reason.Mt king ^(edits) 20:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In a setup where any new team can buy a spot in the league just playing is not enough, this is a team that (according to the article) played for one year, it's only ref supports the existence of a successor club (Ontario United FC) so absent any WP:RS showing significant coverage, this fails WP:GNG. Mt king ^(edits) 20:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously not ground-breaking stuff, (and nor is 99% of Wikipedia's content), but it has historical notability. Deterence ^Talk 04:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A hell of a lot of terrible arguments above on both sides. At the very least, this is an early history of the franchise which becme FC Buffalo, not to mention a valid search phrase, and so a merge here should have been a no-brainer. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - which is the default position in such cases of minor notability, and create a redirect and merge whatever you want (less is likely more) to the parent article. Off2riorob (talk) 22:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete is the default position?--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 01:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thats right. - redirect - just create it - merge - just do it - delete of the article is the direct result. Off2riorob (talk) 01:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First off, those who sited Wikipedia:FOOTYN should be aware that is an essay, not a guideline or policy, so its fairly meaningless. If enough people supported it, it'd be promoted to guideline status. The fact that they only played one season then joined with Queen City FC who had played for two seasons, to form FC Buffalo which has thus far played for two seasons and is still around, isn't relevant. That article says the final team was "not a continuation of either franchise". It is part of a national organization, not just some local club. Dream Focus 01:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 20:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario United FC

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

Wannabe club that has no real record, just hopes. Bbb23 (talk) 15:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The club (in its original format) hasn't played any higher than level 4 of the American league system. Clearly non-notable, and no significant media coverage about them to justify WP:GNG. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 18:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the fourth tier of the United States soccer pyramid is notable as the highest amateur level. Giant Snowman 20:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I can't sort out what the club is or what they were, so it's not clear to me that this club ever played in the NPSL. The only "source" we have is the club's own website, which, in my view, is not reliable. But, even so, it says, "Although not the same entity Ontario United FC previously was called Buffalo City FC." I don't know what it means by "not the same entity". Then, it says that "the club competed in the 2009 National Premier Soccer League". I think it means that Buffalo City FC competed in 2009. The website also says that it sold its "franchise rights" to FC Buffalo. Then, the website says that the Ontario club was founded in 2011 and INTENDS "to join one of the several top North American soccer leagues". So, we now have the Ontario article AND the Buffalo City FC article. Maybe keeping the Buffalo City FC article (which I've also AfD'ed) makes some sense and keeping the FC Buffalo article (which I have not AfD'ed) also makes sense because it's actually playing, but it would be incestuous to also keep the Ontario article until it plays in something that is considered notable. Ontario is nothing more than a derivative of something else with aspirations.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A brand new club that doesn't compete in any league and never has .. it just has plans to join a league at some point. Definitely not notable as of right now! Article can be re-created in the future if they actually join a league and play a game. TonyStarks (talk) 05:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Many thanks to frankie for digging for sources. While the club might have met the notability guideline, there is no evidence in this AFD that that can be verified by sources. causa sui (talk) 18:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Club Atlético Palermo

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

Doesn't seem to satisfy notability. Divide et Impera (talk) 04:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. —Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG Stuartyeates (talk) 09:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 15:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Cannot find any reliable, third-party sources to suggest notability. ItsZippy ^{(talk • Contributions)} 17:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment English language sources aren't readily available, as far as I can tell. But both the Italian and Spanish language versions of the article are pretty lengthy, so there might be something to this. I'd feel a lot better if someone from Argentina would chime in. (I left a message at the Argentine Wikiproject.) Zagalejo^^^ 00:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I considered !voting keep and adding Template:Expand Spanish on the article to get a translation from the Spanish Wikipedia article. However, it seems WP:CIRCULAR to rely on another Wikipedia article, especially when I am not fluent enough in Spanish to determine if the references are considered reliable. Another negative is the Spanish article doesnt have many footnotes, relying mostly on External Links. I have no problem if someone has confidence in the Spanish sources and thinks a translation would benefit the English article.—Bagumba (talk) 08:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There isn't much available for notability, but I feel the place is effectively treated as historically significant by the news hits, and these two book hits [16] [17] suggest the same, and given that the club saw it's prime day during the 50's, there might be some more content available offline. The article from the Spanish Wikipedia is very thorough, but none of the information is supported by the sources (given that there are none). The Italian version is more discrete and better referenced, and had this link [18] to confirm the club's participation in Primera División in 1920. The club's history as presented by the city's government is very short [19], but it describes it as having been a precursor in Soccer, "the most outstanding, together with Club Gimnasia y Esgrima, in Basketball", and also the stage for notorious Milonga orchestras — frankie (talk) 15:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Rlendog (talk) 01:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kaldor's Growth Model

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

Contested redirect - no indications of notability or separate importance. No need for a separate article - content can be incorporated into Nicholas Kaldor. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think Kaldor's growth model is notable and deserving of an article. This article is new and being worked on. I think the editor might just need some help. Evidence of notability is from academic articles on the topic eg Nancy J. Wulwick (1992). Kaldor's Growth Theory. Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 14, pp 36-54 doi:10.1017/S1053837200004387 and others which might be found here [20]. This was formerly a standard topic in less mainstream economics courses on growth. (Msrasnw (talk) 19:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Click the Google Book search at the top of the AFD. Lot of books about economics talk about this. Not sure if textbooks do, and if its taught in classes, but it seems notable. No sense shoving those two articles together, nor the other two articles either: Kaldor's facts and Kaldor's growth laws. Dream Focus 00:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim to notability, lots of mentions but not seeing detailed coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How are academic papers about this specific subject, as found in the Google Scholar search linked above, not detailed coverage? Phil Bridger (talk) 11:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the results of the Google Scholar search linked in the nomination and by Msrasnw, including many papers specifically devoted to this topic: [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29]. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. causa sui (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Robinson's Growth Model

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

Contested redirect - no indications of notability or separate importance. No need for a separate article - content can be incorporated into Joan Robinson. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think this is a fairly well known model. Like Kaldor's growth model, this used to be a standard topic in courses on economic growth. It is covered in many textbooks and academic articles eg: Joan Robinson's Theory of Economic Growth by Ludo Cuyvers Science & Society,Vol. 43, No. 3, Contemporary Issues in Marxist Political Economy (Fall, 1979), pp. 326-348 or James Tobin, 1990. "Growth and Distribution: A Neoclassical Kaldor-Robinson Exercise," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 934, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.(Msrasnw (talk) 19:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge to the author. If there is no more specific term than this, it would not be an appropriate separate article. If there are actually suficient sources, the alternative to this would be an article on her book. DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment. The title is a little odd - but there is some justification for this when looks at some of the sources. The origins of the model are to be found in

* Robinson, Joan (1956) The Accumulation of Capital London: Macmillan & Co. Ltd. AND

* Robinson, Joan (1963) Essays in the Theory of Economic Growth London: Macmillan & Co. Ltd.

I think this would make it not so obvious which book article to make and have this in - though this would be possible. Also I think the model might unbalance the biographical article on her so merging it there might be not so good.

Articles which talk explicitily about this mode include:

* Cuyvers, Ludo, (1979) Joan Robinson's Theory of Economic Growth, Science and Society, 43:3, Fall, p.326

* Gandolfo, G. (1967) Some critical remarks on Joan Robinson’s growth model. Rivista di Politica Economica v.57, February.

* Tobin, James, (1989) "Growth and Distribution: A Neoclassical Kaldor-Robinson Exercise," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 13(1), pages 37-45, March.

And a synthesised summary of the model here: D. Hamberg, D. (1963) Essays in the Theory of Economic Growth by Joan Robinson, The American Economic Review Vol. 53, No. 5, Dec., pp. 1109-1114. This might be a very useful source for expanding and clarrifying the topic.

Also I recall seeing textbook versions when I studied this and it is on the syllabus of some courses under this title. I would prefer renaming it to Robinson's growth model but thought to wait until after the afd. (Msrasnw (talk) 11:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Keep, rename to Robinson's growth model per sources found by Msrasnw. -- 202.124.72.149 (talk) 11:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per reliable sources searched for by Msrasnw stated above. Merging the data to the Joan Robinson article may be appropriate. Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Msrasnw and sources existing. "Robinson's growth model" gets more results in Google book search. If that's what its officially called, then change the article's name to that. Dream Focus 12:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: I believe DGG is correct. Drmies (talk) 17:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article's a part of the Indian Education Program for SSE, it will be completed by mid-october by Naresh Limbu or myself. It's a definite deadline. So the decision to delete the article should at least be postponed till then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PJote (talk • contribs) 21:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this article is part of an educational project then it should be hosted on that project's web site. This is an encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phil, you'd be surprised how many people don't seem to realize that. Drmies (talk) 22:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phil, the Indian Education Program is a part of Wikipedia. The point of the project is to have students make contributions TO Wikipedia. I didn't link it properly. There. You can see it now. PJote (talk) 06:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Msrasnw and the reliable sources that he stated.--Slon02 (talk) 01:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Montenegrin alphabet

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

Hoax. Article about alphabet of nonexistent language. (Without ISO 639-1 standard.) Alex^{discussion ★} 15:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment ISO 639-1 is a very basic standard that covers only 136 of the world's most widely spoken languages. There are many more languages than that. Montenegrin is sometimes coded "sr-ME". On Wictionary, it is coded "zls-mon". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not a hoax but rather a nationalistic dispute about whether Montenegrin is a dialect or a language. Discussed in reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable because it has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources such as the BBC, even though opponents of Montenegrin nationalism oppose this alphabet strongly. I have added a 1916 source to the article as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable. SL93 (talk) 23:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per added reliable sources and availability of them that establish notability of the topic Northamerica1000 (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not a hoax. And additionally, articles shouldn't be deleted just because some people may disagree with the politics behind the subject. Linguogeek (talk) 22:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There may be something I'm missing, but I don't get this nomination at all. It's not even about a language, it's about the alphabet, which apparently exists, and such things cannot be not-notable. Drmies (talk) 17:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 16:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of memorable races at Talladega Superspeedway

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

This is an indiscriminate list of NASCAR races through the years, and is very subjective as far as what is deemed "memorable". I don't think it's very encyclopedic, and certainly the title isn't one I would be searching for. ArcAngel (talk) ) 15:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable topic, and there is no consistent way to categorize a race as memorable or not memorable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete memorable by who? violates WP:NPOV Secret ^account 18:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The inclusion criteria for entry on the list appear to be 1) That it is a car race at Talladega; and 2) That the race has been judged to be "memorable". Criterion 1) is fine and discriminate, criterion 2) is troublesome due to the inherent subjectiveness in "memorable", so dropping that and making a comprehensive List of races at Talladega Superspeedway would be more acceptable (although I am not sure if that would manageable, a major racetrack features several races over the years). The current list however suffers from wooly inclusion criteria, and an alternate comprehensive list would be a different article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 01:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xanadu (colour)

