Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 December 2

< 1 December	3 December >

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Schwack

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

This possible autobiography has not been referenced since it was created in 2007. There are no strong claims to notability. It has had a proposed deletion tag removed previously so I am now bringing it to AfD. Polargeo (talk) 13:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. Good heavens, this article's survived 3 years? Ray^Talk 05:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to fail WP:BIO, WP:GNG, can't find reliable secondary sources which .... --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It would seem that it is verfiable that he was Clarence Clemons manager [1]. However, there is no significant coverage about him. After I read the article, I correctly guessed that the user who created the article was bschwack. -- Whpq (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, nomination withdrawn. Bencherlite ^Talk 11:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jitender Mehra

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

This article is BLP about an Indian cricketer, who isn't notable.According to his profile at cricket archive, (shown in external links) he has only played one first class match in his career.Even, it was a local cricket match between two Indian counties.Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 13:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC) Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 13:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per the WP:ATHLETE#Cricket guidelines (in line with WP:CRIN recommendations). Playing one first-class match is enough to ascertain notability. Precedence has been long set that "People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport" (in this case f-c cricket) are notable, without any reference to number of games played.—User:MDCollins (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: for the reasons given by User:MDCollins. JH (talk page) 17:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CRIN. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 19:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CRIC, Mehra is notable because he has played first-class cricket, which is the highest level the game is played among certain Indian domestic teams. Having played cricket at the highest domestic level, this also makes him notable under WP:ATH. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I didn't knew about WP:CRIC and WP:CRIN.As the nominator, I'm closing this AFD.Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 06:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paddy Beirne

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

Unable to find any coverage independent of the subject. Unable to figure out what the BAMA award is that he is reported to have won nevermind verify that he won it. Based on the subject's age, 22, and the age of the article, 2, I wouldn't be suprised if it was a student award he won. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. —J04n(talk page) 13:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ——J04n(talk page) 13:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't seem to find anything to verify this article and this BLP. Fails WP:RS and WP:N. - Pmedema (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject fails both WP:GNG and the contents of this BLP are completely unverifiable. I've searched under a variety of name combinations. The BAMA award probably refers to an "award" from the rather grandly named "Bristol Academy of Media Arts" part of South Gloucestershire and Stroud College, a vocational school for 14-19 year olds. Voceditenore (talk) 07:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. -- Whpq (talk) 17:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did a LexisNexis search of this person and found nothing except a few references to other people with the same name. A search for his name and "film" produced no results. I also couldn't find anything on the BAMA awards except the "British Aerosol Manufacturers' Association" and "Birmingham Area Music Awards", neither of which apply here of course. Definitely seems to fail WP:V to me, and I wouldn't be surprised if this were a WP:HOAX altogether. — Hun ter Ka hn 19:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the only claim to notability doesn't appear in reliable sources (or any kind of source for this matter), it's not notable. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A thorough search turns up absolutely nothing. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 20:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete In its use in the article, BAMA Award is an acronym for "Birmingham Area Music Award", found mentioned in some articles,[2][3] but of which I can find no further information on just who the BAMA group is. Lack of career, lack of sources, lack of actual sourcability, all indicate that at best, this one is TOO SOON. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beyaz Arif Akbas

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

The article does not state why the subject of the article is notable. Google searches for the author bring up mostly self-published sources and eBooks. Also the author of the article is the subject of the article itself. Jeff3000 (talk) 12:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 00:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 08:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - my searches confirm the opinion of the nominator. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

T.A. Sedlak

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO other than personal website, only trivial mention jsfouche ☽☾Talk 11:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 00:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Individual lacks adequate secondary sources to support an article. Just not enough out there about him. ttonyb (talk) 00:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 08:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete thbarnes (talk) 05:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swound!

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

This band make a lot of borderline claims to notability, but it's not clear to me if they actually pass WP:BAND. Inviting discussion from the community. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 11:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 00:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BAND seems to have been kept in 2007 largely on potential future notability, which 3 years later does not appear to have materialised. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True.Origin Archive

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

Obscure, anonymously-edited creationist (and thus WP:FRINGE) website. Disputed A7 & G4 WP:SPEEDY candidate. No articulation of notability (beyond an absurd article talk claim that a creationist reply to TalkOrigins Archive is inherently notable). Recreated from a redirect, by a since-indef-blocked user, only months after original article was AfDed & deleted, cited almost solely to topic-website. No WP:RS coverage to speak of (beyond a few bare citations, and occasional mention in TOA, but that website catalogs all creationist claims no matter how obscure). Coverage even in the more prominent creationist literature is thin (a bare citation in The politically incorrect guide to Darwinism and intelligent design was all I could find). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: a few citations have been added to rebuttals of True.Origin Archive articles in WP:SPSs. Even if they pass WP:SELFPUB #2 (which I consider doubtful), I do not see how they can add to notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's 6:30AM here and I haven't slept in several hours. I hope people can give me circa 18 hours to reply before piling on the deletes so I can convince people of a keep, or failing that a merge. (For clarity, I'm not the guy who recreated this.) Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should have thought about that before you demanded a second AfD for this already-AfD-deleted WP:SELFPUB-sourced article. (And it should be obvious that you're not the recreator -- as if you were you'd be indef-blocked and unable to comment here.) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stay civil please. It's the second time I'm asking you this. WP:CHILL. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly tell me what is "civil" about demanding an AfD when none was needed, and then immediately asking that the AfD be put on hold? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. What has changed since the last AfD? ~Amatulić (talk) 18:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a clear G4. The version that was recreated by User:AshforkAZ in October is an exact copy of the deleted article. The current version adds a couple paragraphs but nothing that's reliably sourced. That aside, the site fails WP:WEB.
(1) The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. Aside from Talk.Origins, there are no reliable sources cited in the article. A search of Talk.Origins turns up one article that could possibly fit criterion 1 - A Reply to "Talk.Origins: Deception by Omission" by Mike Dunford, and even that is a fairly weak source. Even if this is an acceptable source (a fact that some would certainly dispute), it's not a sufficient source. You couldn't write an encyclopaedic article about the website only using Dunford's article. And apart from that, I can find no other reliable sources. So it fails the bit about multiple reviews.
(2) The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization. I can find no evidence that it has.
(3) The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. Again, I can find no evidence of this.
The article fails WP:WEB and is a textbook CSD G4. I really don't understand why this is even at AFD. Guettarda (talk) 04:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted by administrator Athaenara (talk · contribs) under WP:CSD#G7. (non-admin closure) Ray^Talk 21:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Rauf (Sipah-e Sahaba Pakistan)

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

Fails WP:BIO. Based on one source where the full relevant text is "he deceased reportedly included a senior leader of the banned Sipah-e Sahaba Pakistan, Dera Ismail Khan, Abdul Rauf. He along with two other leaders was said to be missing for long time. Officially, nothing could be confirmed about the death of Abdul Rauf."[4] This is not sufficient basis to form a Wikipedia article. Google searches for further sources were fruitless, but made more difficult by the abundance of Abdul Raufs. Fram (talk) 10:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A two-sentence mention in a single source is a far cry from satisfying either WP:N or WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 10:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 03:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Ray^Talk 03:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominal Christian

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

I had added Essay and NPOV tags which were removed twice by the article's creator and its only contributor. The entire article is written in a biased essay style. I also doubt the article meets any notability requirements, and seems more like a dictionary entry. It relies on a series of quotes and opinions, and not on facts being verified. Article is serious POV. Examples are the opening statement - "A nominal Christian is a Christian in name only". Also - "The phrase is also used in a perjorative sense of those who attend church but have not had a born again experience" – both very biased statements. There is no attempt to show that this is some sort of movement or system of beliefs. Following addition of tags, the only contributor invited comment from other users (nothing wrong with that, of course) but the replies only supported my opinions that it should be removed. Replies suggested that the term is only a dictionary term for wiktionary, and also some suggestions of merging to another article. (See article's talk page). I can't see any notability at all so am listing for AFD. Dmol (talk) 09:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Smacks of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. --Confession0791 ^talk 09:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Several references are provided to demonstrate the notability of the term. The article clearly indicates that some theologians (e.g. Douglas Wilson) disagree with the term - the fact that a debate exists over the use of the term indicates that an article is appropriate. St Anselm (talk) 10:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —St Anselm (talk) 10:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For a start, the idea of someone being nominally religious cannot be restricted to Christianity alone. Nominal Christianity is not a notable concept in and of itself. Any useful content could be merged to Christian and/or Religion.--Korruski^Talk 11:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pointless article. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 22:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Weber (baseball)

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

Non-notable minor league outfielder. He has been around a while, but he has never reached the major leagues and at age 32 it seems very unlikely that he is going to. Alex (talk) 05:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The history suggests that the article was started in hopes that he was going to be playing MLB in 2009, but there's no indication that he ever got above Triple-A. Not subject to the specific guideline in WP:ATHLETE, and not notable enough for a stand-alone article. Mandsford 13:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If is the minor leader, not says that not is encyclopedic « CA » ^Talk 15:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and your reason?--Yankees10 19:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correpted « CA » ^Talk 16:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable minor leaguer--Yankees10 19:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ambivalent I guess. I'm not sure where to draw the line on these career minor leaguers. How important are his drug suspensions? --Muboshgu (talk) 02:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, he'd announced his retirement four days before the ban, so the last one possibly wasn't important after all. I must say that apart from getting caught (drugwise, that is) so often he doesn't seem to have achieved much, but then most of American sport is a total mystery to me. Peridon (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted as a page originally blatent advertiing, subsequently changed into a page for defaming an organization. created only to defame a person or =organization. The various eds. involved have been given a final warning. DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IJTS

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

This page is basically an "exposé" of some school that is apparently not on the up and up. None of the references are from reliable sources. The original author wrote on the talk page: "I decided to create this page, So it could go public and then it has a little more chance for the government officials of Sri Lanka to be aware of this fraud. Please contribute to expand this.". If the situation had reached the press then there might be some notability to it, but as it is it looks like a crusade against the (pseudo) school. ... discospinster _talk 05:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ngaio, New Zealand. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 00:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ngaio School

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

I don't really see any notability for a school at this level. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ngaio, New Zealand as is standard procedure for articles about elementary schools. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Redirect - we normally do this on sight for primary schools (except wherethere is some distinct notability). dramatic (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Information has now been added to Ngaio, New Zealand. dramatic (talk) 08:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Redirect - per above. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 01:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) -- Lear's Fool 05:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wedding of Joseph Guiso and Honey (dog)

