Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 April 28

< 27 April	29 April >

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.

Corentine Quiniou[edit]

Result: Keep (non-admin closure) as their is significant coverage on the article's subject and is notability is inherent. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 20:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

First of all the article seems to be supposed to promote her because the main author User:Socoglio did no contributions in other articles that are not referring to Quiniou. He also uploaded many images of her on Commons [1]. The same user wrote as well articles about her in French and in German Wikipedia, but nothing else there, too.

In addition to that Quiniou does not correspond with Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Athletes because she is an amateur car racing driver who did not compete in professional racing series. She already won some amateur races like Classic Endurance Racing and Rallye Aicha des Gazelles but in races with stronger opponents like Dakar Rally or 24 Hours Nürburgring she only managed position 49 and position 100. The article tells she finished third in her category at 2009 24h Nürburgring, but you have to keep in mind that only three competitors in her category (SP4T) finished the race [2] and Quiniou finished on position 100 overall [3]. An interesting fact is that Quiniou was disqualified in Rallye Aicha des Gazelles for cheating by manipulating their satellite tracking device and setting back their odometer, and there is suspicion that previous years' results were similarly tainted [4].

So I think Quiniou is not notable enough to be mentioned in Wikipedia, and why should we give Socoglio the opportunity to abuse Wikipedia for promotion? --79.246.182.163 (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am properly formatting and listing this AfD for for this anonymous editor. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 00:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 12:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 12:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep, looks like she can meet the guidelines for general notability, there's a fair amount of press about her Also, I would argue the public accusation of cheating would enhance notability, not diminish it. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep,Socoglio desperately tried to keep the information concerning the accuses of 2010 edition of the Rallye Aicha des Gazelles out of Wikipedia (see the page's history). I'm just wondering - just a few days after Socoglio's desperate attempt there is a a deletion discussion going on triggered by an anonymous IP Adress - who's behind that? My opinion is that the public accusation not only enhances the notability. So please don't delete it. I'm just thinking of posting a few sentences into the german edition. --Konuzelmann Thomas (talk) 17:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC) — Konuzelmann Thomas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment Just a general comment, but the article could stand to be cleaned up, and the pictures scattered around. Now Socoglio needs to be told and or warned not to remove information for whatever reason because that can be seen as vandalism. Wikipedia is not here to promote the positives of article subjects, but it is here to let the reader know about the negatives of the subject as well. I left a message on Socoglio's talk page about this AfD going on. But as we can tell, Socoglio has not responded to this as of yet. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 19:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I'll try to give it a copy edit sweep in the next couple of days, assuming it's still here. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Plus formatting the references would be good. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 00:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Darkwind (talk) 01:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The link on the article to here is broken. And I've begun adding references, I'm not done yet, but please take a look sometime in the next few days. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The external links can be moved into the appropriate spots in the articles as references. I have been moving around some of the pictures in the article and not sticking them in just a gallery. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 02:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think there are enough references to establish notability now. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Socoglio has again tried to delete the cheating allegations on the 3rd of May. By the way he deleted the issue on the German page as well. In the meantime it has been restored again. He hasn't touched the French page yet.--Konuzelmann Thomas (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources in the article and linked above show clear notability. This looks very much like a textbook case of the law of untintended consequences, by which an article started for the purposes of promotion is no longer wanted by the creator when it has been edited by others to give a more balanced view of the subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Ostrovsky[edit]

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

This individual fails WP:GNG and WP:MANOTE. His only claim to fame is inventing Aquathlon (underwater wrestling). According to its home page, this non-notable martial art is only taught at 16 schools in the world. This art should not be confused with the well-known swimming event known as Aquathlon. Both articles lack any independent sources and I didn't find any when I searched.

I am also nominating the following related page for the reasons mentioned above: Aquathlon (underwater wrestling). Papaursa (talk) 23:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 23:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Aquathlon is an international sport, known at least in the several countries of the former USSR and also in Israel and Italy, with international competitions being held for quite a long time. In 2008 aquathlon was included into CMAS envelope [5]. There are plenty of independent sources to be found on the subject, like this [6]. More can be found in Russian or Hebrew languages, like this article in Russian [7] containing some facts of Ostrovsky's biography. In the total, Google gives some 20000 results for request "Игорь Островский акватлон" (Igor Ostrovsky aquathlon) [8]. So both the underwater wrestling and its inventor are quite notable, just the existing articles on them need much more work on. And if you don't like the possible confusion with aquathlon as the swimming event, I may suggest to move the article aquathlon (underwater wrestling) to simply underwater wrestling. Greyhood (talk) 11:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both I agree the articles need more work, but the aquathlon article has been tagged for over 2 years and the Ostrovsky article since January 2009. For the English wikipedia it would be nice to find sources in English since I don't know Russian or Hebrew. I still don't see where either passes WP:MANOTE. Astudent0 (talk) 13:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I can improve the articles if there is an urgent need. And see, there are sources in English, once again this example [9] - from the Eastern Mediterranean University. It passes for sure at least a half of WP:MANOTE criteria: there are secondary sources about aquathlon, it was recognised by an international inter-style organisation (CMAS), it has a history of 35+ years and there were some international competitions. And after all, an underwater wrestling is quite a distinctive concept, not just another form of punching-kicking-grappling on surface. Greyhood (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to agree to disagree and see what others say. I see an art with few practitioners (much less notable ones) and few schools that teach it. Papaursa (talk) 01:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I can improve the articles if there is an urgent need". I am not sure what more you would be looking for to indicate "an urgent need" than the fact that they are up for deletion? MM207.69.139.155 (talk) 00:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When I do a search on Google RU for those search terms, I get about 868 hits for Игорь Островский акватлон, and about 3 when searching those exact terms, which is hardly notable. The English search results are just as bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.20.219.166 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 1 May 2010

Well, seems you are right about 868 links, though this search gives me about 20000 links [10], but the number shrinks when I proceed through the pages. Searching those exact terms is pointless, since there is no reason they should be arranged in such a way in Russian. And I don't think that 868 is too few. The links are quite varaible - news sites, diver clubs, general sport sites etc. Greyhood (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Autism Research Institute. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Defeat Autism Now![edit]

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

Non-notable product of the Autism Research Institute, not notable enough for its own article. MBisanz ^talk 23:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Autism Research Institute. This article seems to be relatively little-trafficked and I suspect this AfD will be too but I'm willing to change my !vote if anyone comes up with a convincing argument that DAN is notable in its own right and not merely for what it derives from ARI. —Soap— 01:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Autism Research Institute would be fine. MastCell ^Talk 04:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. One decent article is better than two incomplete articles. There is a little sourcing (independent sourcing, even), but nothing that does not fit quite well at ARI. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:56, 30 April 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. Insufficient independent reliable sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swissôtel Chicago[edit]