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable name for a shade of greenish-grey. bobrayner (talk) 14:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not only no sources to establish wp:notability, doesn't even have sources to establish that this isn't just in the mind of a paint company. North8000 (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Del--Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)etion sorting/Visual arts|list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions]]. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Killing me, dude. I'm induced to help crush one crayon, and now you're encouraging me to help snap through the entire crayola box. Has the guy produced any general argument in favor? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – the article is a bunch of original research connecting sources about plants and paints and colors and Chinese cities. There are no such connections in the sources. Notability is nowhere in sight. Dicklyon (talk) 06:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. The sources cited in the article are (1) a link to a colour conversion tool, which converts colour information from one format to another (e.g. from Red/Green/Blue to Cyan/Magenta/Yellow/Black) but does not mention "Xanadu", nor any other individual colour, (2) a link to a web page about a cultivated variety of Philodendron known as "Xanadu", making no mention of any use of the word to refer to a colour, (3) a web page on the site of a paint company, giving contact information for that company, but not mentioning "Xanadu", nor any other colour, (4) a link to a list of colours, including "Xanadu", not looking to me like a very reliable source, (5) a dead link to a removed page which, to judge from the comment in the Wikipedia article, was another list. So at best we might have had appearances of the word in two lists, which may or may not have both been reliable sources. Not a trace anywhere of substantial coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sign of notability independent of the paint company. The article also makes unsourced assertions about why the colour is called "Xanadu". Loves Macs (talk) 16:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This color was very recently made up (10 years ago) by some paint company. I agree with JamesBWatson's analysis of the sources completely. It's just not notable so let's get rid of it.--Slon02 (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Anton Zaslavski. causa sui (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Autonomy EP

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

Falls WP:NMUSIC and WP:SOURCES, doesn't seem to be notable. Alex^{discussion ★} 14:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not very informative (EP consisting of three versions of the same number), and only referenced to a download site. Peridon (talk) 10:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Anton Zaslavski per WP:NALBUMS. While I don't think this album is notable, having failed to find any reliable sources covering it, I believe that a redirect to the artist's article could be useful instead. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No objections from me. Peridon (talk) 22:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Anton Zaslavski per Salvio.--Slon02 (talk) 01:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right to Succeed

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

Organisation that does not appear to meet WP:ORG. Apparently created in response to this advert. That doesn't necessarily mean that the organisation isn't notable, and the fact that the article currently contains promotional language is fixable, but I fail to find significant coverage of the organisation in reliable independent sources. bonadea contributions talk 12:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it is a notable organisation , and it shown in Vegas Morning Blend Show --Mohamed Ouda (talk) 11:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, that link is in the article as well, but my opinion is that this doesn't constitute significant coverage. --bonadea contributions talk 13:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note The AfD template was removed by an IP editor and was absent from the article for a day and a half; I just restored it. --bonadea contributions talk 13:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

here is also another populat site that mention to the foundation reformeducation.net --Mohamed Ouda (talk) 18:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this artical looks as though it could still be expanded, give it a chance. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. While there is some discussion about whether 1E applies, the consensus is that the subject's notability is broader than the single event of the competition.. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Mitchell (singer)

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

Contestant from a singing reality show. He doesn't differ from the other eliminated contestants aside from the fact of winning a "fan favorite" quiz which is not nearly enough to call him relevant. I'm going to remind the voters that American Idol, a much more famous and traditional show, doesn't have individual articles for contestants unless they become relevant. Tam001 (talk) 10:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't feel that this needs to be re-hashed out again. We'd already reached consensus on the talk page. Also, there's no need to delete this article. That was never on the table before. A redirect is perfectly reasonable so as to not lose all of the time and work that went into fixing this article. Once again, please see the talk page for all of the reasoning behind allowing this article to stay live. Thanks.LoriLee (talk) 11:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable due to secondary sources and is also regionally notable. Unless there is an "American Idol" policy I think it's good to stay. I will provide you a list of non-notables you can nominate if you wish regarding bad punk bands. :) SarahStierch (talk) 12:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject has received enough significant coverage in reliable sources in the context of his entertainment career as well as the television show. I'm going to remind the nominator that American Idol is not the standard here. /ƒETCH COMMS / 14:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing of relevance can be seen on the article, though. Most sources only talk about his stay on the show, and the only information about his nonexistent carrer is about the fact he is unsigned and likes to write about girls. And the American Idol example is perfectly usable - it's a reality show about singing and articles for irrelevant contestants are created (and deleted) all the time for each season, like what's happening on this one. --Tam001 (talk) 00:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure what you mean by "nothing of relevance". I'm sure his career as an entertainer is relevant to his biography. As for Idol, it's a completely different type of competition show; regardless, each biography should be judged on its own merits and not those of similar articles. /ƒETCH COMMS / 04:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was prepared to wait and see but since this has now come to AfD I don't have any choice but to support deletion based on Wikipedia policy, although I think redirection to The Glee Project#Contenders is probably a better option. WP:BLP1E very clearly applies here. All of the subject's notability relates directly to his appearance on The Glee Project, most to his voluntary exit from the competition. Of the 14 citations in the current version of the article, all but one directly refers to his appearance (and disappearance) from the program. Only the iTunes reference does not, that simply supports the existence of his EP, which apparently wasn't overly popular until he left The Glee Project. BLP1E says "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event and if, outside of the event, that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." Clearly, the overwhelming majority of the sources in the article do only cover him in the context of one event (The Glee Project) so we need to determine if he will remain "and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual". Unfortunately, we can't do that. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. However, based on not only American Idol contestants but contestants from every reality series that has ever aired, the likelihood that he will remain a low-profile individual is extremely high, so there is very little reason to keep this article based on policy. In the event that he becomes notable independent of The Glee Project, the article can always be created but at this point he just doesn't meet the notability requirements. While I respect the right of those who have voted to keep this article to vote that way, policy doesn't support it. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. --Tam001 (talk) 22:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to say "delete" again. You already implied that in your nomination statement. I've removed the bolded text in case the closing admin happens to be a vote-counter. /ƒETCH COMMS / 23:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – WP:BLP1E does not apply here, as that is a policy that was intended to protect people who attracted attention due to their inadvertent association with some crime, natural disaster, or something like that. Once a person has undertaken to appear on a nationally televised reality show, that person is not "low-profile", as they have taken steps to try to attain public recognition. In this particular case, this musician has been the subject of coverage in multiple reliable sources such as the Dallas Observer and The Dallas Morning News, and so meets WP:MUSICBIO criterion #1. These are not passing mentions in articles that are otherwise about the TV show; they are articles about the subject. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Where exactly in WP:BLP1E or WP:1E does it say that it doesn't apply in this case? If it doesn't apply to this person, then it doesn't apply to, for example, a lot of unsuccessful political candidates, who become high profile only for the election period and yet we discourage articles on such people specifically because of BLP1E. And of course it would also not apply to contestants on national and international reality TV programs, yet we discourage articles on these people for the same reason. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's worth mentioning again that he's been covered by the New York Times. He also was just signed to Atlantic Records, just waiting on a reliable source before adding.LoriLee (talk) 11:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's interesting. I thought the Atlantic thing wasn't true (or at least, not official). But I'll keep an eye on that. /ƒETCH COMMS / 16:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as subject is the focus of multiple articles in reliable third-party sources, crossing both the verifiability and notability thresholds. That articles mention his Glee Project appearance does not invoke BLP1E any more than almost every article about Neil Armstrong mentioning that Apollo 11 thing. (Not that this guy is Neil Armstrong...) - Dravecky (talk) 21:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a big difference between Neil Armstrong and this article. Apollo 11 was an event that extended, quite literally, beyond the bounds of this planet. 450 million people (12.4% of the world's population) watched the landing. In many places everything stopped for the event. In Vietnam hostilities even ceased for it. Armstrong has continued to remain notable independent of the event. Apollo 11 is often mentioned, as would be expected for such a globally significant event, but Armstrong is not mentioned only in context of Apollo 11. By comparison, The Glee Project's audience varied between 455,000 and 1.24 million (we don't even have viewer figures for the episode in which Mitchell quit), or only about 0.006-0.017% of the world's population. All of the sources quite heavily discuss Mitchell in the context of The Glee Project so the comparison between him and Neil Armstrong is quite ridiculous. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I said above, he's no Neil Armstrong, but notability is not a competition and a subject need only meet minimal standards for inclusion. Also, if your rationale for deletion is compelling there's no need to personally respond to every !vote. - Dravecky (talk) 03:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're ignoring BLP1E. As for replying, it doesn't matter how compelling a rationale is, people will ignore it for inexplicable reasons and there is nothing wrong with refuting rationales that are flawed. This is supposed to be a discussion, not just a vote. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Coverage in several reliable sources establishes topic notability. Northamerica1000 (talk) 00:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Theramine