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

This article is well referenced, but Wikipedia is not a news source, and it is hard to see this novelty story gaining any persistent coverage as required by the notability guidelines for events. -- Lear's Fool 04:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn in favour of a bold redirect to Human-animal marriage, per below. -- Lear's Fool 05:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool 04:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool 04:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A while back, wasn't there an equally God-awful nonencyclopedic article, which was unfortunately kept, about some Moslem man who was forced to marry a goat? Edison (talk) 04:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Found it: Sudanese goat marriage incident. Edison (talk) 04:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect~~Merge~~ to Human-animal marriage. Fails WP:NOTNEWS as a stand-alone article describing a case of depravity (if not bestiality) which was briefly noted by the press. Edison (talk) 04:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That article is pretty much just a list of cases, and already includes a mention of this event, so I'm not sure how much more of this article could be merged into it. Given that, would you suggest a redirect to Human-animal marriage? -- Lear's Fool 05:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent suggestion. Revising to redirect. Edison (talk) 05:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blueneck

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

WP:NOTNEO - this simply hasn't received significant coverage in reliable sources. There's one book that uses it, and it's clearly used as a rhetorical device rather than as a serious neologism (the title is the only usage of the word). All the other results I can find are either false results for something else (there's apparently a band) or from forums and UrbanDictionary and the like. Roscelese (talk) 04:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Roscelese (talk) 04:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Roscelese (talk) 04:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Roscelese (talk) 04:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Roscelese (talk) 04:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unless someone can find a lot of off-line sources, this just doesn't seem to be used often enough by reliable sources to be able to create a properly sourced article. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel Turcu

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

A supermarket guard who's only claim to notability is a finalist for Moldova in the Eurovision song contest. He did not represent Moldova in Eurovision, he only made it to the final round for the country. Losing country-level finalists for eurovision usually do not have articles unless they are otherwise notable. Gigs (talk) 14:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 15:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 00:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. —Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:50, 19 November 2010 (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, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 04:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I created this page because I noticed that the "Divi Fillus" page already had this before being blanked and replaced with its current content, but after investigating further, I found out that band that supposedly made this album was deleted on notability grounds. So my bad for resurrecting a page that was previously agreed by Wikipedia to be deleted. And since I know nothing about the band or the album to make it notable, there's no reason to keep it around. I don't know how to delete though so...yeah. Putting it to a vote should help out.--SilentScope001 (talk) 04:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Rockefeller

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

Independent essayist she may be, but I'm seeing no evidence of third part significant coverage. NW (Talk) 04:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is not the late famous ex-wife of Winthrop Rockefeller. This is the woman with one quote in a news story five years ago [5]. 01:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher John Moore

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

Does not appear to meet WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC NW (Talk) 04:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tuning your guitar in an unusual way does not make you notable. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fiona Zerbst

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

Does not appear to meet WP:SIGCOV or WP:CREATIVE NW (Talk) 04:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 00:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 08:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I am unable to find significant discussion of this woman in independent sources, and I am also unable to find any evidence that the Arthur Nortje award is a notable award. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete zero coverage [6]. LibStar (talk) 00:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hazel Sanchez

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

Local news reporter; does not meet our general inclusion criteria, which requires significant coverage. NW (Talk) 04:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 00:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as I cannot find significant coverage of Ms. Sanchez herself. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sheila Dooley

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

Doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics)—has not made a major impact within her field (per my search in Google Scholar) NW (Talk) 04:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Her papers don't have the citation impact to pass WP:PROF#C1, she's only adjunct faculty at her institution, and what else is there? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Townsend

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

Not-notable enough. The article itself admits that there is "very little is known about his biographical data, as he was in no major bands." No need to just list four songs that he wrote tracks for. NW (Talk) 04:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 00:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've improved the refs and it's still a pitiful stub, but it seems we need improvement rather than deletion. WhatLinksHere includes the following legitimate pages:

<( User:Couch on his Head and Smiling (talk) )> 21:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 08:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and do more research. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree fully with the user above.--BabbaQ (talk) 01:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE. no explanation given just turn up and vote. LibStar (talk) 13:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes my explanation is that I fully agree with the user above me, with the keep reasoning if a good reason has been given by another user then I dont feel obligated to give one myself if I agree 100% with that reason sutch in this case.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you are satisfied with the answer. And ofcourse assume good faith. As always.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CREATIVE. the current article is full of non reliable sources. even the article admits there is a lack of coverage. LibStar (talk) 13:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Molloy

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

Doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#College_athletes, as he was merely inducted to the Syracuse Hall of Fame. Doesn't appear to have any other significant sources about him. NW (Talk) 04:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 00:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 08:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of sources. If more sources show that this individual is notable, or if he becomes notable at some point, then we can certainly revisit the question. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Saporta

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

Non-notable football sub-assistant coach. Fails to meet either WP:SIGCOV or WP:ATHLETE. NW (Talk) 04:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Assistant strength and conditioning coach is a minor position. College career does not confer any notability. -Drdisque (talk) 19:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha John

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

Run of the mill newscaster. Fails to meet WP:SIGCOV. NW (Talk) 04:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no significant coverage found.--Tikiwont (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn . Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Continue

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Full of OR, and Unreferenced since 2006 this article shows no potential on wikipedia. Fails WP: V Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:OR, WP:NOTESSAY, and unencyclopedic. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 04:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously needs cleanup, but although sources are difficult to find, I am having some luck ([7] Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman. Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals. 2004. p. 264 [describing how the option to "continue" influenced the game design of Gauntlet]). I'm sure strategy guides or manuals for the games referenced can probably also serve as sources. RJaguar3 | u | t 05:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also: [8] Shanna Compton. Gamers: writers, artists & programmers on the pleasures of pixels p. 117-118 (describing how "continue" feature changed how arcade games were approached) RJaguar3 | u | t 05:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If this is kept, it probably ought to be moved to an unambiguous title such as Continue (video gaming). My expectation would be that this should redirect to the disambiguation page continuity. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, based on sources found by RJaguar3. Bearian (talk) 01:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AfD Withdraw with Comment After seeing the article in it's current form I am withdrawing this nom and thanking the editors who have fixed it up. The only issue I see with the article is the name and think it should be moved to Continue (video gaming) as the title "continue" alone is a word and should goto a disambiguation page continuity per Ihcoyc. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Central Avenue Church of Christ Valdosta, Georgia

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

I originally prodded this article with a concern of no evidence for notability. The author contested the prod via a talk page query. It was subsequently speedily deleted as G11 promotion. The author reposted it. An A7 deletion request was met with the author's declaring intent just to repost (presumably again). I think we need to come to a consensus on this article subject's suitability for Wikipedia. LadyofShalott 03:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 03:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 03:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, salt if need be. A cursory glance at Google search results reveals to me no suggestion of notability. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 03:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Average and typical church doing a fine job of what churches do, but non-notable as an organization. The local gas station pumps gas, the local McDonald's fries burgers, the local church does what this one does, all satisfactorily, and kudos to them. Does not seem to have reliable and independent secondary sources with significant coverage, thus failing notability. Edison (talk) 05:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of independent reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt I speedied this, non-notable, spam, no refs, could well be a copyright violation, what's to discuss Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for a lack of referecnes that would establish notability. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 13:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks reliable sources, no notability proved. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 15:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

maybe if you looked at my sources you would see that they are reliable! i talked to many members at this church for information including one of the preachers....is that not RELIABLE? i am determined to keep this article up here one way or another. this church is doing great things in South georgia and yall are just too single minded to see it. there are other documents about churches up here? why dont you go harass their authors as well! Vscheer94 (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Do Not Delete Informative article. There are articles on both the city and county where this church is located. This is a piece of those histories. There are thousands of articles on wikipedia about less notable topics. Those looking for this information will be able to find it; those who are not interested will not be affected. Wikibrian28 (talk 15:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibrian28 has only edited this article, and is presumably a sock of Vscheer94 Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikibrian28 has never met Vscheer94. Sometimes it's not best to make assumptions. I edited because I thought integration with other wikipedia articles might be helpful. Every one of you had a first article you edited. This one is mine. I am impressed that someone put together something like that for a school project. Again, the article is informative and harmless. Wikibrian28 (talk 15:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out in another discussion, I have a compost bin. It is now mentioned in two places on the internet - but it is still not very notable. (Might get there someday...) This article is fairly harmless - somewhat promotional in places. Harmlessness is not a criterion we look for. (On the other hand, libel is one we do look for - to delete it...) The article must be referenced and comply with Wikipedia's standards no matter whether it is a class project or otherwise. Peridon (talk) 18:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note that saying that "there are articles on both the city and county where this church is located" is not a particularly strong argument. Any populated place that shows up in the U.S. Census will already have an article about it, and any legally recognized populated place in any country is generally considered notable (although we don't necessarily have articles about all of them yet). But we don't consider all religious congregations in the world automatically notable just because they are located in places for which Wikipedia has articles or should have articles. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - salt if there are problems No, the church members (not even the preacher) are NOT a reliable source. Look at WP:RS to see what is. The other articles are irrelevant. If necessary, they will be taken care of in due course. To me, the article starts off as borderline on spam, and then tells me more than I want to know about a very ordinary sounding church (or is it a Church - there is a difference). No reliable sources are given to show any notability. Note that 'reliable sources' is a term here applied in the usage of Wikipedia. I don't doubt that your preacher is an honest person who wouldn't tell lies - but that's not what we mean. I would suggest that someone expand this into a booklet that can be supplied by the church authorities for anyone interested in the history and work of this establishment. I'm afraid if you go on reposting it (in the event of deletion) that the title will be 'salted' - which blocks re-creation without special permission. If you do get better sources, you can contact the closing admin to see if they are in conformity with our requirements. Or if you can find them before this discussion closes, add them and tell us here. Peridon (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm sure it's a nice church for the local congregation, but there's nothing special or notable about it. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 15:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I held off on commenting to see if there would be an effort to add sourcing to the article. I don't see any effort to do so. Vscheer94, you may want to create a subpage article in your own userspace if you genuinely want to bring the article up to Wikipedia standards. I'm sure that there are a number of editors who would be willing to help you with that. For now, the article cannot be kept. Henrymrx (t·c) 15:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are some other typpes of sources i could use to bring this up to these ridiculously high standards. Vscheer94 (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC) Thank you wikibrian28- i appreciate your support Vscheer94 (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look at WP:RS for an overview of what is needed. Peridon (talk) 12:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt- reasons given above. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what do you mean by salt the article? Vscheer94 (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It means that the name will be protected so that you can never recreate this article. Given your stated intent to disregard any outcome of the AfD process and recreate the article no matter what, salting will prevent that. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly has no notability and just an average church. --Ultrablastic123 (talk) 04:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SNOW A look at online sources reveals no WP:RS coverage. I found yellow pages, yahoo local, and weblinks by the church itself. Does not meet WP:NOTE. Appears to be solely sourced by itself in the article. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 03:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

so would it help me to use the yellow pages and yahoo local sources Vscheer94 (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. They confirm existence, which no one was doubting anyway. They do not establish WP:Notability. Please, have you read WP:RS yet? LadyofShalott 15:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is we understand its there, but there is nothing that we can find that shows it to be notable enough to need an article. This is an encyclopedia, not a yellow pages ad. If there were articles about the church doing great works up and beyond what a church would be expected to do, or had a notable past, like being involved in the Civil War or something notably similar, we would welcome the article. Sorry. Like was stated earlier, it seems like a nice church doing things that a nice church would do, but not notable things. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 16:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete all, deleted by User:Spartaz.. Courcelles 15:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Man in Deadwood