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

Contested speedy deletion and prod. This local subsidiary of Swissôtel fails to be notable on its own. Unless User:Bradv who claims to find 100+ Google News entries on it, I can only get a maximum of nine non-sinigficant Google News hits for Swissôtel Chicago. It may be locally important for the city but with the corporation having an article I don't even see a need for a redirect for this local house. If somebody can find claims of nationwide or international notability for this very subject (not for Swissôtel in general) please feel free to add them to the article though. De728631 (talk) 19:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CHAIN. It doesn't meet CSD A7 because "designed by noted architect X" is a claim of significance, but if there is anything truly notable to say about its architecture, there will be reliable sources to cite. --Darkwind (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article was nominated for speedy deletion one minute after it was created, and prodded after ten. Clicking on the find sources links above reveals plenty of potential sources. I haven't looked through them all to know if any of them are reliable and non-trivial, but I guarantee whoever is trying to delete this hasn't either. Brad 19:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (weak) References 1-4 are broken links 'This page does not exist'... The other references are to 3 travel guides, not 'news sources'. Looking at the news search, there are lots references in Hotel trade magazines, references in travel sections of regular newspapers, lots of passing mentions.... OTOH, there are a lot of them. David V Houston (talk) 22:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first four reference links were broken because the article's creator messed up the wikicode. I've restored his original refs (see history), but as I noted before, none of those 4 do even mention the word Chicago nor do they relate to this particular Hotel, they are merely CVs of some top Swissôtel people. And as to having lots of general references, what we need is something that makes this particular house stick out, not the usual "Celebrity X has arrived in Chicago and will lodge in Swissôtel" or "Meeting Y held at Swissôtel Chicago". That's part of the business and is just trivial for such an establishment. De728631 (talk) 23:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Several awards have been added to the article, including references (some of the latters being mere directory listings and spammy promotional pieces which I have removed). I'm not sure though about the significance of these so-called awards by a number of business magazines, e.g. what is the "Pinnacle Award"? Someone in the know should assess that. De728631 (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all major luxury hotels are notable. there is always material available about th construction, financing ,etc. Just has to be found, and it will be if left there for people to gradually work on it. DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Honest Question Are all major luxury hotels notable as a matter of policy? --Nuujinn (talk) 13:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

there is no established guideline, but we usually do keep them, and so I would suggest it become one. DGG ( talk ) 02:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Mars[edit]

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

fails WP:NM User234 (talk) 23:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bruno Mars co-wrote the U.S. no. 1 and worldwide top 10 hit song "Right Round" by Flo Rida. That makes him notable. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.95.84.160 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 29 April 2010
- Comment. I deleted an unfounded accusation of racism from 70.95.84.160's !vote as a blatant violation of civility. — Gwalla | Talk 20:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Co-writing one song does not mean he passes WP:MUSIC. Please review. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He does sing on quite a popular song though....— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.104.217.11 (talk • contribs) 11:51, 30 April 2010

~~Weak keep~~ As part of the production duo "The Smeezingtons" Bruno Mars has co-written more than one song. Notable songs include "Billionaire" by Travis McCoy and "Nothin' On You" by B.o.B. Nothin' On You includes his vocals, and has peaked at number 1 on US Billboard Hot 100 and the U.S. Billboard Rap Songs chart. This could possibly meet criteria #2 under musicians and ensembles: "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart" ≈Alessandro ♫^{T • C} 01:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Updated vote to Keep. ≈Alessandro ♫^{T • C} 13:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How can anyone ever possibly think about deleting this page. Bruno Mars is a very talented and upcoming singer. He not only made it to the billboards featuring in two songs, but one of them it number one. It's an embarrassment for wikipedia NOT to have this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.180.206 (talk • contribs) 07:34, 2 May 2010

Comment - Again, PLEASE review WP:MUSIC and explain that notability criteria Mars meets. Your opinions that he is "talented" or "upcoming" are moot. Presumably by "the billboards" you mean Billboard magazine, where B.o.B. and Travie McCoy have charted. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He deserves his own article when he scores a chart-topper all by himself, but for the moment, I don't think he meets the notability criteria for music. — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• ^Speak! 00:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe a #1 single on the Hot 100 passes him as notable. Str8cash (talk) 02:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If he had a #1 single, it would. He did not. A session drummer on the same song would be in the same position. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He also co-produced "Wavin' Flag" by K'naan, which has become an international hit. Blackjays1 (talk) 07:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I fail to find any mention of "co-producing" a hit as a criterion for notability in WP:MUSIC. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:MUSICBIO criterion #1 with nontrivial mentions in plenty of news articles, based on my searching, and in particular such articles as this in the Star Bulletin, and Nabavian, Evan J. (February 27, 2010). "B.O.B. featuring Bruno Mars: Nothin' on You", Billboard 122 (8): 37 Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 13:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia gubernatorial election, 2013[edit]

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

This event is three years away, and is nothing more than unsourced speculation, a blatant WP:CRYSTAL violation. While it will happen, I think that the concerns raised in the prior AfD that It has no significant coverage yet still is relevant. I decided to relist it here at AfD instead of using G4 because some time has passed and the last AfD was not a clear consensus. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. —Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 23:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRYSTAL ball. Saying it will happen is like saying the Chicago Cubs will win the World Series. It could, you never know, but you go off it could. Whose to say an election won't happen sooner? Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 02:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:CRYSTAL. There's no value in having this article at all until we can actually add real sources regarding real issues that are actually under discussion and real candidates who are actually throwing their hat in the ring. Bearcat (talk) 02:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same as above. This is too far into the future.. Traxs7 (Talk) 05:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We see these a lot, and they truly are the image conveyed by WP:CRYSTALBALL -- an editor gazing into the glass sphere and telling us who the "potential candidates" are. "I see the U.S. Senator who won't be up for re-election that year.... I see the current Lieutenant Governor, what's his name... I see the guy who lost the last election, what's his name..." Mandsford (talk) 13:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC) I[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Governor of Virginia. The redirect might help to prevent recreation over the next few years. Once we have actual committees and declared candidates and for-reals information, then an article might become appropriate - but not for a while, yet. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:33, 30 April 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.

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

Ask Darby[edit]

The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Dizzy (series). Jayjg ^(talk) 02:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Big 6 (Dizzy Series)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTE; this is a compilation of a number of notable games, but has no notability itself. At the most, it should be mentioned as a re-release in the articles that are a part of it. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 22:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 22:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It was reviewed as a standalone package, as seen here and here, so strictly speaking the notability is there. However, the game packs are just re-releases and could be covered within a list, IE at the Dizzy article or within a List of Dizzy video games. Someone another 10:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dizzy (series) - since the article is about the series as a compilation, it fits perfectly into the series overview article. --Teancum (talk) 13:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Per notability not inherited. A mention in main article would be nice. Though it seems to be basically what is already there. — Hellknowz ▎talk 20:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Dizzy (series), as it isn't notable to have a own article. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 16:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted G12 by User:RHaworth. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 10:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn Manson Eighth Studio Album[edit]

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

Album release that is to be announced yet. Doesn't even have a track list. Calling WP:HAMMER on this one. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - The article is a copyvio, and I have requested it be speedily deleted. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 28 April 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) --Darkwind (talk) 01:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trav S.D.[edit]

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

Promotional article on individual of unclear notability. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - had to relocate this from another part of the AFD log. Date may be out of order. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well he's been published by Faber & Faber and runs/ran his own theatre apparently. I'm not sure if there's enough info kicking around for an article (let alone a BLP), but he's not just another myspace musician. Someone another 11:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep and clean up. I'm willing to accept that someone written of in Washington Post[11], New York Times [12][13], and Brooklyn Paper [14] to name just a few of the many sources available, is notable enough for Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Absolutely, keep! Reviews in the NY times, the Village Voice, Playbill and many others. With some work this could be a dandy article! Evalpor (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously, he gets plenty of coverage. And to the nominator, always use Google news search BEFORE you nominate something for deletion, thus saving the rest of us some time. Dream Focus 14:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Close: Redirect to List of mnemonics#Biology/Taxonomy per consensus. Withdrawn according; non admin closure. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

King Philip Came Over For Great Spaghetti[edit]

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

Mnemonic of a way to remember orders of classification. No real data to back up notability. I don't think this is going to stand on its own. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Come on. This is important. A kid asked me what it meant because there was no wikipedia for it. And it is important. (how is a 4th grader gonna remember to type in classification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mozart998 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 28 April 2010
- There's a difference between being important or helpful and being a valid encyclopedia article. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've cleaned this up some and added a category and an external link. Is this any less worthy than Roy G. Biv? --Auntof6 (talk) 08:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ~~mnemonic~~ list of mnemonics. It is less worthy of an article. Roy G. Biv has hundreds of cites [15] compared to a handful for this particular mnemonic, which seems to be more common as "King Philip came over good spaghetti" [16] (I guess he had to go to Olive Garden for great spaghetti). Even at that, it's not any more common than most "King Philip" variations [17]. It's a legitimate search term however, given that a lot of the variations start with "King Philip came" (and with that as a start, not surprising that some are more ribald than others). Mandsford (talk) 13:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I can see that it's less worthy, but I don't think it should redirect to 'mnemonic'. It's an actual mnemonic, not a synonym for mnemonic. --Auntof6 (talk) 14:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm with you on this; perhaps a merge and redirect to Biological classification would be a better thing to do.

--Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - My goof on that. I should have said redirect to List of mnemonics, where similar forms are mentioned ("Dumb Kids Playing Chase On Freeway Go Splat" and "King Phillip, Come Out For God's Sake!". Normally, I'd support redirecting to the article about what it's intended to help one memorize, but the lack of any mention now in biological classification leads me to think that it's been removed in the past, probably by some intellectual snobs who erase anything that they think "doesn't belong" in a "serious article". We've all dealt with revert-holes, and I think it's more likely to survive as a piece of information in an article about mnemonics. Mandsford (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - That would make sense to me, as long as we actually add this mnemonic to that page! --Auntof6 (talk) 03:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consider it done, Auntie. [18]. Mandsford (talk) 13:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to list of mnemonics. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I wrote this because it came up in our school. It was on a homework and no one knew it. I gave citations to the people who came up with the other ones in class. -Mozart998

Maybe we need a revert-hole after all. Mandsford (talk) 00:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- It's a useful mnemonic, just maybe not one that merits its own article. As for the citations, Wikipedia requires certain things in sources, such as having the source material published and verifiable. If you're interested, you can read more about that at WP:SOURCES. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please. You were just for it. But the real thing is I am wondering why the (four letter word) it is being considered for deletion anyway. IT WENT UP YESTERDAY FOR CRYING OUT LOUD. -Mozart998

Comment I've gone ahead and added the version from this article (and some sourcing to show that it's commonly used) to the mnemonics article. As demonstrated, anyone can come up with a sentence with the letters K-P-C-O-F-G-S and it's likely that variations would be added to a page like this. It's a notable mnemonic only if lots of people recognize it, which would be true for the one that ends with "great spaghetti". Mandsford (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. It's a fun phrase, but Google Books finds only one hit (and 7 more for the "good spaghetti" version). Compare 667 hits for "Oh Be A Fine Girl/Guy Kiss Me", which is a redirect. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 13:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a merge has already happened in List of mnemonics. I'm prepared to speedy close this AFD (and accordingly redirect the relevant article) unless there are objections. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 13:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed Martial Arts in Ontario[edit]

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

Mostly cut-and-paste from Mixed Martial Arts. New content, if relevant, probably belongs there. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the article is just talking about MMA in general. The section on MMA in Ontario starts "Mixed Martial Arts in Ontario is a banned sport." The article's sole reference is to the Ontario Premier's statement that legalizing MMA in Ontario is not a priority. This article is primarily a slimmed-down, less informative version of Mixed martial arts. Papaursa (talk) 00:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. The significant content appears to concern two individual cases (McGuinty and Henry) that should be moved into the appropriate biographical articles, assuming they are appropriately supported by reliable sources. As far as I can see, there is no indication that 'mixed martial arts in Ontario' is a notable subject in itself. Janggeom (talk) 08:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At first I thought this might be a speedy delete since so much content was from the MMA article, but decided a simple delete would do. Astudent0 (talk) 13:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Well covered in secondary literature. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Effects of Classroom Design on Children's Test Scores[edit]

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

Looks like a student essay and thus original research WhaleyTim (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An essay. Joe Chill (talk) 00:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The material just needs wikifying to make it more presentable. Notice that it has inline citations while our article classroom has none at all. If we were to merge the two we would improve them both. Deletion would be completely unhelpful and contrary to our editing policy. Note that material of a similar sort is found in sources such as the Encyclopedia of educational research and so its notability is evident. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that the article was nominated for AFD 18 minutes after its creation. Please see WP:BITE and WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per WP:NOR. We are an encyclopedia not a compendium of essays. Aiken ♫ 15:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Change to keep now that Colonel Warden has changed the article to something that does not violate policy. Aiken ♫ 19:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- this is an essay consisting of sources cobbled together to present a novel opinion. Reyk _YO! 09:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is that novel opinion? That classroom design has an effect upon learning? Are you serious? There are hundreds of scholarly sources for this topic and others have compiled these before us. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a well known theory going back at least to the 19th century, incorporated in the building of schools in the early 20th century, which is gaining in popularity again. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article lacks meta-analytic sources, reliable sources that survey the available literature on the subject and come to conclusions that an editor can cite without dipping into WP:NOR. Xtzou (Talk) 18:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles do not require meta-analytic sources and we have a policy which states that such wooly, perfectionist demands are improper. The general context for deciding upon deletion is that 99% of our articles are of less than good quality and it is our policy to keep them rather than delete them on such grounds. For example, the main article Classroom has no sources of any kind, let alone meta-analytic ones.
Anyhow, provision of such sources is a trivial exercise which only takes a minute. Here are three:

Colonel Warden (talk) 19:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While agreeing that meta-analytic sources arent mandatory, sources already present like this one from University of Georgia is in fact a meta - study. I implore any deletionists to please read the abstract so they can see the extensive reasearch done within this highly noteable and important field. FeydHuxtable (talk)

Keep The article appears to be well enough sourced at this point to establish the subject's notability. Does need work, but I think that's not a criterion for deletion. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The Colonels improvements have considerably reduced the ammount of OR. Very worthy and usefull article, for example it might help teachers create a good learning environment if for what ever reason they have to set up an ad hoc classroom. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick Google book search [19] reveals many books published on this. It thus clearly a notable topic. You could probably find some results in Google news as well [20], but the book results clearly establish notability on their own. Read through the summaries of those that appear on the first page of results. Dream Focus 07:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be notable per WP:GNG. Could do with having some of the remaining OR removed, but that's not a cause to delete. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. opinion seems clear that his role in the sport was not notable. I recognize I just closed an AfD where I commented, but I think this one was obvious. Anyione who disagrees is welcome to reopen it. DGG ( talk ) 02:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Armstrong-Ford[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer who appears to be in the reserves/youths at Exeter City, and has played first-team football in only minor leagues so fails WP:ATHLETE. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of independent substantial sources. Big Dom 20:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article was an unreferenced BLP, It was prodded by the present nominator apparently without any check whatsoever for references. I don;t work in this field, but I do know enough to check in Google News, and I found over a dozen. I added one to get it started, and the others can be seem from the link above. I'm not qualified to judge whether his position on either his present or previous team is notable. It seems more logical to me that if it is not, one would add the references documenting the positions, and then propose for deletion on the grounds of notability. Proposing it on the grounds of having no references just makes things more complicated, since if they are found then additional steps are needed. Anyway, it frequently turn out that something is in the references to show notability that is not apparent from the article, especially one as sketchy as this. DGG ( talk ) 21:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The thing was I meant to just add a regular PROD template, but using Twinkle I inadvertently added one of those new BLPPRODs. However, by the time I realised it was too late. You won't find anything in the references to show notability; in England only footballers who have played in the fourth tier or above are deemed notable and this player definitely hasn't. Big Dom 05:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - player has never played at a notable level, so fails WP:ATHLETE. Also fails WP:GNG - all Google News hits in the link above (including the one now in the article) are only passing mentions in match reports or articles about other things, none are in-depth coverage of the player himself -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As stated above, he has never played professionally, and all coverage is fairly rountine journalism. He therefore fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - player fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 23:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear failure of WP:ATH. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG Steve-Ho (talk) 12:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 13:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FtpVC[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non-notable software; fails WP:GNG. Brad 20:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree (nonnotable). Appears the editor made topics from google hits on ftp+version control Tedickey (talk) 20:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 22:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abdel Hadi al-Tunsi[edit]