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

no indication of WP:notability. Only sources that mention it are companies selling it. noq (talk) 10:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I did find one medical article evaluating the product and concluding "The medical food (Theramine) appeared to be effective in relieving back pain without causing any significant side effects and may provide a safe alternative to presently available therapies." Some of the authors of that study were from the company that manufacturers the product, but other authors were from UCLA School of Medicine and the article appeared in a peer-reviewed journal, so it can probably be considered as an independent reliable source. However, a single article in a single journal is not enough to satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. --MelanieN (talk) 14:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Theramine can refer to: • a fictional food additive that makes animals grow huge, from the episode Attack of the Alligators! of the television series Thunderbirds; • a common misspelling of Théramène, the name of a character in Racine's play Phèdre; • a common misspelling of theremin, an early electronic musical instrument that is played without being touched; • the trademarked name of a medical food prescribed for pain management. Should we make this into a dab page or simply redirect to the alligators? --Lambiam 19:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - An FDA-regulated drug. There are reliable third party sources, click here for "Theramine Clinical Study" with a downloadable product sheet. This site is not selling the product.Northamerica1000 (talk) 15:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Click here to read the full clinical trial from the American Journal of Therapeutics, another unbiased, high-quality source that establishes notability. There are obviously other sources mentioning the subject other than companies selling it. Northamerica1000 (talk) 15:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It took less than a minute to find reputable data in a Google search, and along with the link listed above here, there are obviously reliable sources that establish noteworthiness. Northamerica1000 (talk) 15:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You said "Keep - An FDA-regulated drug." Are you saying that all FDA-regulated products are automatically notable? --MelanieN (talk) 16:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Sources: OK, we've now cited the American Journal of Therapeutics article three times - once by me and twice by you. That still appears to be the only reference in a peer-reviewed journal. Your other source is the Clinical Data page from the manufacturer, not an independent source. So we are still left with only one reference from an independent, reliable source - and as I noted above, that's not enough for Wikipedia, which requires multiple such sources. BTW if we apply the WP:ACADEMIC standard, and count the number of times that article has been cited by others to help determine notability - Google Scholar seems to say that it has never been cited a single time by anyone. --MelanieN (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: One source does not equal significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 19:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are reliable third party sources, click here for "Medical Foods: Overview Of an Emergin Science" with a downloadable pdf article. This article mentions the product Theramine and is not selling the product.Ggocemac (talk) 8:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC) — Ggocemac (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I'm trying, I really am. Evaluating this source: it is posted at prnewswire, but it's not a press release; rather it is an article from an e-magazine called NGPharma, written by a profesesor and mentioning various "medical foods". So it is independent. And it does contain three sentences about Theramine. Whether this amounts to either reliable coverage or sufficient coverage is debatable. --MelanieN (talk) 00:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE: What about this published white paper by Frost & Sullivan, which mentions Theramine a couple of times in its "THE PROMISE OF MEDICAL FOODS Nutritional Management of Disease States" issue: click here .Ggocemac (talk) 11:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Published? Published where? The link is to a blog, and the article does not come from a peer-reviewed journal or other WP:Reliable Source. It appears to be a report from a commercial market research company. I guess it serves as evidence that Theramine exists, but we already knew that. We are still a long way from notability. --MelanieN (talk) 23:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE: This document was published by RAND one of the top most well respected non-profit organizations, and mentions Theramine several times. click here .PharmaKarma (talk) 10:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC) — PharmaKarma (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep -- for the children! -- no, seriously, students really need dab pages like this. Bearian (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dab page? Are we looking at the same article? --MelanieN (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Theramine is also listed on the Official Disability Guidelines for Chronic Pain click here — Preceding unsigned comment added by PharmaKarma (talk • contribs) 21:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC) — PharmaKarma (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete One uncited, yet to be published (Epub ahead of print), clinical study is insufficient for an article.Novangelis (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think the description needs to be tweaked to include ingredients of theramine and why the formulation exists. There is no doubt that the product exists, it just needs a little better write up. I'm pretty sure that all citations are legit. NOTE: The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:76.216.155.97. — 76.216.155.97 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep Google Book search shows various handbooks published that mention it. [30] Also, listing all drugs helps the encyclopedia. These aren't popular culture items, this is something actually educational, just like listing every species of plant are animal, type of mineral, etc. Dream Focus 16:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Those book hits are for a discontinued expectorant by the same name.[31]Novangelis (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—The case for this article is pretty thin; I can find only one published scientific study and none of the web sources appear to be of unchallengeable reliability. I can't support a keep. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mkativerata (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 WDF World Cup

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

Future event; crystal-balling; nothing in the sections (empty tables). Could be userfied, I suppose until the event actually happensa and something can be sourced and written about it. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 13:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given that there have been 17 previous such tournaments, and that this one is to be held this very September, removing the article now is unnecessary. The relevant policy is NOT BURO. DGG ( talk ) 19:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Because it gets coverage before it happens, and also in a few weeks it'll happen anyway, so no sense in deleting an article only to bring it back then. Dream Focus 03:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think DGG, said it right, this page will be populated as soon as the events unfold. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, many events have pages well before the start of the event, dont see why this is any different. Bradleyspencer1983 (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#STATS. Warden (talk) 17:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's very soon to be filled in, and as notable as any other WDF World Cup. Its near-future status is irrelevant (though a hypothetical WDF 2013 article should not exist yet). If WP:GNG or WP:NOT#STATS are supposed to be relevant, let's separate those issues from this discussion about a near-future event, and instead mass-nominate everything in Category:WDF World Cup. DeliciousBits (talk) 10:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:GNG is met, see WDF World Cup. WP:NOT#STATS is not violated as this is not a long and sprawling list of statistics and contains tables to enhance the readability. As far as WP:CRYSTAL, I quote: Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. This event is both. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. causa sui (talk) 18:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Warrillow

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

No notability established. Further, the article creator is John.warrillow (talk · contribs), possible CoI? Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 16:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy rather than delete: As and per nom. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 16:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Avenue, if you want to userfy it and don't want to delete it, why send it to Articles for Deletion? Ironholds (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the unsolicited advice. Nevertheless, I was confused (rather, I thought about moving it to User: namespace first) whether the article should be deleted as promotional (like one I nominated at AfD was/is about to be) or userfied. Thus, I posted (rather, voted) my opinion. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 17:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't advice, it was a statement; AfD is for deletions. If the nominator is unsure, the nominator should not nominate it. Ironholds (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly know what AfD means (for the matter of the fact, vandalism too), and posted it at AfD becuase the article was unencyclopaedic. I thought about userfying the article, but figured that few extra opinions would help. Thus, I brought the article at AfD because it was unencyclopaedic, and suggested userfication. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 18:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're not understanding your role. An article should be nominated for deletion if the nominator feels it should be deleted. A nominator does not get to comment "delete" or, for that matter, "userfy rather than delete"; the very fact that the article has been nominated is taken to indicate that the nominator feels deletion is the only option. If there are other options, don't nominate it. Ironholds (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think both of you are partially right. Looong story short... Avenue X can suggest to userfy as this is deleting the article from main space. Userfication is a very grey area, with no AfU and can get messy (remember long story short). However, Avenue should have suggested it in their nomination as a possibility and not after. As Ironholds said, "A nominator does not get to comment 'delete'". It looks like two "votes" to delete. Ironholds, do you know of where it says not to do this practice? I commented the same thing to a nominator on their talk page and got a nasty reply back ("I'm an admin" and "you are nothing") that they will continue to do the practice. Bgwhite (talk) 07:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFD makes clear that "Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted" (not, crucially, userfied, or moved, or anything else) while the userfication essay (I know, only an essay) does not give AfD as an appropriate venue. Which admin was this? I'm tempted to give him a trouting. Ironholds (talk) 08:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond at your talk page so as not to completely threadjack this AfD. Bgwhite (talk) 09:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article was not created by John Warrillow himself, it was created by someone who works for his company in a non-biased role. John Warrillow is a published author and speaker and is a notable individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John.warrillow (talk • contribs) 17:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do NOT userfy. Spam in article space is a bad thing, spam in user space is arguably even worse as it can go undiscovered for months or even years before anyone deletes it. Userfying is NOT acceptable for this sort of material. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable person. Email a copy to the author on request.—S Marshall T/C 23:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As written, the article is "spam" and the editor has a clear conflict of interest. So, I wouldn't userfy as the article needs to be blown up and re-written from scratch. There are clearly Google hits on the articles he has written. There is also not enough significant, independent coverage about him. I personally have trouble with this type of person's nobility as I can see why someone would want to write an article and also say keep. In the end, I don't think he yet pass WP:GNG, but if he keeps going at the same pace, he will end up with an article. Bgwhite (talk) 06:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A published author, his book Built to Sell: Creating a Business That Can Thrive Without You is published by Portfolio Hardcover and has ISBN 1591843979. The individual also writes a regular column for Inc. Magazine. and other publications. Rather than deleting, the article should be rewritten to a neutral point of view, to minimize it reading like a press release.Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Another idea is to move data from the article into an article about his book, Built To Sell: Creating a Business That Can Thrive Without You, which may be more noteworthy than an article about the author.Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This seemed like a typical spammy businessman page, started by an underling for the greater glorification of The Boss. Taking a peak at Google for the exact (unusual) name of the author churned up 44,000+ hits, however, including THIS INTERVIEW ON THE FORBES SITE interviewing Warrillow as an expert in the field of creating and turning over startup companies. The jury's still out for me... Carrite (talk) 18:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a columnist for Inc., which is a mass circulation magazine. A DECENT SIZED PILE of articles by him. Writers don't get the same free pass as actors at WP, but this status is worthy of note, if not notable. Carrite (talk) 18:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BIG REVIEW of one of Warrillow's works in the New York Journal of books. Carrite (talk) 18:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's a blog, but "John Warrillow — The Glenn Beck of Canadian Business?" is a great title, is it not??? Indicative to me that this is a fellow with public figure status, even though I'd never heard of him before. Carrite (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now here's the website of the New York Times CITING WARRILLOW AS A SMALL BUSINESS EXPERT. It's starting to look like to me that this is a recognized expert in his field... Carrite (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Enterprise Report FELT WARRILLOW WAS A WORTHY INTERVIEW SUBJECT. Carrite (talk) 18:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And here's a HUFFINGTON POST PIECE on Warrillow's ideas. Carrite (talk) 18:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've seen enough. Keep as a recognized expert in the field of small business, a national columnist, and author of business books who is the subject of multiple, substantial, independent pieces of published coverage by such heavy hitters as the new media arms of the New York Times and Forbes. Passes General Notability Guideline, quite handily. An article being bad is not sufficient reason for deletion; correctable through the normal editing process. Carrite (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The topic passes notability guidelines per several additional reliable sources that were found listed above this message by user Carrite. Per the section 'Basic criteria' within 'Wikipedia: Notability (people)' (WP:BIO), “A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.” "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.” The individual passes WP:BIO due to the available multiple independent sources which demonstrate notability and in the manner of which those sources are not comprised of trivial coverage. Northamerica1000 (talk) 21:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, the independence criteria just aren't there. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not nearly as sanguine about Carrite's sources as he is. First off, several of them are blog posts, not articles. More than one contains some of the same language ("He has started and exited four companies. Most recently he transformed Warrillow & Co. from a boutique consultancy into a recurring revenue model subscription business ...") which suggest the cold hand of publicists dishing out press releases. Another is a broken link, and another discusses a book by Warrillow, not Warrillow himself. What I am not seeing are solid sources which discuss the subject in "significant detail." Ravenswing 10:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article does not meet our notability requirements. It doesn't meet WP:GNG, as none of the references included in the article have significant coverage of him, and I couldn't locate reliable and independent references that could. Sure, I found some blog posts, but that just doesn't cut it. He also fails WP:AUTHOR. Some people may claim that he is an important person in his field, but I'd say that there just isn't sufficient evidence to prove that.--Slon02 (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Cham-Cham. causa sui (talk) 18:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cass Carnaby