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

Novel is one of many children's novels produced in serial with no significant real world coverage, thus fails Notability. Sadads (talk) 03:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC) To clarify I also added the following books per the comments below which are all in the same situation and are in that series:Sadads (talk) 05:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4. The Lazarus Plot

5. Edge of Destruction

6. The Crowning Terror

7. Deathgame

8. See No Evil

9. The Genius Thieves

10. Hostages of Hate

11. Brother against Brother

12. Perfect Getaway

13. The Borgia Dagger

14. Too Many Traitors

15. Blood Relations

16. Line of Fire

17. The Number File

18. A Killing in the Market

19. Nightmare in Angel City

20. Witness to Murder

21. Street Spies

22. Double Exposure

23. Disaster for Hire

24. Scene of the Crime

25. The Borderline Case

26. Trouble in the Pipeline

27. Nowhere to Run

28. Countdown to Terror

29. Thick as Thieves

30. The Deadliest Dare

31. Without a Trace

32. Blood Money

33. Collision Course

34. Final Cut

35. The Dead Season

36. Running on Empty

37. Danger Zone

38. Diplomatic Deceit

39. Flesh and Blood

40. Fright Wave

41. Highway Robbery

42. The Last Laugh

43. Strategic Moves

44. Castle Fear

45. In Self-Defense

46. Foul Play

47. Flight Into Danger

48. Rock 'n' Revenge

49. Dirty Deeds

50. Power Play

51. Choke Hold

52. Uncivil War

53. Web of Horror

54. Deep Trouble

55. Beyond the Law

56. Height of Danger

57. Terror on Track

58. Spiked!

59. Open Season

60. Deadfall

61. Grave Danger

62. Final Gambit

63. Cold Sweat

64. Endangered Species

65. No Mercy

66. The Phoenix Equation

67. Lethal Cargo

68. Rough Riding

69. Mayhem in Motion

70. Rigged for Revenge

71. Real Horror

72. Screamers

73. Bad Rap

74. Road Pirates

75. No Way Out

76. Tagged for Terror

77. Survival Run

78. The Pacific Conspiracy

79. Danger Unlimited

80. Dead of Night

81. Sheer Terror

82. Poisoned Paradise

83. Toxic Revenge

84. False Alarm

85. Winner Take All

86. Virtual Villainy

87. Dead Man in Deadwood

88. Inferno of Fear

89. Darkness Falls

90. Deadly Engagement

91. Hot Wheels

92. Sabotage at Sea

93. Mission: Mayhem

94. A Taste for Terror

95. Illegal Procedure

96. Against All Odds

97. Pure Evil

98. Murder by Magic

99. Frame-up

100. True Thriller

101. Peak Of Danger

102. Wrong Side of the Law

103. Campaign of Crime

104. Wild Wheels

105. Law of the Jungle

106. Shock Jock

107. Fast Break

108. Blown Away

109. Moment of Truth

110. Bad Chemistry

111. Competitive Edge

112. Cliff-Hanger

113. Sky High

114. Clean Sweep

115. Cave Trap

116. Acting Up

117. Blood Sport

118. The Last Leap

119. The Emperor's Shield

120. Survival of the Fittest

121. Absolute Zero

122. River Rats

123. High Wire Act

124. The Viking's Revenge

125. Stress Point

126. Fire in the Sky

127. Dead in the Water

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: other stories in this series have their own article. Should these be up for discussion too, as they are likely no more notable? Computerjoe 's talk 22:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly would be up fro discussing the whole group, Sadads (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I propose expanding this discussion too all the articles listed at Casefiles. None of them do not have any sourcing, except the first 3, as far as I can tell, perhaps a merge into a list or three?Sadads (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added the afd tags to all the articles which I thought should be afd'd, Sadads (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Sadads, the book doesn't even have an Amazon review. I think almost all the Hardy Boys book articles should be deleted, they are not notable enough to have their own article. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 04:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are your thoughts about the other books in the series?Sadads (talk) 05:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think they should be deleted, most of those articles don't have enough information present to be merged. None of them are notable. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 19:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable enough for separate articles for each. Or just redirect them all to the main article. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 13:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - almost all stubs and unexpandable. Only notable thing is the series, not each book. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 04:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Soroski

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

Could not find any significant coverage for this local musician. /ƒETCH COMMS / 03:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Submit entry should be kept active. Found legitmate recent magazine article written by this freelance writer/musician with byline verifying parts of biography. AKransboldt (talk) 20:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second magazine article written by this freelance writer/musician .

Third magazine article written by this freelance writer/musician .

Also found musician listed in published book covering musicans from Houston, Texas — Preceding unsigned comment added by AKransboldt (talk • contribs) 2 December 2010

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real notability shown. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Those articles are by him, not about him. That book is sourced from Wikipedia. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anarcho Grow

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. Author does not have article. No references, no mention of importance, PROD was endorsed by other editor as well for same reason. PROD was removed without addressing concerns. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 03:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 00:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Non-notable book lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:NOTBOOK. ttonyb (talk) 00:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article says it was "overlooked by much of mainstream media". Boy, is that ever the understatement of the year. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jaeger (comics)

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

I don't see this fictional character as having the real-world notability for his own article. Perhaps a merge to Neo (comics). Or perhaps none of these have encyclopedic content worth saving.

This also applies to the following:
Domina (comics)
Rax (comics)
Seth (Neo)
Anteus
Salvo (comics)
Static (Marvel Comics)
Elysia (comics)
Tartarus (Marvel Comics)
Barbican (comics)
Kilmer (Marvel Comics)
D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom, Sadads (talk) 03:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all due to a lack of third-party sources. Feel free to expand the main article about the comics with WP:DUE weight on information that can be verified in primary sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Courcelles 00:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July, July

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. No references or mention of importance. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 03:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Sources exist; see New York Times, Daily Times, Free Lance-Star. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 00:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Metropolitan90's sources demonstrate notability. I'd note that it still has problems, being a plot-only description of a fictional work, but these can be addressed through normal editing. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Courcelles 00:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Fahim Dashty

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

Lack of sources in reliable publications. There are a few mentions here or there, but that is to be expected from a journalist. But overall, he doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV. NW (Talk) 02:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems very significant as a journalist wounded in action, so part of the story on his own, besides being a probably notable journalist on his own. "When Ahmad Shah Massoud was assassinated in northern Afghanistan two days before the September 11 Attacks, Dashty was working on a biography of the late commander, and was injured as well." I recall reading about this case. I think there is significant coverage. The AFD proposal, by the way, appears to be bad-faith in the sense that the proposer is going around on a random set of articles that a different editor blanked as part of a weird campaign, and which i unblanked. I don't expect the proposer knows anything much about this random topic area (nor do i). But, I am not making major edits like blanking or proposing AFD. And i am not disrupting wikipedia to make some point about there being imperfect articles out there. Bottom line about this one anyhow: seems significant; nominator mentions there are news mentions to be found. I oppose deletion. --doncram (talk) 03:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The subject seems to be usually known as Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 00:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thorny Lea Golf Club

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

A golf club with little claim to notability, and Google shows just more advertising on their website than any coverage in independent, reliable third-party sourcing. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 01:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - When I looked in google it showed very significant coverage in independent, reliable third-party sourcing, particluarly from the Boston Globe and the Boston Herald. [9][10][11][12][13] This is the club legendary New York Times golf journalist Herbert Warren Wind learned golf at.[14] --Oakshade (talk) 04:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 00:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There are many refs here to sources on WP:VG/RS, and I looked at all of them. But there are a few that point to reliable, third-party coverage of the game. Those reviews, coupled with this discussion, lead me to conclude the article should be kept. Krakatoa Katie 21:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Frontier

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:WEB and WP:V: non-notable browser game with no references based on reliable, third-party published sources. Deleted in May 2009 for the same reasons. I've checked sources using the WikiProject Video games guide to sources (including the WPVG custom Google search) and found nothing but press releases, forum posts, and reviews from unreliable sites. The article was salted due to repeat recreations but was unsalted and recreated today via WP:REFUND (see WP:REFUND#Dead Frontier). Recommend deletion and salting again. Wyatt Riot (talk) 01:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Wyatt Riot (talk) 01:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The accusation and renomination for removal is unfounded, since third-party published sources are used, which are reliable and have reliable content. The content and references of the Dead Frontier article surpass several of the MMORPGs placed on Wikipedia, with several years of being stub articles or/and having outdated references. Some examples are as follows:

Therefore, the renomination for deletion based on old content/sources that the Dead Frontier article may had had, has no weight in this matter. Also, recommend undeletion of Dead frontier and redirection to Dead Frontier. --WizTheDoc (talk) 03:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the reliable sources? I've looked and haven't found any. As far as other articles go, feel free to send them through the deletion process. Discussion about other articles really doesn't belong here. Wyatt Riot (talk) 03:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles of similar and related content convey and support the existence of the remaining ones. The sources you are looking for are in the References section (e.g.: [15] and [16]). Regards, --WizTheDoc (talk) 03:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Onrpg isn't a reliable source, and the review itself is poorly-written and amateurish. The same thing goes for ahkong.net, which is an amateur blog written by a guy using a pseudonym. Articles must be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Wyatt Riot (talk) 03:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt, per nom. I had marked this as speedy G11 while it was still in userspace. WuhWuzDat 06:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~; does not provide attribution from reliable, independent publications. Britishindie.com, gamezig.com are self-published websites. Onrpg, as I discussed here, is published by SPIL Games but the articles are often so poorly written I can't believe it has any editorial oversight. Some reliable sources now: A short piece at RPS that could be used to verify the game for the "List of" articles. An article at n4g that at the time of writing is a broken link - I don't know how significant it is. Marasmusine (talk) 08:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, previous AfD discussion appears to be more based on WP:GAMEGUIDE. The new article describes in in a much more encyclopedic manner. A search for "Dead Frontier Review" yields many results, such as this review , this (admittedly small) gamespot page and this review -- Tlim7882 (talk) 08:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What the previous AfD said is irrelevant, as we are here to assess the current version of the article on its merits. None of the sources given by Tlim7882 is significant coverage, and they don't look to me like reliable sources either. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MMOHut has been found by WikiProject Video games to be a specifically unreliable source. GameSpot is reliable, but there's no real content there, only screenshots. BBPS appears to be a fairly small (and currently defunct) game review blog with no mention of their editorial policies, so we can't really consider them reliable. Wyatt Riot (talk) 19:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I was not using the previous AfD to support my argument but to clarify that it does not seem to have been deleted for exactly the same reason as this AfD suggests. I was not referring to those reviews specifically, but only to show there are numerous third party reviews out there. --Tlim7882 (talk) 11:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The content of the Dead Frontier article was temporarily in my personal page in order to process the request from Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Dead_Frontier, which was accepted by HJ Mitchell having, at that time, one third-party source. This source was not the result of a self-promoted action, since the site is dedicated to independent game development. The game reviews provided by Marasmusine and Tlim7882 were valuable to this matter and appreciated, therefore were promptly included in the references of the article. It is normal that websites try to promote games to their target audience, thus non-formal language is frequently used. However, the British Indie interview, [17] and [18] are not questionable sources, or self-published sources according to Wikipedia:SOURCES#Reliable_sources, since they do not express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion. Therefore, the suggestion to Keep the article and add more sources with reliable content is welcomed and appreciated. Regards, --WizTheDoc (talk) 13:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significance in any independent reliable source. None of the sources cited is of any use in establishing notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's concept of notability (...) avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics, which is not the case: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article". This happens and there are sources in the References section that comply with the needed requirements (at least two independent and unaffiliated reliable sources cover the subject). If that is the only reason why the nomination for deletion is still active, please consider this: an article without third-party sources should not always be deleted. The article may merely be in an imperfect state, and someone may only need to find the appropriate sources to verify the subject's importance.. Without disregarding any of the requirements, you can also help to find other sources for this subject, instead of proposing the deletion of an article already presenting encyclopedic content. Also, although related with the official web-site of the game, the Dead Frontier Statistics Center belongs to a system that cannot be forged in its actual state. Please, feel free to register and fact-check the accuracy of the data presented there and compare with the actual content of this article. Regards, --WizTheDoc (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that we don't have to delete this article without third-party sources, but we should. In fact, this article shouldn't have been created in the first place without reliable, third-party published sources as it's a requirement of our verification and notability policies. The policies and guidelines you're referencing are more about articles for which there are reliable sources but which happen not to be in the article at the moment. Wyatt Riot (talk) 19:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete and salt~~ (changed, see below) - unfortunately I just don't see a lot of coverage from established, reliable sources. British Indie is a wordpress blog with no professional staff of note, ahkong.net, jaggedbladegames.com and deadfrontier.com are Self-published sources, onRPG is an unreliable source, thebbps.com is also a blog with no editors of note, as is gamezig.com. MMOhut.com is also an unreliable source. The N4G article points to a dead link at everythingforgamers.info, another wordpress blog. The Rock, Paper, Shotgun article is a reliable source, but it's just one paragraph, so more would be needed to firmly establish notability. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources for more info. I wish the game the best, but it needs coverage by the professionals. --Teancum (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Teancum, the NG4 link you checked was the wrong one, so here is the updated one. More reviews from third-party sources were added. The developers' and publishers' home pages. If, however, the official game site is housed on the developer or publishers pages that allows for obvious navigation to the main developer/publisher site, these may not be necessary., I appreciate your external link removal edit and this information, but you also removed the developer site/blog which is not accessible through obvious navigation. Regards, --WizTheDoc (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed your keep vote from your last comment. You've already noted to keep, and placing it multiple times is confusing to closing admins. Additionally the N4G link you provide goes to gamer4eva.com, which has no about us page and seems to be run by a single individual. It has no professionalism nor notability. --Teancum (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note, I have already placed new references, you may be interested in some of them due to the about us page you mentioned (e.g.: [19]). Regards, --WizTheDoc (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The BrightHub article looked promising at first, then I clicked on the author and got their bio. Definitely not someone with experience in the industry (of both gaming and journalism). Worth Playing has been deemed dubiously reliable here. The Gamer's Hell link can be used, but not to establish notability, as it's merely a press release, meaning that a developer/publisher wrote it. BBGsite links to a guide to the game, and not journalistic coverage. Again, maybe this could be used, but not to establish the game's notability - merely to point out some feature of the game (which could be done better with a primary source (I.E. the game's website) once notability is established. The GamerTell article might be a start, though. Staff have to be hired on as described on the parent company's jobs page. If 1-2 other decent articles that are reliable sources pop up, I'll change my vote. Hopefully you'll find more - I'm not opposed to keeping an article when it fits Wikipedia policy. --Teancum (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to Teancum's comments, both N4G and BBGSite have been found to be unreliable by WikiProject Video games. It seems like everything out there is either trivial or a press release on an otherwise reliable site or a lengthy review on an unreliable site, none of which fit our needs. Wyatt Riot (talk) 19:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generally the Bio information about an article's author is not available to the reader, therefore you are including a matter that does not concern to this subject. However, since you referred it, in this particular case, despite her age (which should not be relevant for competences assessment, provided the coherence and integrity of the article), the author has written a valid reliable review and her legitimacy is proven by the article itself, which was edited and published by the managing editor and writer of the MMO & MMORPG gaming section of this company. Therefore the expertize factor is not devalued by this, on the contrary, it serves to provide greater value to it. If you are contesting areas of expertize, there is only two known experts in the development of zombie's MMORPGs till this moment, one is the author of Urban Dead and the other is Neil Yates, the author of the game which knowledge you are concerned to nominate for deletion. They are not journalists, which seems there is little chance, or none at all, to publish a full expert article in a mainstream media covering the whole subject. Therefore, according to the Wikipedia policies, [20] and [21] are complying sources that fulfill the requirements and not the needs of particular Wikipedia users. With so many stub and incomplete articles of the same genre, this almost seems a joint attempt to find excuses to delete a relevant article with relevant content, when there are sources complying with the Wikipedia policies, as shown above. The non reliable accusations of articles or authors of entire web-sites that are not in the Wikipedia blacklist are based on your opinions only and not on actual proofs. If those sites get promoted to the blacklist, the source will obviously be invalid, but until then, if the author is identified and the article has relevant and consistent content, they are third-party reliable sources as placed in Wikipedia policies pages. A reminder to the voters in this topic, Wikipedia is not a democracy, the keep/delete/etc. vote system serves only to test for consensus and has no weight to the outcome of the final decision when reliable sources are present in the article. Therefore, since the content is considered notable at the moment, I thank you all for this discussion and kindly request you to withdraw the delete nomination. Regards, --WizTheDoc (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but the editors who regularly contribute to articles for deletion are very much aware that these aren't votes, but a way to help reach consensus - that being said no one is voting and it comes of as slightly desperate to accuse us as such. Each editor has cited policies or their own rationale for one side or the other. If they were votes, we wouldn't comment after writing delete/redirect/keep. In regards to sourcing, please read WP:Reliable sources which states they must be reliable, published sources, - as Wyatt Riot already pointed out, BBGsite has been deemed unreliable by consensus. --Teancum (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Userfy - A decent written article, but it doesn't display notability. Try to get a few sources from sites that are written by paid professionals. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 02:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your concern, Teancum, but the material discussed in here does not offend me in any way. However, I am concerned that you interpreted my words as an accusation. I made a reminder to all the voters in this topic, to consider that since two reliable sources are embedded in the article: [22] and [23], the article is now notable, and the consensus to keep the article has been reached (not by previous votes or comments). In response to _Blake vote and comment, as Teancum suggested before, I suggest you to please remind yourself of the content of Wikipedia:SOURCES#Reliable_sources and WP:Reliable sources and you will notice that these two sources comply with the requirements and are reliable. Therefore I, once again, thank you all for this discussion and kindly request you to withdraw the delete nomination. Regards, --WizTheDoc (talk) 18:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has not been reached because you deem it to be so. Consensus is the majority thought in accordance with guidelines. The consensus must be made on the notability and reliability of the references given, which, no offense, is likely to be better suited to those who have had extensive experience in editing Wikipedia and finding reliable sources. --Teancum (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting your words: "I just don't see a lot of coverage from established, reliable sources (...) so more would be needed to firmly establish notability (...) I wish the game the best", words that you used as the basis of consensus on this subject. Since at the moment, the sources have been presented and justified, the consensus has been reached. Consensus is an opinion or position reached by a group as a whole, so no person is able to deem a group's opinion or position alone. Using your words above, since the majority thought in accordance with guidelines has been reached, consensus has been reached. Again, the material of this discussion does not offend me in any way, thanks for your concern. Regards, --WizTheDoc (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry - I'm genuinely confused - when were the sources given justified? Other than your comments above I don't see anyone justifying the sources. --Teancum (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bright Hub review is by a self-professed "18 year old Fine Art student" on a commission-based review site. The Helium review is on another commission-based review site and the author appears to write more poetry than anything else. Both are amateur reviews with spelling and grammar mistakes, not the work of professional game journalists you would find from a reliable publication. Wyatt Riot (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wyatt Riot, I remind you that according to Wikipedia:SOURCES#Reliable_sources none of the arguments you exposed now are significant to determine the unreliability or questionability of the sources [24] and [25]. As I explained to Teancum, the age of the authors is not relevant for competences assessment, provided the coherence and integrity of the article. In the Bright Hub case you referred, despite being a student and having a certificate in Fine Art, the author has written a valid reliable review and her legitimacy is proven by the article itself, which was edited and published by the managing editor and writer of the MMO & MMORPG gaming section of this company. May I remind you that even the great mainstream media often produce content with several grammatical errors, and those are often disregarded or unnoticed since the articles are published through what is considered a reliable media. Regards, --WizTheDoc (talk) 19:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPS explains the conditions under which we accept self-published sources. The two authors above lack the prior publishing history we want to see before we accept self-published works, if at all. Marasmusine (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing !vote to Redirect to List of massively multiplayer online role-playing games and list there, citing Rock, Paper, Shotgun. Although I'm still fine with delete if that helps reach concensus. Marasmusine (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:SPS#Self-published_sources are self-published media, such as books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, that are largely not acceptable as sources, which have nothing to do with the three already embedded sources in the article: [26], [27] and [28]. You may also have noticed from Wikipedia:SPS and Wikipedia:Third_party, Marasmusine, that the lack of prior publishing history is not even mentioned in Wikipedia policies in order to determine the reliability or questionability of the sources. However, since you mentioned and have unfortunately missed all the author's profile pages, which have links to a vast amount of related and non related articles published by themselves (and in some cases edited and co-published by experts in the area), reveal that your comment is deeply unfounded and biased. I am sorry I had to point that out to you and I hope to remind to the voters again that the subject of this discussion was based on the existence of reliable third-party sources, which since they have been established, the voting-commenting system is now obsolete in this discussion. Regards, --WizTheDoc (talk) 12:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quote: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Brighthub and Helium are self-publications. I could not see evidence of published works in the biographies of McDonald or Wilkins other than more articles on the same sites. I will investigate Gamertell further as it looks promising. Stunned to hear about the obsolescence of the voting system, as I didn't realise we employed one. Marasmusine (talk) 19:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bright Hub and Helium sources are not self-published sources, since they belong to independent companies having no relation with the company representing Dead Frontier or the game's author. If you, Marasmusine, are asking for more articles of the authors of the respective articles, you can visit Wayne K. Wilkins' profile and Lynda Mc Donald's profile, glad I could be of use. However, note that it is normal that employees publish their articles in the company that gives them employment, but if you are interested in finding articles of their authorship in other websites (not a requirement according to Wikipedia:Third_party), I suggest you to contact them and ask them that directly. I am sure they will gladly inform you with precision. Regarding the voting-commenting system I mentioned, I am glad that I could help you realize that. Regards, --WizTheDoc (talk) 20:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're confusing the term WP:SPS defines Self-published as things where there is no editorial process, I.E. they have published the article themselves (blogs are a good example of this). This doesn't mean they are affiliated in any way with the game or its makers. --Teancum (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again Teancum, regarding WP:SPS, firstly: "Anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field", I hope you are not suggesting that the entire Bright Hub and Helium enterprises produce articles without an editorial process associated to them, and they are somehow related to personal web sites or other personal publications, such as blogs. In the Bright Hub article there is a clear distinction at the header indicating that the article was edited and published not by the writer but by the managing editor and writer of the MMO & MMORPG gaming section of this company, as I mentioned before. Secondly, the WP:SPS section also serves to prevent associations between the entity responsible for the subject that concerns the Wikipedia article and the enterprises that publish articles about that entity, i.e., it is a way to prevent that entity to use personal blogs, books or other personal media as references in the Wikipedia article. I thank you for your explanation, but my mind is very clear regarding this subject. Regards, --WizTheDoc (talk) 22:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both Bright Hub and Helium are commission-based article sites, where ultimately anyone can create an account, write an article, and get paid based on how many hits the article gets. Neither site has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" that our verification policy requires. Neither author is a game journalist by any stretch of the imagination. These are exactly the kind of sources that we consider unreliable. Wyatt Riot (talk) 23:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wyatt Riot, I please ask you to not repeat the same arguments you have exposed before. As I replied to you earlier, they do not justify the questionability and unreliability of the sources according to WP:SPS. I may inform you that other well known websites do not require one to be a game journalist (e.g.: GameSpot) in order to write games' reviews, nor the Wikipedia verification policies. Regards, --WizTheDoc (talk) 00:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sites such as GameSpot have established reliability. Besides, the principle of saying other stuff exists isn't a valid argument. --Teancum (talk) 04:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I agree that Brighthub and Helium should not be used, I wonder what you think of the Gamertell coverage?[29] Gamertell is now owned by a publishing company[30]. Hasn't been discussed at WP:VG/RS yet. Marasmusine (talk) 08:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong with the GamerTell coverage - I didn't know that owned by a publisher. Looking at a few articles the editorial process seems to be in place and working well, too. I'd say it passes WP:RS, and certainly provides significant coverage. Between that and the little coverage on Rock, Paper, Shotgun I'm leaning towards Keep now. I'll nominate GamerTell as a permanent reliable source shortly. --Teancum (talk) 12:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - DF users are discussing the situation here (requires an account). So far the discussion seems quite civil and certainly isn't bringing any ill here - I'm merely logging this in case this AfD ever comes into question. --Teancum (talk) 04:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Teancum, we appreciate your verification of the GamerTell coverage and also the contents of the official website/forum. A request to GameSpot was also made in order to provide a review for their Dead Frontier page, which hopefully, soon will be displayed. Regards, --WizTheDoc (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete - not notable. Mostly self published sources and scant mentionings. Need direct coverage in reliable third party sources to meet the WP:GNG. 74.198.9.141 (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)— 74.198.9.141 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please, this has been debated: "you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist" - self-published sources are mentioned in the article, but there are also reliable third-party sources at this moment, as discussed above. Regards, --WizTheDoc (talk) 08:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (!vote changed, again!) based on GamerTell coverage. Marasmusine (talk) 11:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Association for Symbolic Logic. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Logic and Analysis