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

There is only one source relied on by this article. Additionally, if the only material on the subject in that source is that he was an alleged member of a terrorist group and was believed to be recruited by someone notable, that is clearly not significant coverage in reliable sources per WP:BIO. Mkativerata (talk) 20:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the one source is quite definitive he was a member, I use the words "alleged" because I always use terms like "alleged", even if there are 1,500 sources saying "X killed Y". The one source is the one book I happened to have in my hand at the time, but considering al-Tunsi has been mentioned from the 1980s to today...I'd say he was a central figure in the group, even if not in English-media. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 20:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. -- Mkativerata (talk) 20:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Mkativerata (talk) 20:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, also note here that "Abdul Haddi al-Tunisi" is in Guantanamo Bay...though that can hardly be used as evidence to include in the WP article at this time. Just pointing out, the differing transliterations Abdul/Abdel/Abd-al/Abd-el Hadi/Haddi/el-Haddi/al-Haddi Tunsi/Tunisi/al-Tunsi/al-Tunisi do make it difficult, but what we do know is that he was an EIJ member of some importance...and the rest will have to wait more than 24 hours from the article's creation to be fleshed out. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 20:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sheru.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:N. Just being a member of a notable (and fairly large) group does not confer notability. The article says literally nothing more than "Abdel Hadi al-Tunsi was an alleged member of Egyptian Islamic Jihad. He was believed to be recruited into the group by Muhammad al-Zawahiri." If the sourced material says nothing more than that, then that is just not enough content for a separate article dedicated to this person. Sandstein 07:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 13:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Space nightclub[edit]

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

A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links:
2010 April 28 – news, books, scholar Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability ttonyb (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advertisement can not be used as RS. No non-trivial source has been presented. Lechatjaune (talk) 01:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crème de la Crème[edit]

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

Limited distribution Australian tourist magazine. 2 extant references don't mention it. Clearly not a notable publication. Jclemens (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This magazine has an audited (by the Circulation Audit Bureau) circulation of over 13,000 copies, and within its genre is the most notable in Australia. The references within the article are outbound, not inbound. An annual publication, readership per copy is unusually high - over 200 per copy - putting readership overall in excess of 2 million. The entry's copy probably needs to be updated in line with editorial and distribution changes currently in hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicboyde (talk • contribs) 05:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC) As for its notability - this a subjective matter, and as the magazine's publisher, I am not a third party. Nevertheless, the copy is deliberately understated and hyperbole-free, restricting itself to verifiable facts about the magazine for those interested in such matters. Compared with other magazines in Australia, Crème de la Crème is larger than some and smaller than many; it is printed to a higher standard than almost anything else around; Our articles are regularly ranked highly by google within their subject matter; the articles are regularly read and re-read online; but it deliberately isn't controversial, and doesn't attract attention from the rest of the media. It isn't famous, but I do think it is notable, within the meaning of the word as Wikipedia uses it.[reply]

Over to someone else now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicboyde (talk • contribs) 05:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it is always a risk editing about a subject with which you are closely concerned. It can be difficult to remain unbiased. That said, it seems to me that this magazine should be able to demonstrate notability. However, it does not do this. WP:NMAG is the relevant guideline for magazines. Does this magazine have an ISSN? Does it have paid circulation in the tens of thousands? Is it regularly cited by reliable secondary sources (sort of an inverse of the WP:GNG)? Can it be demonstrated to be influential? If yes, then it is notable and can be kept if the article is suitably cleaned up. I think we need more information. Otherwise a weak delete. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 06:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment again - Hang on, are you saying that Tourism Victoria cites Creme de la Creme for various statistics? If that can be demonstrated, that's a very strong argument that this magazine is notable. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 06:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Comment No, the data supporting the readership analysis came from Tourism Victoria, amongst others. I have perhaps misused the term "reference". I used it as I would writing an academic paper: "go here for further detail". I've looked at the WP:NMAG guidelines and the magazine in question qualifies on at least one ground (not within the copy, so how would you know): it has been commercially-published for 15 years. Yes, it needs re-writing. I'm on it. Nicboyde

Is it possible to provide any examples of well-known publications citing Creme de la Creme?--Yeti Hunter (talk) 11:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:NMAG is still a draft proposal and has not been officially adopted. The relevant existing guideline is WP:GNG; I don't see any more specific guideline that would apply. --Darkwind (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Valley2city^‽ 20:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative Comment: I find it difficult to parse these comments to make a definitive close, and therefore I'm relisting it for a second (and final) week. Anybody want to weigh in besides the second-choice weak delete so we can determine consensus? Valley2city^‽ 20:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was unable to find any independent reliable sources that so much as mention this magazine. There should be no prejudice to recreating the article in future if proper sources are provided. Abductive (reasoning) 22:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A limited ciruclation giveaway magazine for high-end hotels in Austraila. I find no reliable sources writing about this magazine although the name does make it difficult to sort through search results. -- Whpq (talk) 19:15, 29 April 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Physim[edit]

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

I can't find any indication that this is a product that is notable by Wikipedia's criteria. Google search brings up a bunch of download pages, as well as results for other products name PhySim (a hardware debugger, a physics simulator, and something to do with trees). Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 19:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 23:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete:Found an article at http://www.idsia.ch/~andrea/sim/simnet.html 59.97.32.29 (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 28 April 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) 13:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

St Kilda vs Geelong (2009)[edit]

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

Violates WP:NOT; Wikipedia is not a place for random lists of stuff. There's no reason to list every single match of the 2009 AFL season (or any other season for that matter). Individual games from individual seasons of each league do not have game summaries listed, and there is no reason to do so, as those lists, too, would violate the same guidelines. mhking (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Having an article for a run-of-the-mill regular season game strikes me as indiscriminate information. Perhaps the articles on the teams' seasons would be a more appropriate place for such info, as is done with NFL team season pages. Either way, this is not suitable as a stand-alone article. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although it is unusual for two sports teams to both go 13-0-0 and then meet in the regular season, there are very few regular season games that are important enough for their own article. What happens is that they get mentioned in the article about the league's season. I'm an NFL fan, but I have my doubts about most of the contests mentioned in Category:National Football League games as well. Mandsford (talk) 13:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this article cited reliable sources to show how this individual game was notable, I'd consider keeping it. But it doesn't. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Individual games in a season are not notable. WWGB (talk) 06:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Notability isn't temporary, and individual regular season games can be notable, this probably could have been a decent article if written at the time, as it was a much anticipated event - two teams going 13-0 is unprecedented in Australian rules football. The title is also misleading, as a few months later in 2009 they met again in a much more notable match. Because of this second meeting, the impact/notability of the first one was diminished, and I can't see any on-going importance from the match, nor think that many editiors will put the effort into expanding it into a decent article. If I'm proved wrong in the next few days, then maybe keep, but I doubt it will happen.The-Pope (talk) 13:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't know much about AFL, but this appears to have been a routine game Nick-D (talk) 08:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 13:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Gibbs[edit]

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

Non-notable child actress with 3 minor voice roles, only one of which is credited. Has since "left the film industry". Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ENT Logical Fuzz (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as far too soon.[21] If this child ever returns to film and gets significant roles or coverage in reliable sources, the article might be considered for return. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per MichaelQSchmidt. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Hole (band). Jayjg ^(talk) 03:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Dailey[edit]

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

Shawn Dailey is only notable because of his involvement with Hole. I see no notability otherwise. Qotsa37 (talk) 19:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hole (band) per WP:MUSICBIO: Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article. No such individual notability is shown, or could be found. I42 (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hole (band) as suggested by I42 -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:53, 28 April 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) 13:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Red Roots[edit]

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

Believe non-notable. Only claim to fame is winning the XFM competition, apparently never to be heard of again. As far as I can see, there's no non-trivial coverage apart from a single local newspaper article.