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

This character has only appeared in one episode, perhaps two, with no significant impact. Non-notable fictional character from Thunderbirds Simply south...... eating shoes for 5 years So much for ER 18:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per what the nominator stated. not enough to merit an independent article.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to "The Cham-Cham", the episode in which the character appears - I'd argue that "Cass Carnaby" is a plausible search term. The alleged cameo re-appearance is provided by recycled stock footage, and is original research in the absence of sourcing to confirm that this second character is indeed Carnaby. Super Mario Man 20:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete - only a main character in one episode, certainly not noteworthy enough for an article, either redirect to the episode or delete. Bob talk 20:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge either to The Cham-Cham per SuperMarioMan, or to a list of minor Thunderbirds characters--although I am unsure that there's enough "minor character" content for the latter. Jclemens (talk) 19:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thunderbirds is light on recurring characters; since the majority of characters appear in one episode only, I'm not sure about how much justification there would be for a "List of minor/recurring characters in Thunderbirds" (or something to that effect). I'll add that I have no objection to deletion; I would simply prefer a redirect (given that the article is only a few lines long, and that all of its content can be found in "The Cham-Cham", I don't really see anything that requires merging). Super Mario Man 21:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Cham-Cham. Memorable character but spectacularly fails WP:GNG. The cameo is verifiable, since it's mentioned in The Complete Book of Thunderbirds, but I doubt anybody searching for this would be looking for that and it certainly doesn't make him notable. Redirect as a plausible search term. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The fictional character does not meet in anyway the general notability guideline and there is nothing to presume that the article can be anything different from a summary-only description of a fictional work. The article itself does not provide a single reliable source, which means that there is no valid reason to keep it as stand-alone article. As this is not a recurring character, only appears in a single episode and a cameo, is a minor character and there is no significant coverage of him, I do not believe that a merge or a redirect are appropriate. Jfgslo (talk) 23:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Cham-Cham. Most characters that appear in only one episode aren't notable, and this one is not an exception. Since the character only appears in one episode, it's best to just create a redirect to that episode. I'm just no seeing any content worth merging.--Slon02 (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. causa sui (talk) 18:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

San Miguel (musician)

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

This person does not appear to meet the notability requirements at WP:MUSICBIO. It does not appear that the band he is in meets the notability requirements, so it is unlikely that he is independently notable as a member of that band. VQuakr (talk) 04:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This discussion was unintentionally removed from the log here. A relist is probably appropriate to ensure that the discussion receives adequate visibility from the community. VQuakr (talk) 01:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the references in the article provide significant coverage, and I wouldn't call most of them reliable either. A search for reliable references found no good results. Also fails WP:MUSICBIO.--Slon02 (talk) 16:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to IVF#History. one event - redirect to IVF#History where she is already mentioned (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 11:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Candice Reed

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

The question here is whether her journalism career meets notability standards, or if it is merely her birth that is notable. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or Merge to IVF#History, as has been suggested at the article. A bit more than BLP1E with some news coverage as an advocate for people conceived by IVF. $Sharktopus$ ^talk 00:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This discussion was unintentionally removed from the log here. A relist is probably appropriate to ensure that the discussion receives adequate visibility from the community. VQuakr (talk) 01:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to IVF#History, which already mentions her. The subject's journalism career is unremarkable and there is no reason to have an article to say what can be said in two sentences in the IVF article. VQuakr (talk) 01:35, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~Delete~~. Strikes me as a typical 1E event--funny that that one event would be her birth. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to redirect, per Jenks24 below--it is a likely search term. Drmies (talk) 14:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Read the news links in the article. Decades later she is getting coverage for her work, even outside her own country. Dream Focus 23:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course. Now go and tell me it's because of her work, not because of the ubiquitous "where are they now" interest. Drmies (talk) 00:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to IVF#History. Classic 1E case, only coverage has been because she was conceived by IVF and her journalism career is pretty unremarkable (the papers that she's worked for aren't even bluelinks). That said, her name is a plausible search term and redirects are cheap. Jenks24 (talk) 07:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 18:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The points about SALAT do not strike me as relevant or accurate. This article can be fied with ordinary editing. Courcelles 21:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide bombing in Sri Lanka

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

This article has no new content. The list is copied straight from List of attacks attributed to the LTTE and the narrative has been copied almost word-for-word from Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. All but two of the links to this page come from the Template:Sri Lankan Conflict. obi2canibe^{talk contr} 13:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article is in the under development, List of attacks attributed to the LTTE is a article listing the various types of attacks attributed to the LTTE, where as this list Suicide bombings in Sri Lanka. These are two separate lists. Cossde (talk) 14:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How can they be separate when they contain the exact same information? Are you planning to remove all the suicide bombings from List of attacks attributed to the LTTE?--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 15:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As last substantial edit was 2 weeks ago, I don't think that "under development" argument really flies. Ipsign (talk) 10:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think Suicide bombing in Sri Lanka as an article would be a valued one but not in the current form for the reasons Obi2canibe has quoted. If the article is under construction then it shouldn't be up for deletion.--Blackknight12 (talk) 01:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are two topics with inter lining facts, if a weapon system is used in Army A and Army B, you list it in both with same details since it is the same weapon system but used under two different topics. Cossde (talk) 15:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:No new information introduced to the topic. Intoronto1125 TalkContributions 01:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SALAT. Ipsign (talk) 10:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What part of WP:SALAT does it violate. Cossde (talk) 15:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ipsign.HudsonBreeze (talk) 17:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. causa sui (talk) 18:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Explosion Fight Night Volume 01

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

also nominating:

another sprawling series of kickboxing results of zero notability failing WP:EVENT. attendances are remarkably low as 500. LibStar (talk) 12:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find nothing notable about these articles. Still more routine sports coverage of events that give no reason why they're notable. Frankly, I don't even see the notability of the sponsoring organization. Astudent0 (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with previous comments. Routine sports reporting. Papaursa (talk) 04:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No quorum here. causa sui (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Biggest Loser Australia: Singles

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

Future event, crystal-balling, no refs Pesky (talk …stalk!) 12:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is confirmed. SL93 (talk) 23:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so my understanding is that the whole reason this page is considered for deletion is because of a lack of references. There is no mirror balling and I apologise for the lack of references. I have now referenced everything which will hopefully clear everything up. There is no reason for its deletion. As SL93 states, this season is well and truly confirmed and even now has its own official web page discussing the new format. Bbmaniac (talk) 01:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Pending a reliable, independent source discussing this. So far all the sources which do are the show's own website and bloggers; none of these suffice to meet the GNG. Ravenswing 10:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? How is information on the show's official site not a good enough reference? That's like saying information on YouTube's About Page about YouTube is invalid, which makes no sense. The other references come from TV Tonight, which if you didn't know, is a very reliable source of television information whereby the author of the blog has ties with Network Ten chief programmer David Mott (Don't believe me? Ask him). The blog post that is referenced references itself from the Network Ten PR detailing their program launch and info for returning shows. Unless it has been taken down, I did reference the page number in which information about TBLS is featured in the PR. I invite you to look for the document and read for yourself. Bbmaniac (talk) 06:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Fixing the problem— WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM— is likely more appropriate than blanket deletion. Northamerica1000 (talk) 13:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: That would be nice, but no one seems to have lifted a finger to do so, yourself included. Ravenswing 01:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 00:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Moss Cider Project

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

fails WP:ORG. a small local volunteer organisation, with a mere 2 gnews hits [32]. LibStar (talk) 12:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Irrelevant event and organisation. Probably self promotion. - DonCalo (talk) 13:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This local initiative does not make for a notable topic. Drmies (talk) 01:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to fail WP:ORG, as it is just of local interest and has not received substantial national or international attention. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The BBC is national coverage. They allow you to sort through their results to show things that happen in specific areas. And the other link isn't just some small town local paper but for the community of Manchester. "Greater Manchester has an estimated population of 2.6 million." Dream Focus 00:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

but there is not significant coverage. a one off appearance in BBC is not enough for an article. nor does it mean 2.6 million read that Manchester paper. LibStar (talk) 00:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage, not trivial mention, in two reliable sources. Dream Focus 01:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It did get significant coverage in two major reliable sources, and that meets (barely) the WP:GNG requirements. However, I am personally underwhelmed by the results obtained by this group. All that effort for 9 gallons of cider? I organize bigger community projects than that every year. --MelanieN (talk) 23:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 18:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wiki articles aren't needed for every group that makes the news. Notability for encyclopedic articles depends on significant coverage by independent, reliable sources. The "significant coverage" is lacking, but if someone decides to mention the group in other articles, there are two whole cites to back it up. That's three times the wiki average. JFHJr (㊟) 07:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Significant coverage in significant mass media sources. See references section of article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 13:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2 references is not significant. LibStar (talk) 03:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a policy-based statement. See WP:Articles for deletion/Radio Sandwell. Unscintillating (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the coverage is "significant" or not is a bit of a judgment call here, but the article is fully sourced and cited to coverage in reliable sources--and there seems to be enough here to build a decent article. So on balance, count me as a Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This looks like a one off event. If it has legs then maybe it might be worth an article. Malleus Fatuorum 21:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 2 references is significant. Unscintillating (talk) 20:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 12:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid cloud

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

While the title "hybrid cloud" is arguably notable, "hybrid cloud file servers" are most certainly not. The article was created solely to promote Egnyte (per original version) and adds nothing over the cloud computing article. As such it should be deleted or redirected to Cloud_computing#Hybrid_cloud. WP:N WP:V WP:NOT WP:COI etc. -- samj _in ^out 12:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Use the Google news archive link at the top of the AFD. Easy finds.
The Register When hybrid clouds are a mixed blessing, Aiming for the best of both worlds By Alan Stevens, 29th June 2011 10:00 GMT
Business Insider [IBM Embraces Juniper for its Smart Hybrid Cloud]
TheStreet.com HP Accelerates Customers’ Path To Open, Hybrid Cloud

So this is an important thing, big tech companies going to it, and major news sources writing about it. Dream Focus 00:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per nomination, I don't dispute the notability of "hybrid cloud" (which is covered in cloud computing) but the subject of the article is effectively "hybrid cloud file servers". -- samj _in ^out 00:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no difference. The cloud computers are always used as file servers. Dream Focus 21:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Cloud Storage Gateway which means the same thing. The topic itself is notable but we already have an article about it. Marokwitz (talk) 05:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Hybrid cloud is not at all the same as Cloud Storage Gateway — if anything we should merge & redirect to the hybrid cloud section of the cloud computing article. -- samj _in ^out 15:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. One source with a single four-line paragraph about the subject is not even close the enough, even from the NIST. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Keep, could this artical be expanded? or further referenced, if so keep, if not merge – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 19:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Topic's notability is established per reliable sources listed above by user Dream Focus. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. causa sui (talk) 18:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Delaney (music)

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

Nominate for deletion I can't find anything to support WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 10:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CREATIVE, but may be WP:UPANDCOMING. Note that playing with other semi-notable performers doesn't help prove notability. Bearian (talk) 19:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG (only coverage mentions him in passing, so it's not significant coverage) and WP:MUSICBIO.--Slon02 (talk) 17:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep - the discussion centred on whether the sources were sufficient to meet the notability guidelines. In particular, the significance of the interviews was questioned. However, the consensus is that WP:GNG is met. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Taaki