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

Self-published new journal, not yet notable: no third party sources, apparently not indexed anywhere. Article deprodded with reason "i do "otherwise" object. I would hope that any journal published by the ASL would qualify as notable". Indeed, the journal's only claim to notability is being sponsored (not published) by the Association for Symbolic Logic. Sponsorship apparently intended to increase visibility for new journals. Article creation premature, does not meet WP:Notability (academic journals) or WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 14:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Let me say up front that I do not think holding academic journals to the same standard of notability as other articles is smart AT ALL. We should be endeavoring to compile information on ANY journal which may be used as a source within WP. However, with that policy position stated, I still think within our current guidelines we have a keeper based on its affiliation with ASL. They're not exactly a 'journal mill' you know. Greg Bard (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Personally, I don't keep journals up to the same standards as other subjects at all, I use WP:NJournals. However, many editors find that essay too lax, so I cite WP:GNG when prodding or taking an article to AfD. If I were to take GNG as sole guideline, there would probably be a couple of hundred journal articles that would qualify... The current example, though, fails all possible criteria of notability. It's "affiliation" with ASL does not appear to be more than a simple endorsement. It is not published by ASL, nor does ASL have any influence on the journal's editorial policy, etc. --Crusio (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, otherwise Merge to Association_for_Symbolic_Logic in section "Publications" but note that this journal is sponsored by, not published by ASL. BrideOfKripkenstein (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Philogo (talk) 16:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Would you mind explaining your reasoning? Note that closing admins often ignore !votes without an explanation of why the editor !voted one way or another. --Crusio (talk) 16:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because of the Association Of Symbolic Logic's announcement at http://www.aslonline.org/asl_announcements.php#11. --Philogo (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That doesn't give the closing administrator any clue as to what you mean by "oppose", be it keep or delete. See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Shorthands for how to express yourself clearly in AFD discussions. Uncle G (talk) 00:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I meant Keep: I opposed the proposed deletion of the articlePhilogo (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back into Association for Symbolic Logic. It is clearly not yet notable, being so new. Because we have not developed specific criteria (such as a rule or guideline) for academic journals, we must rely on the general guideline. Wikipedia is only supposed to report what is already notable, not what ought to be notable. There are a few exceptions of people or places that are pre se notable, but I know of no regular contributor who advocates having an article for every journal. The parent organization meets our notability rules for organizations, so I think we should merge it back there for now. If you can convince me that WP:WEB applies, please make your argument now. Bearian (talk) 01:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In fact, I don't think this should be merged atb all, as the "parent organization" is not the parent. All the AfSL has done is pronouncing their support for this journal, nothing less, but also nothing more. The AoSL is not the publisher of this journal and as far as I can see, there are no administrative/institutional or other links between the journal and the society. --Crusio (talk) 16:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the association, saying that it is they who sponsor it, not publish it. Add a redirect for the earlier Springer title also, Logic and Analysis, of which this is the successor (I added that information to the article). Neither of the two are independently notable, but this preserves the information. (The Springer journal seems to have had only 92 holding libraries listed in WorldCat) Although not formalized as a guideline, we do have good criteria for academic journals, and they can be seen in previous decisions here, which have been remarkably consistent in the last few years--as compared to almost every other class of article; that's because almost everyone particularly concerned with them here agrees about the basics, and it's rare they attract much interest here otherwise. . There is an alternative view, which is that we should make articles for every one of them, in order to help the readers. This does seem a possible alternative to me, but that would be such a major change in the application of the general concept of notability that I think it would be better discussed in the context of our coordination with a general bibliographic resource. I don't actually want to oppose Greg Bard's view about this, but it would need further discussion--this AfD is not the place to make such a change, and I think the discussion could be held more usefully about a year from now, where the outside resources such as Open Library will be further developed. DGG ( talk ) 02:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

103rd Series Apartment House

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

Unsourced original research. Also I could not find any sources and I don't think this style of architecture is a notable enough to be included on WP. Mattg82 (talk) 01:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is only due to lack of sources this article seems to be original research. This type of building construction and several others of the Soviet era are notable, since they were the housing backbone of the Soviet Union. Together they constitute all of the apartment buildings ever built in the Soviet Union from the 1950s to the 1980s - in many cases also known as "Soviet satellite towns" or "Soviet suburbs". ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 07:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) jsfouche ☽☾Talk 13:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya Roy Kapoor

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

BLP with no reliable sources; PROD template removed jsfouche ☽☾ talk 05:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 20 November 2010 (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) 00:50, 25 November 2010 (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) 01:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since the article was listed, good sources have been added, including Times of India & Hindustan Times. DGG ( talk ) 06:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY as article is no longer a "BLP with no reliable sources". Kudos to User:Ekabhishek for addressing the nominator's concerns and turning this into THIS... now an encyclopedic and sourced article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Warshak