It's not entirely clear to me whether this should be deleted, so seeking wider input. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 19:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete page created with coi to promote Nicodemus Flower. XFM competition is not a major award. XFM competition generated a small amount of local interest coverage but not enough for wp:music. lacks significant coverage in Independent reliable sources (a trivial mention of supporting another artist is not significant coverage). duffbeerforme (talk) 11:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the most significant coverage is this. But that's not enough. -- Whpq (talk) 19:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was userfied by Wikidas. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bhakti Rakshaka Sridhara Deva Goswami[edit]

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

Non-notable religious leader. There is nothing that this individual is notable for, nor are there independent reliable sources that assert notability. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy -- It is obviously completely unsourced article without any accretion of notability or any verifiable content to salvage. Moved back to the user space where it belongs. Wikid ^as© 06:14, 30 April 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 The Hoosiers. (non-admin closure) --Darkwind (talk) 01:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Illusion of Safety (The Hoosiers)[edit]

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

Fails WP:HAMMER -- no tracklist exists. As predicted by WP:HAMMER, there is a concurrent lack of notability-conferring, non-primary sourcing in existence for this topic. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 17:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Hoosiers. This confirms some of the tracks, but it can be better covered in the band's article until we know more.--Michig (talk) 19:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Redirect works just as well! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Hoosiers as stated by Michig above. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the band until proper sources can be cited. Bearcat (talk) 21:32, 28 April 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. I know this is an early close, but there's an overwhelming consensus forming that this article is counter to WP:ONEEVENT & WP:NOTNEWS. The early close is for the blindingly-obvious WP:BLP concerns associated with an article named "Bigoted woman incident" and a lack of coverage depth. Should this incident evolve into something of greater import, the article can be recreated at a more appropriate name with the necessary context provided by reliable citations. — Scientizzle 17:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bigoted woman incident[edit]

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

WP:ONEEVENT or WP:NOTNEWS Kittybrewster ☎ 16:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, fairly clearly fails WP:NOT#NEWS and the test given in WP:EVENT. Ironholds (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, I'm not an expert on the relevant wikipedia policies. All I know is that this incident will not be very notable in a few days time (cf. Prescott punch incident) and a small section in another election related article is all that is needed. Abc30 (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This might deserve one paragraph in some article related to the election, but per WP:ONEEVENT it doesn't deserve its own article, and certainly it doesn't need to be there as an excuse to redirect the woman's name to an article whose title says "bigoted woman". — Gavia immer (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, not withstanding ABC30's ability to forecast the future, this has at least the potential to be significant. Several political bloggers/national journalists have commented it could be significant historically, and on that basis better to wait and see. At some point may be wise to merge in somewhere else. Leonig Mig (talk) 16:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Potential" to be significant? we are not a crystal ball; we do not keep articles because they "might" be valuable in the future. Ironholds (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case you should be able to see the inverse applies per my original comment. Leonig Mig (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That we should keep an article because we cannot prove that it will not be notable? Hells, under that test, any 11 year old who writes an article about how she likes power rangers should be kept. After all, there's no proof that she won't be notable! In article content, once an objection has been raised, the onus is on the creator and supporters to prove that it is notable. Ironholds (talk) 16:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at the front page of every UK news site at the moment. The fact that this is getting wall to wall coverage is its claim to significance. The fact some wikiguy "reakons" everyone will have forgotten about it in a week is the reason to think its not. By the way Wikipedia is full of pages written by 11 year olds about PowerRangers and every other issue under the sun. Leonig Mig (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine maybe I'm wrong Leon Mig. What I think doesn't matter though. Look at all the other votes for deletion here! Abc30 (talk) 16:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is because you are all delete obsessives. The creative people are off creating articles, not arguing on process pages. (BTW, I am the exception the proves the rule) Leonig Mig (talk) 16:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So now you're going for personal slurs? Nice. Speaking as somebody who has created 19 pieces of featured content, 31 pieces of good content and over 150 DYKs, I am a creative person. And I'm off creating articles as well. Ironholds (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Leonid: WP:NOT#NEWS "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." - WP:PERSISTENCE "The duration of coverage is a strong indicator of whether an event has passing or lasting significance. Although notability is not temporary, meaning that coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established, a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article" - WP:CRYSTAL "the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred". Ironholds (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with you and it doesn't matter as WP is ruled by consensus and you have the consensus view. But yes I do think the delete/rules obsessives are ruining the platform, and I am entitled to my view. Leonig Mig (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are entitled to your view, yes; and I am entitled to tell you that stereotyping anyone who votes "delete" as some form of obsessive wrecking the wiki is, to me, a content editor, offensive. I am also entitled to tell you that using rules != wikilawyering; claiming they don't apply is, however, usually stupidity. Ironholds (talk) 16:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See also WP:109PAPERS and (in re PowerRangers) WP:WAX. JohnCD (talk) 16:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure if I know as many WP policies as you I could find a reason to delete the Jesus article.Leonig Mig (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:109PAPERS and WP:WAX are references to essays (expressing the editor's opinion) not policy. Rd232 ^talk 16:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are essays, which express sensible and relevant arguments, and citing them saves me writing it all out at length here. JohnCD (talk) 16:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean you shouldn't cite them as shorthand for your opinion - not at all. But Leonig seemed to think they were policy. See also current discussion at WP:VPD. Rd232 ^talk 17:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, witty! So anyone opposed to you is wikilawyering, and the rules don't apply to articles any more? Ironholds (talk) 16:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect - Perhaps worth a brief mention at Premiership of Gordon Brown, but certainly not notable in its own right. See also this discussion which I opened in anticipation of edits regarding this topic. TheRetroGuy (talk) 16:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - clear violation of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ONEEVENT. PhilKnight (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to United Kingdom general election, 2010, with perhaps a brief mention at Gordon Brown or Premiership of Gordon Brown or Strong Delete. A pretty clear example of WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOT#JOURNALISM and WP:ONEEVENT. - Chrism would like to hear from you 16:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Per nom, not notable as a separate article. Previous related article was deleted this morning (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. A trivial incident. JohnCD (talk) 16:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge per WP:NOTNEWS. However, this should be mentioned in the articles that mention the elections.--RM (Be my friend) 16:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Currently big news; it may turn out to be a storm in a teacup, it may not - but Wikipedia is never finished and in the (reasonably likely imo) event that this is a game changer it will be good to have some content to start with. 86.176.111.239 (talk) 16:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United_Kingdom_general_election,_2010#Rochdale_gaffe. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously. At the very most it warrants a redirect to United Kingdom general election, 2010 but I'm not even convinced by that. – iride scent 16:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nobody will either care nor remember this incident next week. A classic case about a non-event by a non-notable being blown out of proportion by the media.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete NOTNEWS, ONEEVENT and any number of other policies. One incident that was extremely trivial and will have no long-term notability. This will be out of the headlines in a day or 2 and certainly won't be remembered for years to come (except by tabloid newspaper editors). I object to redirecting or merging anywhere per the same rationale. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Strong Delete per above --Snowded ^TALK 17:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United_Kingdom_general_election,_2010#Rochdale_gaffe. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 17:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I also oppose redirecting or merging. JohnCD (talk) 17:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. Right now, it's ONEEVENT; created too soon. It's very possible though that it will be a game-changer which ends up tipping the election out of hung parliament territory into Conservative majority. Notable much, if that happens? Trouble is, it's too soon to tell, so we're WP:CRYSTALballing. Userfy or incubate? Rd232 ^talk 17:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gordon Brown or Premiership of Gordon Brown. News sources are calling this the most pivotal moment of the campaign so far, so it at least deserves a mention. ╟─Treasury Tag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 17:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:109PAPERS. Passing news story; tomorrow they'll probably be talking about something else. Zero evidence of long-term notability. Robofish (talk) 17:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, trivial news blip, maybe worth a mention in an appropriate article, but no need for any sort of redirect from this term. I can't help but be reminded of Grundle2600's penchant for bizarre non-news of the hour. Tarc (talk) 17:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 17:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 17:13, 28 April 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) 13:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carter Kaplan[edit]