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

I don't think subject matter passes WP:NOTABILITY. Genjix (talk) 09:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sufficient footnotes showing to constitute notability in Wikipedia terms, including British and German interviews. With all due respect to the subject, people may not "really need" to know about you, but they might want to. No BLP issues that I can spot. A nicely done piece. Carrite (talk) 00:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Don't know if the subject's post was reverse psychology or whatever, but appears notable and well written, except..... Need the immense amount of external links taken out of the body. North8000 (talk) 02:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How can I get certain things changed that are incorrect and/or slightly dated? I can provide references where needed. Genjix (talk) 09:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We'll work on this if it closes keep here. Thanks for asking and not leaping in yourself; sometimes self-editing is acceptable, but it's a pretty fine line to tread. If this closes keep (and it should) we'll get it fixed up and I'll be happy to clue you in on what the culture is regarding acceptable and unacceptable edits on pages of which one is the subject. No worries. Carrite (talk) 05:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article isn't great, and there isn't an overwhelming number of hits, but the interview with the Tagesspiegel itself is already a pretty god indication of notability. Drmies (talk) 01:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tagesspiegel is a small, political newspaper with a circulation of 120000, if that. As I am European, to explain to American readers, coverage in that paper is analogous to coverage in a very minor libertarian newspaper in a city such as Seattle. Antiselfpromotion (talk) 16:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A long-established newspaper with a circulation of 120,000 (or 148,000 according to our article) is hardly "small" or "very minor". Phil Bridger (talk) 18:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The topical interviews very clearly do not establish notability under WP:BIO. That there are many footnotes does not establish notability by itself. The sources are not detailed profiles of the subject. They are interviews in which he is consulted for factual information about a matter of topical news. The rest of the article is original research about the subject's political viewpoints (with no notability established as a political commentator), as drawn from his own online writings on message boards. Antiselfpromotion (talk) 16:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Antiselfpromotion misstates WP:GNG and WP:OUTCOMES. Sufficient citations of a good quality throws the burden of proof onto the nominator, by presuming notability. The nomination has not stated why a presumptively notable person's article should be deleted, other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Bearian (talk) 19:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I read the citations, he was not 'covered' under WP:GNG. He was asked about something topical. Someone consulted by press on e.g. the BP oil spill would not be notable on that basis, even if there had been multiple consultations. The citations establish that he should perhaps be listed in the article on Bitcoin, nothing more. Antiselfpromotion (talk) 01:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fake denominations of United States currency

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

This is a magnet for trivial cruft and in principle, an almost unmanageable list. Virtually all of the present content is unsourced or uses unreliable sources. Anything really important can simply be mentioned in passing in an article about counterfeiting or American currency. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nominator, really--it already is crufty, with nothing but odd news items. Indeed, if there ever is anything worthwhile, it ought to go in the articles suggested by Koavf. Drmies (talk) 00:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All of it is notable, all of it is sourceable. Some of it is already fairly well sourced. I think we could defend an individual article on many of the individual denominations. but at least a combination article is appropriate There has been an immense amount published in this are. I'll look for some. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response "Several people have produced $0 bills as a joke, with pictures of their political enemies or other people. The bills usually have "ZERO DOLLARS" marked in capital letters.". —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but remove the unsourced junk, particularly the $0 bill section. As DGG points out, much of the article is sourced, and I've found several better sources for parts of it that may not be very solidly sourced yet (NYTimes - read the full article, 2001 news story, CNN in 2004, another NYT story, Ghana Business News, same story on Sky News, item on $1 million bills, another item regarding $1 million bills) I expect that the overall topic has been documented somewhere else, thus making the topic as a whole notable, but I confess that I haven't found such evidence yet. Unsourced material detracts from the rest of the article, though, and should be deleted. --Orlady (talk) 16:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per reliable sources that establish notability of the topic Northamerica1000 (talk) 05:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Fake currency denominations are a legitimate part of American cultural history, no less so that things like Sawing off of Manhattan Island, e.g., [33] (The Numismatist, Volume 96, "Although today we hear expressions such as 'queer as a $3 bill'...."). I wonder how old the $3 bill as fake/phony/queer goes back, actually. [34] (1949 - "phony as a three dollar bill"); [35] (1943 - "quite a trick, like trying to change a three dollar bill at your favorite bank.")' [36] (1942 - "as rare as a three dollar bill"); [37] (1937 - "It is as fictitious and fraudulent, from stem to stern, as a $3 bill"); [38] (1931 - "ONLY $3 BILL EVER ISSUED IS FOUND IN OHIO"); [39] (1914 - ny times story on bartender getting a $3 bill issued in 1852 from a patron, bartender had not believed there was a 3 dollar bill); [40] (1905 - ny times letter to editor, someone in actual possession of a 1777 $3 bill)--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but clean up. This article is quite popular and most of the material can be sourced even if it is not currently. Deleting the article will simply result in the same material being replicated to multiple other articles. It's good to have a single place for it. Cshay (talk) 18:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found the subject of the article to be personally noteworthy, which is more than I can say about most of the AfD articles I look at. Deterence ^Talk 23:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. causa sui (talk) 18:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Breana McDow

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

Non-notable person; fails WP:ENTERTAINER with only one significant role in anything (and the thing happens to be an unreleased project by her fiance). Article was created by the subject or by a relative, and most of the work on it and linking it from other articles was likewise done by a user that appears to have a COI, so it's a vanity page as well. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:35, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think the article is written ok. However, Ms. McDow appears not to have done anything notable yet. According to IMDB, the film she will be in is still filming. So, can't yet use her film role to assess nobility. Also, I think the film has a budget of $500,000. That leaves some ads and video music work, which doesn't amount to much. I couldn't find any reliable sources. Bgwhite (talk) 08:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON#Actors. Music videos and commercial spots fail WP:ENT. Lack of any coverage at all fails WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:GNG. The performances in ads and music videos aren't significant, so they don't work for WP:NACTOR. The film itself seems to have just finished filming, and so it hasn't shown whether it's significant or not, but I'd say that it's not significant enough.--Slon02 (talk) 17:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. causa sui (talk) 18:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kellan Tochkin

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

Not yet notable per WP:NHOCKEY: so far only plays in a major junior league, and has not yet received honours in that league. Prod contested without comment by article's creator. Gurt Posh (talk) 08:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Gurt Posh (talk) 08:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Gurt Posh (talk) 08:35, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can be re-created once he meets NHOCKEY or GNG. Patken4 (talk) 20:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per talk:Patken4. Rlendog (talk) 01:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 00:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laughing Jackal

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

I could not find a single reliable source providing significant coverage of the subject. Delete per WP:GNG. Note, the subject of the article is a game development company, not a video game itself. Nor is the subject a list of video games, although it does contain one. See WP:PRODUCT and WP:CORPDEPTH. Odie5533 (talk) 08:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A lot of the references I had intended to add have been contributed by Gurt Posh since the nomination for deletion. I am currently working offline on Laughing Jackal's games that are of note within the field of PSP Minis for thier high sales figures and critical acclaim, particularly OMG-Z which currently ranks 4th highest scoring game on Metacritic for all PSP games. I do hope these additions will meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. Eldopian (talk) 08:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain how you believe the additions now meet the WP:GNG? I do not believe they do. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly I have to note that this article is not finished, the “newpage” tag was removed before I had fully evidenced the notability of the subject. The developer and its titles have received significant coverage within the videogaming industry from a variety of reliable, independent sources. Even as a smaller UK developer they have received international attention. A Google News search will display reviews and reports from French, German and American websites. Researching further I can find reviews from Australia, Italy and Spain among others, including coverage in major newspapers like the Toronto Star and The Independent. The fact that Laughing Jackal’s games currently have no Wikipedia pages do not immediately infer they are not notable – you’ve probably heard it argued to death, but “Wikipedia is never finished” – I am currently working on the articles for the titles I consider notable and have plenty of appropriate sources available for them. If it is simply the present quantity of reference sources and/or detail in the article that has resulted in this nomination for deletion then I can continue to work on the article to develop and improve it then I will consent to it being userfyed. However, I in turn fail to see how Laughing Jackal lacks the notability to warrant an entry in Wikipedia. Eldopian (talk) 09:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is about the company, not the games. I agree, some of the games are notable and should have articles. I do not believe the company itself is notable. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Userfy per WP:PRODUCT: "Note that a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right. In this case, an article on the product may be appropriate, and notability of the company itself is not inherited as a result." and WP:CORPDEPTH as I don't feel the references provided describe the company itself in enough depth.
I do recognise the creator's ongoing work and believe this company could in future become notable so I suggest userfying the article to the creator's namespace so that work can be continued and if/when the company can be demonstrated to clearly meet WP:CORP/WP:GNG the article can be recreated. This is a borderline case, IMHO, which is why I suggest this. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 16:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 18:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The article and keep the games produced by Laughing Jackal within the article. Notability is established per Eldopian's citations and arguments above. It is reasonable to have an anchor article based upon the company, and include various software, games, etc. within the company article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 13:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to a reference that provides significant coverage of the subject of this nomination? Unless such a reference exists, I don't see why this company is notable. The fact the company's products may be notable is not inherited by the company itself. --Odie5533 (talk) 19:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Game companies are like record companies, notable based on how successful the things they release are. Eurogamer and others do comment on the developer also at times [41] saying "developer Laughing Jackal seems to know exactly what buttons to press to get its audience nodding along appreciatively." I see two games of its which have articles now with references found reviewing them, and a third one can be created with that link there for their game Vibes(see the previous page of the review at the bottom for it). Dream Focus 04:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still think the GNG requires significant coverage. From WP:N, "Note that a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right. In this case, an article on the product may be appropriate, and notability of the company itself is not inherited as a result." --Odie5533 (talk) 08:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning favorable comments about a company, covering what they produce, announcing what their next product or thing they are doing is, is significant coverage. Dream Focus 11:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. causa sui (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fraser Cain

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

The subject of this article fails Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. I have been unable to find significant coverage about him.

Analysis of the sources in the article:

Meet the Cast – the website of a podcast Cain cohosts, this primary source cannot be considered a third-party reliable source.
Fraser Cain (June 22, 2007). "Arctic Exploring Robots Ready to Take a Dive". Wired. Retrieved 12 July 2010. – written by Cain, this article cannot be considered an independent source.
Cain, Fraser (July 30, 2007), "Space Station Sabotage, Seriously?", Wired, retrieved August 6, 2009 – see above.
Gay, Pamela; Bemrose-Fetter, Rebecca; Bracey, Georgia; Cain, Fraser (October 2007), "Astronomy Cast: Evaluation of a podcast audience's content needs and listening habits", CAP Journal, 1 (1), retrieved August 6, 2009 – an article co-written by the subject and Pamela L. Gay, both of whom cohost Astronomy Cast about Astronomy Cast cannot be used to establish notability.
"158092 Frasercain (2000 WM68)", JPL Small-Body Database Browser, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, retrieved August 6, 2009 – the source does not notrivially discuss Fraser Cain.