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

Fails WP:PROF, best claim to fame is the unsourced assertion that his work had an impact on one volume of one journal; two books mentioned are popular, not scholarly, and the ideas promoted are not significantly noteworthy or accepted within the discipline (parental alienation is poorly accepted and nebulous, parental alienation syndrome more so and controversial, Warshak's own "parental alienation disorder" has even less history, controversy and acceptance. The intervention mentioned is a low-n study and it is far too early for it to have had any significant impact. The "Warshak Inventory for Child and Adolescent Assessment" referred to in the final paragraph turns up once on google scholar in a journal article that has nothing to do with it (actually an advertisement at the bottom of page 6/200). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gscholar gives an h-index of 18 or so, sufficient for notability under WP:PROF criterion 1. Gnews searching finds sufficient mention of him as an authority on the subject of child custody and divorces to have a shot at criterion 7 as well. Ray^Talk 23:06, 19 November 2010 (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) 00:56, 25 November 2010 (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) 01:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am not convinced that he passes criterion 1 of WP:PROF, but there is a fair amount of newscoverage of him as GoogleNews shows[31], where he is frequently quoted as an academic expert in psychology, so there is a case for satisfying criterion 7 of WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 10:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Lee Hale

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

Unreferenced BLP, does not appear to meet criteria for artists. I just removed a biographical section that was copied from his web site as a copyvio, folk may want to check that out in the history. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 20 November 2010 (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, 25 November 2010 (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) 01:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I watchlisted this one awhile back and still no one has chimed in. I wasn't able to find the type of coverage for this person I'd hope for, so I guess its headed towards deletion.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson W. Greybuffalo

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

I can't find any reliable sources for this person or the murder he committed, it seems like a WP:BLP1E. Mattg82 (talk) 01:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: OK I have found a few sources but they are behind paywalls, and they are only local newspapers. No nationwide coverage found so far and no book sources apart from WP sourced publications. Mattg82 (talk) 02:06, 25 November 2010 (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) 01:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 00:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:EVENT. This man is known for a single event, which did not have wide demographic or geographic impact, did not have sustained coverage sufficient to demonstrate its historic notabiilty, and was not the catalyst or result of another notable event. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DustFormsWords. Clubmarx (talk) 07:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Courcelles 04:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Razi Institute of Medical Sciences

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

No indication this meets WP:GNG. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC) Jayjg ^(talk) 02:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is evidence to verify that this university exists, and as an authentic educational institution, its article is well worthy of being kept. Mar4d (talk) 04:22, 28 November 2010 (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) 01:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is evidence that this is a valid institution, and seems like the article has potential. The Phoenix Enforcer (talk) 03:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to be a trade school, not a degree-granting college or university. I could not find significant coverage at Google or Google News. --MelanieN (talk) 02:30, 3 December 2010 (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! 11:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. All opinions are "delete" or "neutral", so we have a rare case of "when in doubt, delete": nobody seems to be convinced that there is sufficient sourcing for this article. The content can of course be userfied for further improvement. Sandstein 09:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian People's Militia

AfDs for this article:

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

The Ukrainian People's Militia did not exist. Militia's existed, as militia is the Ukrainian word for police - and there is already an article about the Ukrainian auxiliary police. This article is based entirely on original research and mistranslations and no english sources make any reference to this alleged unit. Львівське (talk) 08:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Ukrainian auxiliary police. --Birczanin 17:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: Gosh, this would be much simpler if I could read Ukranian; right now, I can't figure out any of the refs. Whom do I AGF in: the author(s) or the nominbator? After the previous discussion, I think the burden of proof is on the user who initiated both noms. I'm sorry that proving a negative is quite difficult, but I think it's reasonable to ask for some more information before deciding my stance. bahamut0013^words _deeds 19:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of proof do I need? I've been researching this topic extensively lately and the only time the word "militia" pops up is when referring to auxiliary police. Though I don't have a source that explicitly states "the 'Ukrainian People's Militia' did not exist" I do have at least one I remember explaining the confusion historians find because "police" in Ukrainian is literally "militia"...so...I'll get proofs, just don't know what we're looking for exactly. And I don't mean to engage in RS here, but "narodna militsia" = "people's police" so, IMO, it just seems like a way of describing the police; and the closest unit I could find was the "Ukrainska Narodna Samooborona", there is no mention of the "UPM" in Peter Abbott's "Ukrainian Armies" book which covers literally EVERY type of unit (including obscure police/militia units)--Львівське (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to say, unfortunately, but the one you say that mentions the confusion in translation would probably do it for me (I'm assuming that the explanation of the translation is in English, otherwise, it won't help my own ignorance). bahamut0013^words _deeds 21:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - on face value it lacks reliable sources so the existance of this organisation isn't verifable. As such the subject fails the requirement for 'significant independent coverage' and therefore isn't notable per WP:NOTABLE. Anotherclown (talk) 03:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but Ukrainian auxiliary police and the Ukrainian Police article ought to clearly state and use the word 'militsiya' in their opening paragraphs. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC) Neutral - we need User:MarshallBagramyan in here. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could have sworn I brought it up on a talk page once, it has to be in one of my notes...I'll find the ref again...I was researching this topic extensively recently so its all a jumble. I'm sure I could pull up other refs where authors say "the police or so-called militia" or "police/militia" etc.--Львівське (talk) 03:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral While it's virtually impossible to verify what these sources are saying is true, we do have some basis that the compiler's specialty is in World War II affairs (according to this page on a university website), and that he is affiliated with Kiev State University. I have less success in finding the Ukrainian-published sources in research libraries, although this can readily be explained that it has not yet reached libraries in the West. However, I find it bizarre that editors have not found any mention of it in English-language or Western sources. Perhaps the unit goes by a different name in Ukrainian, hence the naming discrepancy with the Ukrainische Hilfspolizei article. If anyone has access to it, see Alexander Dallin (1981). German Rule in Russia: 1941-1945: A Study of Occupation Policies. Boulder, CO: Westview Press and Mark Mazower's Hitler's Empire: How the Nazis Ruled Europe (Penguin, 2008). Perhaps some references might exist there.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 03:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have online access to the Dallin book, the word "militia" does not appear in it. --Львівське (talk) 04:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if we are having difficulty finding information about the group then we lack adequate sources for an article and the subject lacks notability. Since the largest contributor to the article appears not to be available, it seems that the article will not improve. If in the future sources are found, then the article could be re-written. TFD (talk) 00:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

these are two distinct units

Guys, you all got it wrong. The Ukrainian People's Militia (Народна Міліція) or more correct militias DID exist! for two months, before they were disbanded by the German Military authorities and replaced by the Ukrainian auxiliary police (Українська поліція допоміжна). However there is no direct lineage between the two, as the militias were organized by Ukrainian nationalists to take revenge on their enemies, while the police was organized top down by the Germans to ensure policing of the occupied territories. Also the article about the Ukrainian auxiliary police (Ukrainische Hilfspolizei) gets the date of the founding wrong: not July 27th, but on August 18th 1941 the Ukrainische Hilfspolizei was established. BUT both units were distinctly different from the Ukrainian Schutzmannschaft battalions! The Ukrainian Schutzmannschaft battalions were active in the Reichskommissariat Ukraine, while the militias and police were active in the District of Galicia of the General Government. Also each German command (Wehrmacht, SS, Einsatzgruppen, Militärverwaltung, Waffen-SS, ecc.) recruited it's own Ukrainian collaborators: i.e. in 1942 the Reichskommissariat Ukraine fielded 70 Schutzmannschaft battalions with 35,000 men, 14,163 Ukrainian members of the Schutzpolizei in the big cities as well as 54,794 other policemen of the Gendarmerie. see [32] and [33] for details. Therefore I am neutral on this article: as there was a Ukrainian People's Militia; or at least an attempt to form one. Both German books are stating that the militias were formed in the first days of the war by OUN activists with the encouragement of the German Military authorities, but already by the end of July the Germans began to disband the militias and created their own police units. Also both books agree that the militias were not led by an unified Ukrainian command, but were subject to the local German military commanders. Therefore I am neutral on this subject as I do not see anything to support a Ukrainian People's Militia, but see a lot of OUN militias/units that were active in the first two months of the war without a unified leadership. noclador (talk) 00:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, militias existed (its as ambiguous a term as saying "partisans") before the UH was formed and afterwards police units were referred to as militias in english (from the Ukrainian "militsia") so before and after, "militias" existed, I'm not contesting the loose usage of the term. I'll have to look into the date you cited as well. The Abbott book gives a pretty good detail of how all this came about.--Львівське (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Stomlega

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

Delete. Subject does not meet criteria for notability found at WP:NTENNIS. Placed #1 in ITF Tournament winning $10k, notability requires earnings in excess of $25k. Cindamuse (talk) 09:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NTENNIS Subject meets the number 6 criteria: The player holds a tennis record recognised by the International Tennis Federation, ATP or WTA. (Gabinho^>:) 14:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment. What record has the subject broken or what record does the subject hold? Are you confusing stats or ranking with holding a record? Cindamuse (talk) 15:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are right Gabinho^>:) 18:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2010 (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) 01:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, but obviously without prejudice to re-creation later if the subject achieves one of the tennis notability criteria. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as Metropolitan90 already said, the subject does not meet the criteria yet. (Gabinho^>:) 11:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ilinca Stoica

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

Delete. Subject does not meet criteria for notability found at WP:NTENNIS. Placed 2nd in ITF Tournament winning $10k, notability requires earnings in excess of $25k. Cindamuse (talk) 09:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NTENNIS Subject meets the number 6 criteria: The player holds a tennis record recognised by the International Tennis Federation, ATP or WTA. (Gabinho^>:) 14:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment. What record has the subject broken or what record does the subject hold? Are you confusing stats or ranking with holding a record? Cindamuse (talk) 15:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are right... Gabinho^>:) 18:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NTENNIS. Subject meets the No. 3 criteria at junior level participating at the 2009 Wimbledon Championships – Girls' Singles event. (Gabinho^>:) 01:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment. WP:NTENNIS requires play in the main draw of the (Grand Slam) Wimbledon. Play in the major professional tournament is required. This does not include the Juniors tournament. Currently ranking at #896 with a career prize of $2,181. Cindamuse (talk) 11:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - No comment (Gabinho^>:) 12:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 25 November 2010 (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) 01:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. To be notable as a junior tennis player, according to the guidelines for tennis players, you need to win a junior grand slam, not just participate in its main draw. And as the nominator notes, this player is not notable as a senior player either Mayumashu (talk) 23:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photographic Association of Dum Dum