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

No apparent notability for the topic, and the only major contributor is the article's creator, who's done largely nothing more than copy large portions of the subject's blog into the page that then get reverted. Idran (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see nothing that confers notability for this author. Being published is not enough. Angryapathy (talk) 16:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 17:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.

-- --Darkwind (talk) 17:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the assertions that he is a notable figure in literary and teaching circles were sourced; the majority of the article was, up until recently, an entirely non-critical puff piece lifted from the subject's blog. Most of the sources were his blog or other forms of Carter's work, though one was a link to his book's Amazon page. Capntastic (talk) 23:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:PROF --Nuujinn (talk) 00:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 13:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew McAvene[edit]

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

Nonnotable local musician, no independent sources cited to show that subject meets WP:MUSIC. Prod contested by subject of article. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNews returns a few hits, none of which is non-trivial coverage. This is the best thing I found. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 17:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 22:57, 28 April 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) 13:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Webutation[edit]

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

Unsourced neologism that was previously deleted. ALI ^{nom nom} 14:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Change the spelling to "weputation" and we-diwect to Elmer Fudd. Although it was noticed by a couple of news sources in 2007 [22], it never really caught on. Even on the web, there are relatively few hits [23] and none at all in books [24]. Mandsford (talk) 15:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Article was prodded and deleted in 2007 and reappeared. I removed the PROD tag under procedural grounds alone. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's what I figured, but when you didn't tag it for another form of deletion, I wasn't sure. Thought this might be the best place to take it. ALI ^{nom nom} 15:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the articel sums it up. Its a made up word in need of deltification.Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and WP:NFT. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious neologism (and in the web world, things such as this are rarely obvious). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7. Also a neologism. --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 20:50, 28 April 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 University of Rio Grande. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

University of Rio Grande, Meigs Center[edit]

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

Could easily be merged into University of Rio Grande, not notable enough for its own article. • ɔ ʃ → 14:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to University of Rio Grande. Nothing specifically wrong with the content, just insufficiently notable to justify its own topic. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for Ginsengbomb's reasons.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 13:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Akiko Ogawa[edit]

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

No verification of claim that she sang a song for A Christmas Carol (2000 film). IMDB has not heard of her. Google brings up a lot of blog/Twitter/Facebook results, and some results about a fashion designer with the same name. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 14:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as possible hoax. Can't find any references on Google that back up even the existence of this person. --DAJF (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources to confirm notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that this actually looks a bit hoax-y, but not so far out there that a speedy becomes clearly justified. Either way, plainly unverifiable and non-notable. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Likely hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 16:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete as hoax born 1997 and sang her own song in a 2000 film? So she'd have been a singer songwriter whilst a toddler, and how old when the film was cast? Ϣere SpielChequers 12:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 14:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 13:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil poem[edit]

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

Contested prod. The article doesn't say much more than the title: all there is is a poem, no indication of authorship, notability, critical reception, etc. Delete as lacking context. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest speedy redirect to Tamil literature. We need a full article on Tamil poetry (which currently redirects to Literature) but someone who can read Tamil probably ought to get first crack at writing it. But the English language Wikipedia is not a place to publish original poetry in Tamil. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOT. I'd redirect too but I think in this case, deleting the history to avoid undoing of redirect is necessary.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just someone poem.Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, A1. Hairhorn (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above and it is bad poetry.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:11, 29 April 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) 13:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FTPVCS[edit]

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

Contested prod. Software product fails general notability guideline. Brad 13:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 14:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 14:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone produces sources of significant independent coverage. The google books/news links above don't find anything on this. Pcap ping 14:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 16:18, 28 April 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) 13:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Valappila Communications[edit]

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

No evidence of particular notability in its field (contested prod). Google doesn't help much. — e. ripley\^talk 13:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 14:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 14:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Purely promotional puff piece about an advertising agency. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advertisement for an advertising agency. Salih (talk) 15:36, 28 April 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. Sandstein 07:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rakel Liekki[edit]

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

Tagged with notability concerns for a couple of month. Possible failure of notability criteria with no references to prove claims of notability such as "she has been referred to as the apostle of porn". EuroPride (talk) 12:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 14:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 14:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable porn star, notable artist, notable writer. Prolog (talk) 17:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and remove any future tags toward notability concerns. The sourced notability as artist, journalist, and actress, even if only in Finnish sources, is notable enough for Wikipedia. [25][26][27] Note: One of the nominator's concerns of she being referred to as ""she has been referred to as the apostle of porn." is actually in the article title "Rakel Liekki, Pornon apostoli" of the article at City.fi... hard to miss, and which indeed existed as a citation when this was nominated. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep I agree, there are enough sources that confirm this person's notability. The links found seem to prove that. Dream Focus 09:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Shimeru (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Carlile[edit]

Austin Carlile – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Band member whose only notability is from membership of a band and of guest appearances with other bands. WP:MUSIC states "members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability". Therefore, I have requested the page for deletion. Qotsa37 (talk) 13:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As article stands now, it is referenced by two links to his myspace and one one-line article that confirms that the band will be releasing something at such a time. If high quality references can be found that support this notability I'd be fine with a keep, but at the moment its a poorly sourced BLP. Syrthiss (talk) 14:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. As a member of the two bands Attack Attack! and Of Mice & Men (band) (which are deemed notable by virtue of having articles here) he meets WP:MUSICBIO #6. I42 (talk) 18:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, but it is unclear to me that a wikiproject's notability criteria trump wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources and BLP. Syrthiss (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that plenty of sources exist so yes, the article could be tagged and/or improved right now, but I see no reason to delete. I42 (talk) 07:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Comment. @I42: True, but Attack Attack! has a page on Wikipedia, and Nick Barham (a page I created) was deleted. If what you're stating was how Wikipedia worked, then Caleb Shomo, Andrew Whiting, Andrew Wetzel, Johnny Franck, and John Holgado would all have separate Wikipedia pages. Qotsa37 (talk) 19:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I have changed the above from 'delete' to 'comment', because you have already recommended deletion in your nomination. I42 (talk) 07:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nick Barham was different because MUSICBIO #6 was not met. According to the guideline, membership of two or more notable bands indicates independent notability. Even though Attack Attack! is considered notable, Austin Carlile is not independently notable by virtue of being a member of that alone. In general, the existence or non-existence of other articles is anyway beside the point - see WP:WAX. I42 (talk) 07:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nick Barham was a member of both Attack Attack! and For All We Know as both bands's screamer. According to your side of the argument, Barham's page should have never been deleted, because both of the bands he was previously in were notable. They have both released full-length studio albums, Attack Attack!'s being Someday Came Suddenly, and For All We Know's being We're About To Change. Qotsa37 (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - For All We Know is not considered notable. We seem to be repeating the discussion already had at Talk:Nick Barham. I42 (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 14:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per I42. Being a part of two independently notable bands satisfies WP:MUSICBIO. Jujutacular ^T · C 01:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per I42. Clearly passes WP:MUSICBIO by being part of two notable bands. If it was deleted, which band would he be redirected to? It wouldn't make sense to delete. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