Verbatim sentence from source:

Wikipedia: "He studied engineering at the University of British Columbia, and is currently completing his computer science degree."
Source: "He studied engineering at the University of British Columbia, and is currently completing his computer science degree."

From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universe Today (3rd nomination), Astrocog (talk · contribs) wrote:

I also looked at Fraser Cain's page, and I have to say I think it may be up for deletion in the future, too. There's just not enough to go on. Because somebody has an asteroid named after them is not enough. Asteroids are named by the people who find them, generally amateur astronomers, who name asteroids after friends or people they admire. The amateur who named the asteroid was likely a listener of Cain's podcast. Look, I wish this were not the case, because I like Cain and the work he does. But my personal appreciation of AstronomyCast is not enough to be lax on standards.
— User:Astrocog 14:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

A Google News Archive search ("Fraser Cain" -"by Fraser Cain") and a Google Books search return no secondary reliable sources about him.

Because this article fails Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, and because the subject fails Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, this page should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 06:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vanity and self promotion. - DonCalo (talk) 13:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, what? This article was not written by Fraser Cain, and is not promotional in tone. Reyk _YO! 22:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - He fails WP:GNG, he is clearly not notable. - DonCalo (talk) 11:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We definitely need more sources to keep this article, though the one from JPL does fine at confirming the statement about 158092 Frasercain. If that's the only valid source, though... yikes. I find it hard to believe that this subject isn't notable, but if there aren't sources, then that's that. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. Rlendog (talk) 00:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Katsuhiro Sudo

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

I could only ever find him briefly mentioned in a list. Fails WP:GNG as there's no significant coverage. Author contested prod. Odie5533 (talk) 06:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Odie5533 (talk) 06:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Crafts & Meister, the company he founded/runs. No independent notability. Giant Snowman 20:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I agree with @GiantSnowman, it doesn't qualify for its own article, since it fails WP:GNG, but its founder company is more generalized. --Beastphones (talk) 00:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that this person does not meet WP:BAND or WP:GNG. Just having been played on several radio stations associated with the performer, even if in multiple markets, is not sufficient to meet WP:BAND. The closest criterion is probably #11: Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network, and consensus is that this person has not been placed in rotation by any major (emphasis added) radio network. Rlendog (talk) 00:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lowell Bekker

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

16-yearold musician who has only self-published his music. No reliable sources can be found. No reliable sources in the article except to say his song was played 22 times on-air. Prod was contested. Bgwhite (talk) 06:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 06:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CommentRadio station websites are included as reliable sources. For an article to be valid on Wikipedia, any artist who has received national airplay on mainstream radios is considered eligible, proved with the resourced. Bekker Records does not constitute self-publishing. --Beastphones (talk) 18:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)— Beastphones (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Being played on-air 22 times by the local radio station isn't exactly national airplay. There are several radios stations listed, but they are owned by the same company, that uses the same website and the same database of artists.... Hehe, being played on the talk, country and classics sister-stations would be a coup. Bekker Records only artist is Lowell Bekker and is owned by him, that is self-publishing. Bgwhite (talk) 21:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't just local radio stations, even if they are all the same company that owns them. Bekker Records is owned by Natasha Bekker, with artists such as Jac Harper and others. I suggest to do your own research before concluding. --Beastphones (talk) 01:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC) — Beastphones (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

From all the radio links list in the article, "He is currently signed to co-founded Bekker Records". He is self-published to an independent record label. Bgwhite (talk) 03:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CO-founded. Not owned. There's enough national airplay to be eligible for a Wikipedia article, you have no case. ;) --Beastphones (talk) 03:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)— Beastphones (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

What other markets did it play in, and how can we verify that? — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The power of google! I kid. There are several markets that the single has played in, such as New York, Los Angeles, Atlanta, Dallas, Miami (etc.) Even though, as discussed earlier, they're all owned by the same company, they all are eligible as national airplay. They're on each radio station website, which could be considered a valid source because they are not editable by the public nor the artist. They also are not social networking sites or other useless content. --Beastphones (talk) 03:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)— Beastphones (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete per nom. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does that mean? --Beastphones (talk) 03:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)— Beastphones (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

"per nomination" -- it means that he accepts the reasoning of the person who nominated the article for deletion. Antandrus (talk) 03:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the nominator's rationale for nominating the article for deletion. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. This article complies with Wikipedia's rules for musician biographies. Bekker has received NATIONAL airplay. It's not just because he's important, but I believe this article should stay, because there is nothing wrong with it. Sure, it should be expanded over time with more sources, but it shouldn't be deleted immediately. WP:BAND "11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network." This clearly states he is eligible for an article. --Beastphones (talk) 04:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)— Beastphones (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable "musician", no credible sources to prove notability. The article itself appears to be self-promotional. Keb25 (talk) 04:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SOURCES ARE CREDIBLE. Does anyone listen? Why can't we just give the article some time to expand, instead of deleting it? Why don't you focus your energy on searching for more sources and expanding the article? I don't get it. --Beastphones (talk) 04:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Beastphones: Sources are reliable and it does comply with WP:BAND. I think we should stay with the article in question for a certain period of time after which, if no changes are made (or there is nothing else significant to add), it should be considered for incubation or deletion. StephenG (talk) 18:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So...if someone labels me as spam, when I just started using Wikipedia...and if I do the same to someone else, it's considered vandalism? Instead of stalking my page, why don't we discuss this maturely instead of these warnings? And don't you dare label this as 'vandalism', because that's just not right. --Beastphones (talk) 22:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I also replied on your talk page which is where the past warnings have gone. Nobody has ever labeled anything you have written as Spam. A tag has been placed behind your name that is called SPA - Single Purpose Account. Please read WP:SPA. When you delete tags from the article, this page and label other editors SPA who have thousands of edits, that is vandalism. Bgwhite (talk) 23:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I replied on my page. --Beastphones (talk) 00:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 00:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Focus on the Family (disambiguation)

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

Everything listed here is an affiliate of the main Focus on the Family group. All these should be linked from the main Focus on the Family article, which makes this disambiguation page totally unnecessary. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 06:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and also because half of these are redirects to Focus on the Family anyway. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Those are only derivative works of Focus on the Family, so no need for a dab. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JJJ Heathcote Limited

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

No assertion of notability per WP:COMPANY; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Proposed deletion contested by anonymous editor, with edit summary only saying "Altered" on prod removal. Gurt Posh (talk) 05:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Gurt Posh (talk) 05:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 05:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable company. Promotional article. Keb25 (talk) 06:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blatant advert. no significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 12:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self promotion of an irrelevant company. - DonCalo (talk) 13:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A local, maybe upscale, but definitely local, butcher's shop. The company are the purveyors of meat, poultry, and dealers of game to HM Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne MP, when at his constituency home. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found no significant coverage for this local company. SL93 (talk) 21:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough reliable sources of coverage for Wikipedia article. --Beastphones (talk) 00:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 00:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Triple-V Foodmasters

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

PROD contested without reason, Unsourced, nothing in the way of GNEWS hits for them, this is the top GHits, Fails WP:GNG. (possible hoax) Mt king ^(edits) 05:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Mentions found on Google News Archives [42]. Not hoax: this team was the champion of 1991-92 Philippine Basketball League season. --Bluemask (talk) 11:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG which expects multiple sources of WP:INDEPENDENT independent coverage. All the sources on Google are from Manilla Standard, but GNG says "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." WP:NBASKETBALL does not grant presumed notability to Philippine Basketball League. Willing to reconsider if independent offline sources can be cited. —Bagumba (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: WP:NBASKETBALL is only for people, not teams. –H T D 12:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - True, but it would seem a logical extension that if a player is presumed notable for playing in a game in a league, then sufficient coverage is likely to exist for a team in the league as well. In any event, the point is moot, as the league is not part of the SNG. It will need to demonstrate it passes GNG. —Bagumba (talk) 17:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I suppose teams in a sports league where all of its games were covered in national free TV are notable enough -- this is a step lower than the professional Philippine Basketball Association (all current teams and most defunct teams have articles), and a step higher than the collegiate leagues (the top 2 leagues all have articles on their teams) so to say that this team is not notable is like saying we should AFD Arena Football League or Football League Championship teams. –H T D 04:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - The concern is the coverage, not the level of play. Not being familiar with the league, I can only go off sources I can find, or sources identified in this AfD. Those more familiar with the league have the option to use common sense and overrule the lack of sources.—Bagumba (talk) 05:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Like I said, all of the games were covered on free TV. If that's not decent coverage, I dunno what is. –H T D 05:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I know what the guidelines say, but multiple articles in the Manila Standard is good enough for me. It's highly unlikely that the Manila Standard was the only paper to ever cover this team. I would bet that there are lots of other sources that simply aren't available from a Google search. (How many older Filipino newspapers are electronically archived, anyway?) Zagalejo^^^ 00:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Most newspapers (before 2000s) in the Philippines are yet archived by Google. --Bluemask (talk) 03:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Google News has stopped archiving newspapers so don't expect new ones getting there. –H T D 04:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How so? –H T D 18:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is faulty WP:GNG reasoning. While it may be true that there's only one source online (Google News' archive of the Manila Standard), it is inconceivable to say the list that it was only that paper that covered the team or the league at that time. A similar type of article will be the UAAP Season 50 men's basketball tournament (1987), which used the same Manila Standard source. It's inconceivable that the UAAP article be deleted if it's modern-day counterpart UAAP Season 73 men's basketball tournament (2010) exists -- look at the ton of coverage on the latter article. Would it be logical to say that an identical article set 20 years ago be deleted because we can only get one online source and assume there no other sources? WP:GNG also states "Sources are not required to be available online" hence it's suffice to say that sources do exist, not just online, nor can it be easily retrieved. –H T D 18:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff existing is not a strong argument. While online sources are not required, it cannot be assumed that offline sources automatically exist either. Nobody has identified any offline sources. For any of the articles in Category:Philippine Basketball League teams, there does not seem to be any independent coverage cited. All of the articles under Category:Philippine Basketball League seasons list only an external link to http://www.philippinebasketball.ph/, which is only a single source (can't tell if it is reliable or based on user contributions.) Philippine Basketball League itself has no citations and only has external links to non-independent sites. The WP:BURDEN to show Triple-V Foodmasters (let alone the other related league articles) has not been met. WP:V says verifiability is what matters, not whether it is actually true. Editors can argue to ignore all rules because they know firsthand that this team is notable, but let's not argue GNG until multiple independent, reliable sources have not been identified.—Bagumba (talk) 18:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Philippine Basketball League has 1,570 articles in Google News, showing that there it passes WP:GNG. As for the article quality, well it is crappy, but having crappy articles is not reason for deletion.