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

fails WP:ORG. despite over 50 years existence, little indepth coverage [34]. LibStar (talk) 10:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 22:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is poor and unsourced. However, it is very short and unassuming. Google shows mentions (if admittedly little or nothing more) of this name in non-trivial sources; there may be more in web searches in other scripts, or magazines. -- Hoary (talk) 08:33, 26 November 2010 (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) 01:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant delete I agree that it's WP:HARMLESS, but my online search turned up nothing other than a very few trivial mentions in reliable sources, typically a passing mention that would permit you to say nothing more than "____ was a member" or "they hold an annual conference". If more sources appear someday, it could always be re-created. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jai Kumar Jalaj

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

Unable to find any coverage of the subject. The lack of specifics in the article makes judging notability particularly difficult. As such, does not meet WP:GNG, WP:PROF, or WP:AUTHOR. —J04n(talk page) 01:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Does this http://books.google.com/books?id=LJzkAAAAMAAJ&q=%22Jai+Kumar+Jalaj%22+-inpublisher:icon&dq=%22Jai+Kumar+Jalaj%22+-inpublisher:icon&as_brr=0&cd=1 Principal at Government Arts & Science College, Ratlam meet WP:Prof 6. The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society. ?
Keep - in addition to the comment the alternative transliteration Jaykumar Jalaj yields more evidence on his books and three pages of ours refer to them (see Special:WhatLinksHere/Jaykumar_Jalaj). The pages are: Jainism, Nathuram Premi and Pujyapada. Perhaps we should move the page FROM Jai Kumar Jalaj TO Jaykumar_Jalaj (this is just a redirection page at the moment) But this might be better after this Afd (Msrasnw (talk) 16:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I have removed the orphan tag and added a few links via the Jaykumar Jalaj (redirect page). There are now, what are I think appropriate links on Jainism, Nathuram Premi (This page includes Also, highly respected modern scholars such as Premiji himself, Prof. Ludwig Alsdorf, Prof. Maurice Bloomfield, Prof. Willem Bollée and Dr. Jaykumar Jalaj have been a), Pujyapada and Ratnakaranda śrāvakācāra. We seem to be relying on him as the authoritative translator when looking at some of these. Does our use of someone in this way add to their notability? Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Delete. Regardless of what this person has written, there is not enough reliably published material about him (rather than his writing) to write a biography. Kevin (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* I have added some extra details with some extra refs including some old awards....not only a state award level (an MP Bohj) but also an all Indian one. Hope they help. (Msrasnw (talk) 23:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Comment Without offering an opinion on the subject's notability, I oppose Kevin's reasoning entirely. It is settled and storied convention that encyclopediae, being compilations of useful knowledge, must cover significant creators of such knowledge - who are, in large part, academics. This is a convention that goes all the way back to the Encyclopédie, and Wikipedia hews to this tradition through WP:PROF. To quote from the second point in the summary, "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." If Kevin wants to overturn WP:PROF, he's welcome to try. If he should be successful on the grounds as stated, I can see a lot of us exiting Wikipedia for good. Ray^Talk 16:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So what material would you propose using to write the bio? Kevin (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - His publications are clearly self-sourcing, as are citations to them. In most academic fields, it's common for review articles to discuss the impact of various forms of work. For such minimal personal details as are common in academic biographies, primary sources (like the subject's CV and website) are usually good. Ray^Talk 21:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, however under WP:PROF Caveats #3

It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for an article in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Every topic on Wikipedia must be one for which sources exist; see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

It is that lack of reliable independent sources that concerns me here. Kevin (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what? The standard is verifiability. To verify significance of work, true, we would like reliable independent sources, such as, say, those provided by a review article, or by a prize citation when the prize is given by an independent group, or by the act of an independent author citing the subject's work. In this sense, citations are self-sourcing. To verify trivial personal details? Of course we take the subject's word for them unless we think he's lying. No need for independence there. Ray^Talk 21:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ray's arguments are sound. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep. Two award wins seems like enough to meet WP:ANYBIO, although some more content would be nice. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ingrid Radu

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

Delete. Subject does not meet criteria for notability found at WP:NTENNIS, which provides notability for players that have won at least one title in any of the ITF Women's $25,000–$100,000 tournament. Player has only played in lower tournaments with possible earning capacity of $10k. Ranked #552. Cindamuse (talk) 12:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NTENNIS Subject meets the number 6 criteria: The player holds a tennis record recognised by the International Tennis Federation, ATP or WTA. (Gabinho^>:) 14:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment. What record has the subject broken or what record does the subject hold? Are you confusing stats or ranking with holding a record? Cindamuse (talk) 15:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think I am. Thank you for clearing it up. Gabinho^>:) 17:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well, the subject has been active this year winning 2 ITF finals and playing 2 more. (Gabinho^>:) 01:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Comment. Commendable, but WP:NTENNIS requires players to have won at least one title in any of the ITF Women's $25,000–$100,000 tournament. The subject of this article has only played in lower tournaments with possible earning capacity of $10k. Cindamuse (talk) 11:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons given by the nominator Mayumashu (talk) 23:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 06:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Stanton (actor)

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject apparently had a recurring role on M.I. High, but he is not even mentioned on the page for that program. Has had a few other small role but nothing significant as required to pass WP:NACTOR. Also, unable to find non-trivial coverage in any reliable sources independent of the subject, so WP:GNG is not met either. —J04n(talk page) 12:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ——J04n(talk page) 12:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ——J04n(talk page) 12:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a number of named roles in films and one-ofs in telesvision series, added to recurring in 29 episodes of M.I. High seem to push nicely at WP:ENT. Yes, commonness of name will make sourcing difficult. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to have had a few roles, but the lack of reliable secondary sources make it difficult to write a decent biography. Kevin (talk) 21:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I can't find any sources, and he's not mentioned in the MI High article. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No WP:RS found but I did find what seems to be plagiarism here. If you cursor over his name near the bottom of the page, the exact same sentence from the Wiki article pops up. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 17:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is the last unreferenced BLP dating from March 2008, thanks to J04n! I concur in the delete recommendation.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 05:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be notable, but BLPs require a source. No source = no article. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Courcelles 00:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biju Pappan

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

Fails WP:BIO, BLP sources are personal website and IMDB jsfouche ☽☾ talk 14:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The individual seems to be pushing nicely at WP:ENT,[35] and while lack of sources in the article is usually correctable through regular editing, what sources I can find seem to simply verify his work without speaking about the individual and his life.[36] I will hope for input from editors more familiar with Indian sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:55, 25 November 2010 (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, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 00:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 08:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saeed Kamali Dehghan

AfDs for this article:

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

Some claim to importance, but few sources to indicate notability. Passed a previous AfD but with very few comments, so a wider debate might be better. Korruski^Talk 14:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Many of these claims are original researches.Farhikht (talk) 11:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:ANYBIO with the Foreign Press Association award. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Are you sure that the FPA award is "significant and well-known"?Farhikht (talk) 12:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Phil Bridger and per AWP:Energy conservation. °°Playmobilonhishorse (talk) 04:19, 27 November 2010 (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, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 00:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 08:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Crouch

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

Here is a weird one. When I found the article it was in this state: [37]. Looked to be a notable bounty hunter/PI who later became a politician. The problem is not one of the references actually mentioned the subjected with the exception of a very dubious "LA times article" in the form of a PDF for download off of the subject's website which appears to actually be a press release. When I stripped away everything that wasn't verifiable, all that was left was a City Council men of very dubious notability. This article was created and maintained by two single purpose accounts. Leivick (talk) 16:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The office he holds is a metropolitan district with 3 million people and includes the city of Durban. Almost all articles on politicians and politics are edited by people with agendas, so nothing special about that. We just have to keep an eye on them so they don't become too one-sided. Jaque Hammer (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 25 November 2010 (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) 00:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well spotted and nicely cleaned up. But I agree with Jaque, the subject is notable, due to his present occupation. Anthony (talk) 03:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discordian calendar

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. This is a minor aspect of a minor cult. Although their calendar must be important to them there is no evidence that it has any importance in the larger world. The article consists only of material from primary sources, the Discordians themselves, with no secondary coverage. The fact that the Discordians have their own calendar could be mentioned in their own article with an external link to one of their sites which hosts the information on it. Jaque Hammer (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge information into Discordianism and Delete. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 19:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If content is merged, the edit history must be kept. Having your cake or eating it. Pick one. Uncle G (talk) 20:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wouldn't a merge and redirect take care of it? -Jaque Hammer (talk) 02:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - That doesn't involve deletion in any way. If you wanted that, then you shouldn't have come to AFD in the first place. After all, you yourself have all of the tools to enact a merger. Even editors without accounts have. Only come to AFD if an administrator hitting the delete button, to delete an entire edit history and rendering it impermissible to use any of the deleted content, is what you actually want. And be aware that you can only pick one of the two mutually incompatible outcomes, per the terms of the copyright licences. Uncle G (talk) 01:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I would be happy to merge it into a section in Discordianism. I nominated it here because I thought the issue would be controversial. Jaque Hammer (talk) 13:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Agree that Merge and redirect would be the right move, good suggestion Uncle G. However I think Jaque Hammer was right to bring this her; it was a good faith move and led to your good idea - the fact that the original article is not formally deleted does not make this a fail-AfD. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I started a section in Discordianism by pasting in the intro of this article. Oddly enough the calendar was not even mentioned in that article. Jaque Hammer (talk) 09:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First off, Discordianism is fairly widely familiar to millions who have read the novels of Robert Anton Wilson, and Discordianism also exerted influence on the Church of the Subgenius, so although the membership counts for Discordianism would be rather low (assuming that "membership" even means anything when it comes to Discordianism), it's far from being a so-called "obscure cult". Second, the calendar is part of the Principia Discordia scriptures of Discordianism, which have been widely publicly available for about 40 years (and was also included in the popular Illuminatus! Trilogy novels). Third, if a Discordian calendar conversion program is a standard part of most Linux distributions, that would seem to indicate that it has a certain notability. However, I do agree that the "schism" stuff should be cut from the article (since it's pretty much just a self-referential inside meta-joke)... Overall, KEEP. AnonMoos (talk) 00:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please go ahead and do that. I can't really tell which parts should be taken seriously and which parts are jokes. Jaque Hammer (talk) 15:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep inclusion in almost every linux distribution is sufficient notability as far as I'm concerned. And "cult" is a pejorative way to refer to a religion. DenisMoskowitz (talk) 16:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I meant "cult" in the sense of a small group of people intensely interested in something most of us don't care much about. I don't think the article does any harm, my objection to it is mostly "WP is not a web host." I'm not going to merge it or anything unless there is a consensus to do that, which there does not seem to be yet. Jaque Hammer (talk) 15:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for same reason as above. - so sayeth Lucky Number 49 ^{Yell at me!} 16:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for same reason as Denis Moskowitz. Jess Cully (talk) 07:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Informational comment: the page in question is the top google hit for "ddate". If someone discovers ddate on a linux box, wants to know what it is, and searches for it, they will find this informational page. That seems like a win for Wikipedia to me. DenisMoskowitz (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All of the references about the calendar come from the Discordian scriptures themselves. The information on its connection with Linux, that being its major claim to notability, are sourced by dead weblinks at the present. I have a feeling that the calendar is notable (which is why I'm not voting to delete) but the article needs to provide better sources to establish this. Borock (talk) 14:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Reviewing the previous AfD on this article, I see that the question of whether this calendar has any clear notability as per WP:N was raised then. The crux of the current discussion seems to be once again about the notability issue, so, evidently, no effort to establish the required notability has been made or no sources could be found to establish notability. I'm not myself sure that the calendar does deserve to be included in toto in the existing Discordianism article - however, if it does, no objections to a Merge to that article. But there is, so far as I can see, no evidence of notability, or, apparently, much effort to even establish it. John Carter (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep mainly as above. This is a notable concept with multiple sources and references within entertainment, culture and software. Ryanjunk (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2010 (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! 11:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request As the nominator I am tired of watching this. It has been going on over 2 weeks and is clearly going to end as "keep" or whatever the other thing is called that means we can't agree so might as well keep. I would like to remove the section of the article that was pointed out as questionable and I can't do that while the AfD is going on. After that I plan to ignore the article since it doesn't do anyone any harm. Jaque Hammer (talk) 15:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 06:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Markus Kosonen