but austin is no longer a member of either band. my suggestion is that he should be redirected to aa! because he released 2 albums with them, as opposed to om&m, who only released one. Qö₮$@37 (talk) 17:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter whether he is still in those bands - he was, and notability is not temporary. I42 (talk) 17:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

.

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 13:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manisha Gulyani[edit]

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

WP:NN dancer. Reads like a resume. No WP:RS, tagged since 2007 Toddst1 (talk) 11:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see many sources that show this individual to be notable - but I'm happy to keep with cleanup if sources become apparent. My impulse is to gut the promotional information, but there is very little beyond that. Sources would also help to put neutral information back in. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 14:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 14:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Though there are 2000 Google hits for Manisha Gulyani [28], I could not neutral reliable references establishing her notability. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:44, 28 April 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Groves[edit]

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

Subject is non-notable. He's had only 2 professional fights, none in a notable promotion, none against a notable fighter. Also both are losses. Google search consists of only fight records and match descriptions. (Deletion log). WölffReik (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2010(UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —WölffReik (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2010(UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With only 2 lifetime fights (both losses), it's clear he fails WP:ATH. Papaursa (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have not found any sources that strongly support notability. Janggeom (talk) 03:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability or significant coverage. Astudent0 (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 13:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dance, Dance Chicago[edit]

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

Contested prod. Might be notable once it airs but today its a bit of a crystal ball. No references provided in the article and I'm not finding significant coverage in reliable sources. RadioFan (talk) 11:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice for recreation. Disney ordered the project in 2009,[29][30][31] and principle filming (allegedly) began last January.[32] In agreement with the nominator, there is a derth of coverage. As the production is slated to air early next year, Wikipedia can wait for it to actually get coverage that meets our criteria. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 13:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mission Vision[edit]

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

This article is about a charity that does not have reliable sources covering it to establish notability. The article itself is one big advertisement as the material is a copy of their webpage (OTRS cleared so not a copyright violation). Whpq (talk) 10:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no independent sources to show notability per WP:ORG. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this organization. I guess that all the good noble causes were taken. Joe Chill (talk) 22:44, 28 April 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. Clear consensus that notability concerns have been met.Mike Cline (talk) 21:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aboitiz Football Cup[edit]

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

Procedural AfD. Article was prodded with the reasoning "There is no evidence to suggest that this competition meets notability guidelines", but the prod was removed by a user citing WP:BEFORE. However, there is still no indication that the article meets our criteria for notability, and the article should be deleted. – Pee Jay 08:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Pee Jay 08:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. This is clearly a non-notable competition. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 07:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there's some news coverage to be found about this tournament - a comparable amount to a typical English county cup - but this tournament has an extra bit of importance as it's used for selecting the regional representative to national tournaments. Bettia (talk) 13:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage in reliable sources whatsoever. How on earth the deprodder justifies the allegation of failing to follow WP:BEFORE is beyond my comprehension. This case should have drifted through the PROD process as an uncontroversial deletion. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and slap myself with a trout. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is, in fact, plenty of coverage in reliable sources, meeting the general notability guideline. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I removed the prod citing WP:BEFORE, and I stand by that reason. Plenty of references to be found if one looks. Andy14and16 (talk) 12:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Phil. Coverage appears to be available so it meets WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not quite enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Danger Angel band[edit]

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

Nicely-written article, but non-notable according to WP:MUSIC. ~~Relies heavily on own website as ref.~~ (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not seeing it. Where is it relying heavily on the band's own website? I see a number of reviews referenced from many different places, which seems to strongly suggest notability to me. Silver seren^C 10:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep I really cannot see which are the references coming from the band's own web site. All the references used are coming from reliable sources around the internet. There is not one single reference or note coming from the band's web site, except if you are referring to the external links which are NOT references. Some of the referenced media are of the most important media that deal with bands of such kind (see ref. #2,3), and all of the media referenced are non-related to the band and are not related to band's label, complying with WP:MUSIC (see references #7,8,9,10,17,18 in article). Apart from that, it is obvious that this is a band with a certified international relese by a certified label, the band includes one of the most well known artists of the genre, Jeff Scott Soto (who is also cited inside wikipedia in more than one articles) plus one more well known musician, Mark Cross, also cited inside wikipedia in several cases (that makes two, complying to WP:MUSIC), the band is referenced in Billboard's web page and in Allmusic.com as well and these references are included in the article (see ref #20,21). There are several unbiased news items, reviews and interviews listed in this article. Alexpts(talk) 08:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Primary Author.[reply]
The band does not include Soto, they have been a "special guest", so that argument is disingenuous. Certified international labels do not necessarily mark notability. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the response. Indeed, Soto is not included in the main line-up, however he recorded for the album and performed with the band and was also interviewed for this endeavor. Mark Cross also recorded and performed with the band. They were both in the band's payroll for some time, which is something I also could not reference, since it is a private agreement issue. One could say it looks disingenuous, however it is a fact. In any case, the band is referenced and even more discussed or analyzed in several independent media in terms of album reviews, live reports, interviews, news items etc. The references in the article are mainly from internet sources as I considered printed references hard to evaluate. There is one, though, (ref.#19) which is from a European monthly magazine with branches in several European countries (I don't know where you are located, sorry). As I said this is hard for somebody to track down and evaluate, that is why I did not include printed references. There are several more internet sources, but what is the point in referencing all of them, since there are more than five different ones noted here. I agree that certified labels do not constitute immediate notability however I could argue that they add credibility. Let me know what you think.Alexpts Alexpts (talk) 10:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Primary Author.[reply]

There are also several radio stations and web radio stations aroudn the world that airplayed the album songs. However, I cannot cite the playlists for all of them, just the stations links.Again, I am not sure if non-cited references are of consequence.There are plenty to be added, though.Alexpts (talk) 10:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Primary Author[reply]

Added airplay references (#13,14,15,16 in article), one of them includes playlist, the others do not but can be quoted if necessary.Alexpts (talk) 10:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Primary Author[reply]
I have included suggestions on your talkpage - one of 2 places that I had originally attempted to engage you in discussion. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a bit in my talk page, so when you get to read it let me know.Alexpts (talk) 12:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:42, 28 April 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) 13:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ankita Mishra[edit]