As what I've said earlier, it's pretty inconceivable to declare that there's no GNG for the Philippine Basketball League in the 1990s when there is sufficient coverage now. –H T D 19:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(BTW, the PBL no longer exists. –H T D 19:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is a clear consensus that this article should be kept. Though the page has been substantially improved during the AfD, clearly there is more work to be done. The remaining issues can, however, now be addressed by the normal editing processes. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

University of Denver Ski Team

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

This article was written by a clear COI editor. All the sources are not third party. This article requires a fundamental rewrite - it reads like a team profile, not an encyclopedia article. Very few third-party results in a Google search (at least for the first 4 pages). Jasper Deng (talk) 03:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article makes a strong claim of notability - that this team has won more NCAA ski titles than any other, and that it is tied for fourth in national NCAA titles for all sports. I see coverage in reliable sources in a Google Books search. Sadly, Google has eviscerated the Google News Archive search tool. I consider it highly likely that reliable sources on skiing have covered this team. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how we can keep the article in its current state.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then my friendly suggestion to you, since you feel so strongly, is to rewrite the article so as to better meet our standards. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Click the Google news archive search at the top of the AFD please. The New York Times and others give them coverage, they getting the headline in articles like this [43] which require payment to see the whole article, but clearly they have received significant coverage. Remember to follow WP:BEFORE. Dream Focus 03:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The editor that the nominator identifies as a "COI editor" has been trying, in good faith, to improve the article. I have made a number of edits as well, including adding several references to reliable sources from Life (magazine) and trying to tone down the promotional language. If any collegiate ski team in the world is notable, then this must be the one. Opinions from other editors are welcomed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
speedy Keep No case for deletion presented-- Just as notable as other major college teams in major competitive sports that play at the top amateur level & win multiple championships. Full coverage by excellent sources. I'm not sure this was actually intended as a deletion nomination: the nom keep referring to not all sources being 3rd party, meaning that some of them are, and says what is wanted is a thorough rewrite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
Keep: All information contained on this page is accurate and up to date, congrats to the best ski team in NCAA history. — 130.253.55.157 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Weak keep--weak keep because the article is so poor, and so poorly verified. It's more like a moral weak keep, or a morally weak keep. I've trimmed it a bit, but more needs to be done, obviously. BTW, given where this is headed, I'm removing the ARS tag as overkill. Drmies (talk) 23:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The page has been dramatically improved during the course of the AfD resulting in a clear consensus to keep this article. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Choker(film)

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

Film article with no sources and nothing to indicate what makes it notable. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 02:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. While IMDB isn't a reliable source, the fact that it doesn't have an article on this film suggests that the film is not notable.[44] Pburka (talk) 03:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0421983/ The Mark of the Beast (talk) 06:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Odd. I could have sworn it wasn't there yesterday. Regardless, I still believe the film is not notable. Pburka (talk) 14:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Change to keep given the recent improvements to the article. Pburka (talk) 00:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability is not established here. 11coolguy12 (talk) 06:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have changed my vote to keep after reading Schmidt's comments. 11coolguy12 (talk) 08:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found zero sources. SL93 (talk) 21:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Keep: Per Schmidt. SL93 (talk) 23:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With respects to the nominator and above editors, the film was titled Choker only during its 2005 festival run, and yes... such a comon name makes searches quite difficult. But when released by MTI Home Video on DVD in 2006, it was titled Disturbance in the U.S. and B.E.I.N.G. in the UK. Armed with THAT information, independent secondary sources addressing the film directly AND in detail are much easier to find. I immediately found quite substantive reviews in JoBLo and Film Critics United and evidence of several other decent reviews... including one in Fangoria. What was nominated one-day after being created by a two-edit account is already looking better and more encyclopedic. This will take more work certainly, but adressable issues are rarely cause for deletion and WP:NF is met. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Dream Focus 03:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Once again, the all knowing film god MichaelQSchmidt has saved a movie article. [45] Dream Focus 03:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I also found Terror Hook and Film Monthly but I could use help in tracking down that Fangoria review. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep--I'm not totally impressed with the strength of the sources, and it seems to me that they're milked for all they're worth (sorry MQS!), but I think they suggest notability. Actually, I think we have SNOW here. Drmies (talk) 17:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We glean what we can without creating synthesis, so no apologies neccessary. :) I could use help in tracking down that Fangoria review. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Nebula

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

This is a minor and inconsequential character, with just three or four comic book appearences since being created twenty years ago. "It's a parody of Galactus" is all the out-of-universe information we may ever say about it. There are no secondary sources, and with this context, I seriously doubt they exist for this article Cambalachero (talk) 02:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP, about 10 seconds online produced a viable 3rd party citation from a book which talked about how this character moved from series to a parody character. This seems to indicate 3rd party source exist. Mathewignash (talk) 13:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThis artical I will admit, needs sources!!, but it appears to already be start-class in legnth, after its information is verrified it could be expanded further on. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to presume that the fictional character meets the general notability guideline. All that shows up with a quick search engine test are trivial mentions, nothing that indicates that the character has analytic or evaluative claims made about him in reliable secondary sources. Without reception and significance, the article is a summary-only description of a fictional work, nothing to presume that the fictional character deserves a stand-alone article. Jfgslo (talk) 15:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sources gven so far merely confirm that the character exists, meaning, it was indeed published at some issues of the Justice League comic book. But existence does not equal notability. We can have articles about things from fiction, but if written from an out-of-universe perspective. And that's precisely the problem: that there is no such information. "Publication history" has only one sentence written under that perspective, it can be halved nto two, but that's as long as it will ever get. We can't talk about a history of creative teams working with the character, visual or narrative changes done over the years, regular publications or big crossovers featuring it as the main character, use in other media; because none of that exist. As I said, "three or four comic book appearences" is all. Expansion is not possible, the only way to expand would be to explain into even higher detail the plot of those issues, which is a big no-no. Cambalachero (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant reliable secondary sources coverage asserted in this discussion or found in my search. Off2riorob (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia articles are not plot summaries and this article does not have enough coverage in reliable sources to WP:verify notability and provide information on reception and context. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:01, 2 October 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) 23:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Akira Nishitani

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

I couldn't find a single source offering significant coverage of this game designer. Del per WP:N. Author contested prod. Odie5533 (talk) 01:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Odie5533 (talk) 01:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I spent many quarters playing Street Fighter, but alas, I was unable to find any significant, reliable sources about him. Bgwhite (talk) 06:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He co-creating a game that made over a billion dollars. Dream Focus 00:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for more information I don't see how being a co-creator to a game with a sales revenue of a $1.5billion is an automatic keep. Would you provide the justification why this person should have his own stand alone page? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 14:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 15:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to agree with Bgwhite: there's one fairly tenuous reference to him having authored this game, and nothing else. It's not clear that any of the English-language sources given is not some sort of Wiki, and most info here is unsourced. Mangoe (talk) 02:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no doubt that his name is in the credits, and that he did in fact author these games though. That one accomplishment should be enough to prove him notable. Dream Focus 02:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's all he is, though, when it comes to sourceable facts: a name in the article for each game. Mangoe (talk) 02:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Among 100s of verifiable game authors, there is no justification why this man should be assigned his own stand alone page. In absence of it, it does not pass the Pokemon test. I believe it should be deleted unless something to substantiate his prominence over plenty of other game producers can be established through reliable sources. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing sufficient in-depth coverage to verify notability or justify a self-standing article. --DAJF (talk) 11:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elements in fiction

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

An unreferenced list which could in fact be never ending depending on how you define an element. Parts of this page were up for deletion before, when the article was about "Elementals in Fiction". Deadly∀ssassin 01:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced, full of made-up elements, and unclear as to whether an element must be identified as such in the text in order to be included. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - original synthesis. Not an encyclopaedic topic. --Simone (talk) 20:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article is comprised of original research by synthesis, there are not reliable sources to back up the content and, so, is devoid of verifiability. I would even say that the article is almost pure original research. Jfgslo (talk) 23:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Barr

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

Unreliably sourced WP:BLP of a voice actor who fails WP:ENTERTAINER. The only sources are just credit listings. Google searches don't bring up much more, except for a journalist and a DJ who both share his name. BLPPROD was declined because the article did contain some unreliable sources. Pburka (talk) 01:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Irrelevant minor actor failing WP:ENTERTAINER. Probably self promotion. - DonCalo (talk) 13:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability criteria. Vanity, self-promotional article. Keb25 (talk) 15:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, minor voice-over performer. I don't think he's behind the article, but he's not notable. PK T(alk) 17:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: little evidence of notability: little to no evidence of third-party coverage, and mostly roles too minor to warrant even a listing in their Wikipedia articles. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ninnishtam Ennishtam 2

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

Going through edits by an editor blocked for Copyvio after another OTRS complaint today, I came across this. No evidence of notability, from what little I could find it was panned. Dougweller (talk) 16:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've been asked to remove the deletion tag as sources have been added, but they don't seem to meet our criteria at WP:MOVIE. Dougweller (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion: Added details to the article like film Plot, references, Cast, Image, Reception etc. for Notability.
Anish Viswa 04:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Borderline notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Wp:notability looks borderline. Newer article, see if it adds more wp:notability related material/refs (if such is available) North8000 (talk) 02:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news archive search only shows one result, that a film review from Yentha. There are sources now in the article though. Someone with a knowledge of India film can comment on this. The cast have blue links to their names, so its something that had real actors. Dream Focus 00:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 00:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Teenage California

AfDs for this article:

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

previous afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Teenage California resulted in deletion. still no significant coverage outside the pageant itself. i tried to find adequate references to show notability, and i dont think i succeeded. only other significant editor is an SPA that hasnt been able to show notability. Article creator is also an SPA, who recreated this after deletion, and created article for a pageant placer, hence their username.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the competition that is the subject of this article has been mentioned in the Boston Globe, Los Angeles Times, Sacramento Bee, and San Diego Union Tribube. All are reliable sources; that being said whether any of those articles are indepth enough to be considered "significant coverage" is debateable. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally there are ten passing mentions of the competition in books. As with the news mentions, it is debateable whether any are indepth enough to be considered "significant coverage". --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG Stuartyeates (talk) 09:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Statewide competition in the largest state in the country which has run for 33 years. How can that not meet notability. North8000 (talk) 02:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It fails on notability if no independent third party coverage can be found and put into the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not exactly, The standard is "has received" rather than "in the article".....of course "in the article" is the best way to resolve that. My comment was based on likelyhood of "has received" North8000 (talk) 15:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Keep. --Beastphones (talk) 00:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable, significant sources to establish notability in the article or that I could find. The parent pageants don't have an article so I went a looking... There are no Google News hits for "Miss Collegiate America Pageant", "Miss Collegiate America", "Miss High School America" or "Miss High School America Pageant." Couldn't find any reliable, significant sources for the parent pageants either. I went looking at how many beauty pageants for the state of California there are (not local or county, but state level)... I stopped counting at 50. Bgwhite (talk) 06:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep" This teen pageant is the most well-known state teen pageant in California for over three decades. Hard to follow this thread. One needs to be a scientist specialized in Wikipedia. As a layman it's impossible to do so.