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

Unable to find coverage in any reliable sources independent of the subject. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. —J04n(talk page) 00:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. ——J04n(talk page) 00:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ——J04n(talk page) 00:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No secondary sources from which to write a bio. Kevin (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I checked Aamulehti and Helsingin Sanomat (and Etelä-Suomen Sanomat for kicks since i created it), and couldn't find anything.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 16:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michonne Bourriague

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

Fails WP:ENT. No notability as a model, only one minor role as an actress. Only source is IMDb. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 17:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. One might argue that any named role in the Star Wars films is inherently notable. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 19:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete While just one credited and well-covered role fails, if the asserted fanbase can be documented, she might then meet WP:ENT. But IF the article is properly sourced to meet WP:BLP, I might be able to then reconsider my delete opinion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not In The Least Degree Weak Delete: One might argue that a so-called "named role" in a Star Wars film is inherently notable, but as it happens WP:ENTERTAINER makes no such presumption. That being said, the subject's appearance in SWI was an uncredited role without speaking lines, and that represents her sole film role of any kind. If she's parlayed that into gigs on the convention circuit, more power to her, but I've been a featured panelist at SF cons myself, and I don't claim to be notable on that basis. Complete WP:BIO failure. Ravenswing 18:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 00:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ENT: the claim of having a "fan base" seems to be the only leg this article stands on, and it's both unsourced and unlikely. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 08:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Created as part of a campaign to defame an organization--editor has been given a final warning. DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ranarala

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

Non-notable blogger; article has only one citation which goes directly to her blog Usb10 ^Connected? 00:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete no secondary sources in Google search and confirmed that the only reference is to her own blog. MorganKevinJ^(talk) 01:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finnur Justinussen

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

Contested PROD. Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeopel-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 21:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't agree at all, that this player is not notable and that he has not played in a professional league. He plays in the best Faroese league, Faroe Islands Premier League (Vodafonedeildin), there are many other Faroese players who have their own article here on Wikipedia, should they all be deleted??? I don't think so! (If you think that they all should be deleted, than I will stop at once to write about Faroese football and football players, there is no point if the articles gets deleted). This player, Finnur Justinussen, was the top scorer in Vodafonedeildin in 2009 and the same year he was elected Young Player of the Year of a Faroese newspaper, who elect one young player of the year every year. Justinussen has also played 8 matches for his country in the youth national team U21 Faroe Islands, in these 8 matches which he played the Faroe Islands won two matches, played two draws and lost four matches. The team played against Russia on 9. June 2009 (Justinussen didn't play this match) and the result was 1-0 to the Faroe Islands 2011 UEFA European Under-21 Football Championship qualification Group 1, isn't that notable for the team and the players? This team is the first national team of the Faroe Islands which has gained 11 points in an international competition. I think that there is a great chance that Justinussen soon will play for the National team of the Faroe Islands too. EileenSanda (talk) 20:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not infer racist motives where none exist. I am not nominating this article on the grounds that the subject Faroese. There are plenty of Faroese footballers who are notable, as evidenced by the fact that they have articles. I simply do not believe Mr. Justinussen is one of them. The Faroese league is not fully professional and therefore insufficient to grant notability under WP:NSPORT. Furthermore, NSPORT specifically states that youth international caps do not confer notability. The claim that he will play for the senior national team is speculation, making it an improper basis for notability. If you can provide significant coverage in reliable source, as stated in WP:N, I would be more than willing to withdraw this nomination, but at this time he does meet any of the criteria for notability as laid out under standing Wikipedia guidelines. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say anything about racism, I didn't mean to imply that. I just tried to improve the article, but he has not played for clubs in other countries as far as I know (or as far as I can find on the internet), so if the criteria is that a Faroese player must play or have played in another country or for the national team of the Faroe Islands (and not U21 i.e.) than there is nothing more I can do about this article. I just thought that being the top scorer in the best Faroese division and being elected "Young Player of the Year" should be a sign of notability (in the Faroe Islands that is notable, but of course in the rest of the world that probably doesn't count for much). Yes, of course it was only speculation, that he may be playing for the national team of the Faroe Islands sometime in the future, nobody knows that, I shouldn't have written that, sorry. I don't have any personal relation to this football player, other than the fact that we come from the same country, we come from different islands, I don't know him. The team from my village is FC Suðuroy, which just got relegated. Well, we will see what this ends up with. Deletion or not deletion. I still say Keep, but that is of course not up to me. Regarding the question about fully professional or not, most of the players in the best Faroese division get a wage for playing football now, they didn't earlier. Some get a wage that is what would be the same as having a part-time job (working half time or so), other get more others get less. The players change more between the clubs now in order to earn more money and to get better, and I think that more and more players go abroad to play football. EileenSanda (talk) 21:54, 28 November 2010 (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) 00:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. J Mo 101 (talk) 02:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 23:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other Minds (music)

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

This article does not make a claim to notability, and it seems clear that it does not pass WP:CLUB as the organization is not national - as the article also contains no third person sources, and no other articles link toit, it seems reasonable to question its notability and as whether it has been created mostly for promotional purposes.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The music festival this organisation runs has attracted coverage over multiple years ([38], [39] are aexamples), and includes coverage outside of just the SF area (LA Times). At the very least, it should be a merge to Charles Amirkhanian as co-founder, and festival director. I see no good reason for deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 17:41, 29 November 2010 (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) 00:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 00:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Pedergnana

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

when an article commences with "curriculum vitae" and looks blatantly like one it seems very WP:AUTOBIO. don't see how he meets WP:BIO nor WP:PROF. yes he has authored some stuff according to gscholar but nothing substantial. LibStar (talk) 00:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Has published books, but their impact is not clear to me. Subject has almost nothing in the economics research literature though: WoS stats are 1 pub with h-index 1 and GS gives h-index 3. Website is unclear about his position. The article itself is a mess, mostly being a CV full of WP:OR. Also WP:SPA-created, so may be nothing more than a vanity page. Would help if persons knowledgeable in economics could weigh-in. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:11, 2 December 2010 (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) 02:57, 10 December 2010 (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) 01:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing particularly notable that might meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG, furthermore article is also a SPA/autobio/advert mess.Sailsbystars (talk) 16:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for above reasons. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Songs From The Howling Sea

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

No evidence of notability. Only one real reference could be found (the one already in the article). Google shows some sites by the project, but no coverage from reliable third party sources. Netalarm^talk 00:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's covered by the Evening Standard and others. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, This is the Evening Standard. Thought it was "This is London". That's the only source I could find, and it sounds like one of those "local people doing stuff updates", any others? Netalarm^talk 01:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"This is London" is the Evening Standard's web brand. That's why it has a large masthead reading "London Evening Standard" on their pages. Did you follow the link, or just AfD it without? Andy Dingley (talk) 02:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just scrolled down on the page and read it, since there was a large commercial next to it. Commercials everywhere --> ignore everything and just read the article. Regarding the notability of the subject, are there more sources? I'm having a hard time finding any. That Evening Standard one feels kind of local news though. Netalarm^talk 02:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Sounds cute, but nevertheless a web-based project by a non-notable unsigned musician. The Evening Standard coverage is OK, but any coverage I can find seems to be pickup of press releases about the project, and WP#N does say "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity ..." I don't think the citations offered establish this. Ka renjc 13:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's obviously a risk, as most of the coverage I've found so far is obviously instigated by the singer's own press releases (and our Lady Gaga coverage presumably isn't...). I did like this comment from the Londonist though, "The Londonist inbox swells to Jupiter-like proportions each day with inane requests for coverage. Much of it is guff of the most guffsome guffishness. And then, every once in a while, we get beautiful non-guff like this:" Andy Dingley (talk) 13:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. The couple of sources provided do not give substantial coverage, and we do seem to have write-ups of press releases. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Press puffery, no actual notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as interesting but not notable. There is no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor articles in the Evening Standard and Londonist are a start, but for from enough to be considered significant third-party coverage. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 00:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Madison parker

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

Per WP:PORNSTAR Winner 42 Talk to me! 00:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She passes WP:PORNBIO having been nominated for AVN Awards in multiple years. I'll update the article accordingly. To the nominator, afd'ing an article 30 minutes after its creation is a bit soon. At least let the creator know what's deficient about the article. It's clear that's he's a newbie. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She passes WP:PORNBIO with award nominations in multiple years. And thanks to Morbidthoughts for improving the article. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per diligent WP:AFTER by User:Morbidthoughts that allowed improvement of article and sourcing of notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Believe Me (film)

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

Per WP:CRYSTAL Winner 42 Talk to me! 00:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any mention of this film anywhere.--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears to be made up. Even if not, it fails WP:NFF. —Mike Allen 03:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 15:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Only announced recently. Not even in pre-production. Fails WP:NFF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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