Miss High School America and Miss Collegiate America website can be found at http://www.americashighschoolpageant.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.30.123.196 (talk) 06:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Teenage California is featured in the book "Girl Power," published by Grand Central Publishing/1995. The author- Hillary Carlip. An entire chapter is devoted to her serving as a judge for the Miss Teenage California Pageant. Former Miss Teenage California 1994 is featured on the cover. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laceydog (talk • contribs) 06:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 00:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Banna banna da Loka

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

Contested PROD. Seems to fail WP:GNG, as I was able to find only one reliable source. The rest were blogs or Youtube videos. Inks.LWC (talk) 08:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 08:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 08:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G1 (patent nonsense). The presense of wikifications doesn't mean the subject exists in the first place. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 01:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7 - Almost all sources provided are blogs or other self-published content Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 01:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' No indication of wP;notability, nothing in the text suggest it. Side note: 24 red links in a near-stub length article. A new record. 02:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy delete. Irrelevant. - DonCalo (talk) 13:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Nonsense article. Keb25 (talk) 14:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bazj (talk) 14:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 00:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toa Payoh Entertainment Centre

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

Does not seem notable Only one hit on G News [46] Darkness Shines (talk) 14:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references, no indication of wp:notability or notability. From it's own description it looks like it was just a 5 screen movie theater, now defunct. North8000 (talk) 02:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, run-down building. Unencyclopedic article. Keb25 (talk) 06:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete both by Ron Ritzman (talk · contribs) per A9, music recording by redlinked artist and no indication of importance or significance. (non-admin closure) Quasi human | Talk 12:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Lesson in Dying

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

Not a notable album per WP:NALBUMS. It was nominated for afd before, see WP:Articles for deletion/Dopamine (band). Mattg82 (talk) 15:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating Auditioning My Escape Plan for the same reason. Mattg82 (talk) 15:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 00:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jayesslee

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

No RS are present in article nor were found in search to support notability, which went beyond simple web content (the YouTube channel) and looked for references to the Jance and Sonia Lee themselves. Moogwrench (talk) 16:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I couldn't find any independent sources. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 02:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, WP:PROMOTION & WP:NOTDIR Cantaloupe2 (talk) 21:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. assertion of notibility improved with additional reliable externals - consensus leaning towards keep. (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 13:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Townsend

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

Biographical article of a school headmaster which does not demonstrate notability. Previously ProD'd but this was removed with only one of several issues contested.

Dr Townsend may be notable within a small academic circle, but there is no demonstrating of overall notability.

Being a headmaster of a school is not, in itself, notable.

While Dr Townsend has been involved with several wider programs, none of these have been large or influential organisation. For a headmaster of any school (public or state) involvement in these programs is simply part of the job.

While I recognise this is not enough to rule out notability, a Google search for Ralph Townsend does not provide any sources beyond those from the school, from social media sites, or from articles mentioning Dr Townsend in passing.

As it stands at the moment, a majority of the article is either a) providing an unsourced description of his teaching career, or b) listing the 10 schools involved in a partnership program. The single source in the article simply confirms that he is the Headmaster of the college.

I am sure that Dr Townsend is a good headmaster who has a positive influence on those around him. But sadly he does not have the notability required for a Wikipedia article. Guycalledryan (talk) 17:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Guardian article referenced in the article has significant coverage of Townsend, being about his reform programme for the school, and the Tablet article has him as its subject, but I don't know how much coverage there is beyond the one fact sourced to it (a snippet can be seen here). There is also an article in Country Life about him [47] and some coverage in these news sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Headmaster of the second most famous private school in the world (the first being Eton College). Adequate notability. I don't have access to the Who's who (UK) but if he is in it that is an unambiguous keep. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, nominator. Are you going to tell us if he is in Who's who (UK)? You should know as you presumably checked that as part of WP:Before. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but stub. Headmaster of three schools is enough, and can be sourced. But the text of the article is essentially the same as his staff bio at Winchester. Archive.org only has the winchester page back to 2010 but it has been included as a link here since the creation of the article in 2007. I'm not certain it's a copyvio (if I were I'd tag it for a G12 speedy deletion) but I don't think it's appropriate. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 18:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep — he is in fact listed in Debrett's People of Today, which is at least as important as who's who, and possibly better, as one can be removed from it as well as added to it: "Dr Ralph Douglas Townsend." People of Today. Debrett's Ltd., 2011. Gale Biography In Context. Web. 18 Sep. 2011. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Headmasters of major public schools are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If Debrett's People of Today includes him in their list of Britain's most distinguished figures, then he is notable. Dream Focus 10:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Debrett's People of Today is a vanity publication with over 25,000 British entries - surely we are a bit more selective. People of Today's selection parameters are far more liberal than Wikipedia's notability criteria. The main problem with this article is that it is a direct copy from the school website. Some independent (of the school) content would solve many of its problems.John beta (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

query— i'm not disputing what you say, but i'm wondering in what sense you mean that debrett's is a vanity publication? — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is he is the UK Who's Who, which nobody has accused of being a vanity publication? The copy-vio is an issue, though. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

He is in Who's Who, yes, and that is certainly not a vanity publication (although I have seen ill-informed editors describe it as such in AfDs). One is invited to be in WW - one does not apply or pay to be in it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the same goes for Debrett's People of Today. John beta seems to be confusing these publications with certain others. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Phil Bridger, I'm not confused - you nominate yourself for inclusion in Debrett's People of Today (unlike Who's Who) Under this type of business model there is an expectation that people listed will buy a copy. That said, I'm not saying that this isn't a legitimate business model, and certainly not a scam. John beta (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per reliable sources already in the article that establish notability of the topic. Northamerica1000 (talk) 12:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Merger,r ename, etc. proposals should consider outside of AFD. Courcelles 22:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cdrskin

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

I found no significant coverage for this software. SL93 (talk) 00:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Disclaimer: I earlier tagged the article as needing sources.Stuartyeates (talk) 03:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Neither cdrkit nor dvd+rw-tools are actively maintained anymore which makes cdrskin along with the non-GPL cdrtools the last remaining optical disk writers for Linux and alike operating systems (especially when it comes to Blu-ray support). It's included in Debian, Fedora, and AFAIK also Ubuntu and IIRC Debian's Blu-ray installation media were created using cdrskin. With optical disk recording fading away, this software's popularity may not set the world on fire but it should be enough to justify an article. I try to find sources as reference. Give me a few days time, though. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 01:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I suggest we do is come up with a suitable article name and merge all of these together to retain the content and refs. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By “all these” do you mean cdrtools, cdrkit, and cdrskin? If yes, it would not make any sense. Except for being an recording application, it has nothing to do with the other two. I've extended the cdrskin article to cover all libburnia components. Whether or not the article should be renamed/moved to libburnia is not of any importance to me, though.
After some digging I found out that libburn is used as sole recording back-end for Xfce’s Xfburn. Since Xfce is a pretty popular X11 desktop environment, the notability should now be proven. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 02:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the fact that Wikipedia's notability guideline has nothing that says that an article like this is notable. SL93 (talk) 02:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the notability guidelines say that “editorial judgment” would justify a separate article if it were “unwieldy” elsewise. cdrskin/libburn acts as sole back-end for Xfburn and optional back-end for Brasero, K3b, etc.
Xfburn is discussed shortly in Xfce, while Brasero and K3b have their own articles. It would be – as notability guidelines say – “unwieldy” to discuss all possible back-ends in each article, so the “editorial judgment” is that the front-ends are discussed where they are fit (either in their own articles or as sub-chapter of the organization that produced the front-end) and that the various back-ends are discussed in their own articles. So the only question would be the name for the article. Should it stay cdrskin or rather libburnia? --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 11:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although I'd make it only a subsection of an article on libburnia (which doesn't exist yet). The website seems to be currently broken, though. The cdrskin is actively uploaded to Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora and Arch Linux at least (e.g. Ubuntu 1.1.0.pl01 changelog, Arch 1.1.4) and the project seems to be more alive than cdrkit and cdrtools. It is commonly said that the Linux distributions will drop cdrkit at some point in favor of libburnia (and cdrskin is the compatibility wrapper afaict) to get a codebase independent of cdrtools. The conflicts of the cdrtools maintainer are all over Wikipedia, too. For the sake of the sensibility of this subject, I'd avoid debateful deletions. --Chire (talk) 08:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Cdrskin#libburnia_overview discusses libburnia; when looking for notability, you should include libburnia which is also covered by this article. If you find libburnia more relevant, you should propose a rename and help rewriting the article accordingly. It's a editorial matter whether or not to put the libburina project in front or the probably more user-visible cdrskin wrapper. --Chire (talk) 08:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A side note: The main web presence ran on Trac which was compromised with lots of spam. Other services like for example SVN are still up. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 17:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 18:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – per arguments posited by user KAMiKAZOW and user Chire. Northamerica1000 (talk) 12:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete without prejudice. Will undelete upon request or it can be restored at WP:REFUND. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matru Ki Biwi Ka Mann Dola

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

There is no confirmed source for this. No official announcement done yet. Too early to create a WP page Thanks. - Vivvt^Talk 00:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate for now. I see many notorious results in Google Search, for example Mid Day. Alex^{discussion ★} 13:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The movie doesn't even have an Indian entry. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 23:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's of little relevance, unless it did exist and was deleted due to insufficient notability.Polyamorph (talk) 10:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another page of the same movie is created. Check for Matru Ki Bijlee Ka Mandola. Thanks. - Vivvt^Talk 16:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 10:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is a clear consensus that there shouldn't be an article. I can't find a consensus for a redirect in light of the two possible targets, but there's nothing to stop any editor turning the redlink into a redirect and debating the target on its talk page. Mkativerata (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All the Stuff and More...

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

This article has been unreferenced since October 2006. It also appears to fail WP:NALBUMS. At best it could be redirected to The Vaselines. Topher385 (talk) 23:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm hesitant to vote to redirect it because of this album by the Ramones. That said, this album is referenced on The Vaselines page. PaintedCarpet (talk) 02:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, per WP:NMG. Alex^{discussion ★} 13:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion on deletion, but do not redirect because of the two Ramones albums. ReverendWayne (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rehash which is effectively a content fork. Warden (talk) 17:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NALBUMS LibStar (talk) 15:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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