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

This article does not meet the Notability is not temporary criteria. Hence suggested for deletion. Raanoo (talk) 04:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing AfD formatting. The above reason was posted by the original attempted nominator on the article's talk page. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Indian Idol 3. The proposition "notability is not temporary" actually asserts the opposite of what the nominator is implying. It says that if a person is notable at any time, they are notable at all times. I think what the nominator was after was WP:NOT#NEWS, which asserts that Wikipedia is not a news source. That's also not relevant here; coverage of Ms Mishra is sustained over the course of the season and beyond, and is not merely a short burst of coverage. The relevant issue here is actually that notability is not inherited - Ms Mishra does not appear to be notable independently of Indian Idol and insasmuch as she can be discussed anywhere on Wikipedia it should be at Indian Idol 3 or a similar article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 06:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 06:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 06:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . Reality show contestant, who hasn't received any significant coverage since her appearance in the show three years ago.--Sodabottle (talk) 14:11, 28 April 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) 13:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Operations of making silicone mold[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOT#MANUAL; "While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places and things, an article should not read like a "how-to" style, owners manual, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestion box. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes." Ironholds (talk) 03:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; this article is clearly meant to be a how-to guide. NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 03:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. JIP | Talk 03:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons of nominator (WP:NOT#MANUAL). - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOT#HOWTO. Joe Chill (talk) 16:20, 28 April 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 per WP:SK as it cannot be at AFD while on the Main page and its AFD template has been removed. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ella Mae Johnson[edit]

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

I heard, but can't find the exact rule, that people who have done one thing in life can't have a Wikipedia article. This lady is known for attending in a swearing in ceremony. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Assorg (talk • contribs)

You're probably thinking of WP:BLP1E. However, this rule may no longer apply, as that is for biographies of living people who are only known for one event, and the subject is now deceased. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a rather interesting interpretation of WP:BIO1E, which has nothing to do with BLP. BLP actually incorporated this broader criteria... but as an ever wider issue, 1 event is used in lots of discussion outside of biographies, living or otherwise. There's good reason for that, the most obvious being notability, but also some general not news reasons. Shadowjams (talk) 06:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Whether or not BLP1E applies, the woman is notable both for her attendance at the inauguration, and her extreme longevity, as the significant coverage cited in the article shows, so it's not a one-event case. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 06:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 06:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Or perhaps merge in to Barack Obama inauguration article. Shadowjams (talk) 06:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think purely on the grounds she has an autobiography published and represents a considerable portion of history the entry should remain and perhaps be expanded to include some other aspects of her life.

Keep. Clearly notable, subject of a published autobiography, plenty of useful sources. Rebecca (talk) 08:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has been the subject of a autobiography.Maybe the article should be kept. nik (talk) 09:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Due to the autobiography and above suggestions of uniqueness. Shadowjams (talk) 09:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I removed the AfD template since the article is now linked from the Main Page. The template can be reinstated once the article has been taken off. Lampman (talk) 09:48, 28 April 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) 13:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"elevation"[edit]

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

Not an article but appears more to be a synthesis. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree, this is a synthesis, not an encyclopedia article. JIP | Talk 03:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 03:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Definite delete - per above, Shadowjams (talk) 08:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR. If kept, move to Elevation (philosophy). Stifle (talk) 09:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails multiple. — Timneu22 · talk 14:24, 28 April 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. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Henry[edit]

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

Not notable. Hasn't been drafted... yet. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 03:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 03:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable per WP:ATHLETE at present. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, may be prudent for the creator of the page to consider userfying the page for later. At this time he fails WP:athlete. Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not being drafted doesn't make a person not notable. Although this is WP:CRYSTAL balling in terms of the draft whether or not he will be drafted, this article will have to be re-created once he is drafted. I have cleaned up the article, added content, and added some references. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 00:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just an aside, Although Wikipedia:Notability (sports) isnt policy yet, Athelete and this seem not to even to regard being drafted as being notable, but rather actually playing a game. When he plays, he satisfies this. Until then (even if its likely he'll play) were still crystal balling having this article in the mainspace. Ottawa4ever (talk) 13:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By the general notability standards, Matt Henry has played in high level junior amateur tournaments in flag and American football. So that right there shows that warrants the article being kept. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 01:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 13:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Nordgren[edit]

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

Not notable. I think you have to play professionally to satisfy WP:ATHLETE and simply dating someone who is famous doesn't make you also famous. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 03:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 03:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Skates very close to a G4. In any case, plainly not notable. Fails WP:ATH and insufficient coverage in reliable sources to overcome that hurdle. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yeah, not notable. Let the AfD go through. Shadowjams (talk) 06:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What team did he play for? What position? What year? This isn't even a stub, it's trivia.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although it needs much expansion, it needs to be deleted because the guy just isn't notable. Pulled up the ESPN bio and he had 12 pass attempts in 2 years (and that was 6 years ago) at Texas. Never was a starter. RF23 (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even close to being notable. Unless something that I'm not seeing comes up.--Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 01:27, 30 April 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. No prejudice to recreation if sources are found. Shimeru (talk) 19:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TinyWarz[edit]

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 to reliable, third-party, published sources. The single current source is to a radio show whose site gives no indication about editorial oversight or notability of the journalists. I've looked and can find no reliable sources, especially those on the WikiProject Video games list of sources. Wyatt Riot (talk) 01:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) Wyatt Riot (talk) 02:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little hard for a niche game to be picked up by published sources. The game is notable because it is a niche game. That is, the interaction between developers and players is unique in such a way that there is a constanr discussion going on between players and developers on how the game should be changed, what should be added and what should go. In this sense the game in unique and deserves a place on Wikipedia, The contributers are trying to write the article in such a way that this uniqueness prevails. The idea was to write additional articles on player decided games. Dscheers (talk) 14:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but if a game has received no attention from secondary sources, then we can't include it in this tertiary source. Being "unique" is not notability unless there's someone to report on it. Marasmusine (talk) 15:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the quality of the coverage, provided in the external links, is unsatisfactory. Marasmusine (talk) 15:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok fair enough, give me a bit of time to see if I can get interest from secondary sources Dscheers (talk) 16:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have provided some sources that, while short, are either approved on the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources page or have not been investigated yet. (Jwoodger (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Personally, I still don't think these sources cut it. gamershell is a reliable source, but it's an extremely trivial mention (a single sentence). MPOGD can be reliable (on a case-by-case basis); the problem here is that their news posts can be user-submitted and this one is rather trivial (2 short paragraphs). The rest are rather unreliable sources and primary sources. I would still argue for deletion but with no prejudice against recreation if and when more "multiple non-trivial published works" appear as required by WP:WEB. Wyatt Riot (talk) 05:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

´Keep - I've added Google Gadget links showing broad support of and interest for the game. Dscheers (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google Gadgets can be uploaded and created by anyone, thus making them an unreliable source --Teancum (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was not my intention to use Google Gadgets as a source, the idea was to show broad support and interest in the game (enough to create Google Gadgets, and in this way to fortify the Notabilty aspect of the game. Dscheers (talk) 16:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that's not how it works. Broad popularity or things like Alexa ratings don't grant notability. Air is notable to every human on Earth, but if there weren't any reliable sources to reference, we wouldn't have an article on it. Wyatt Riot (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added a review by brothersoft.com, a source which is included in Wikipedia and according to the page on WikiPedia
It was ranked among comScore Top 10 Gaining Properties by Percentage Change in Unique Visitors (U.S.) in October 2009 by comScore.
which should qualify it as a reliable secondary source.Dscheers (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's also a notorious malware site as explained at Brothersoft.com. I removed the link. Wyatt Riot (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't completely agree with your argument... The New York Times publishing an ad for a forex dealer which turns out to be a scam, doesn't make the New York Times an unreliable source...Dscheers (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the advertising section in the New York Times would be an unreliable source. Plus, nytimes.com itself doesn't attempt to install malicious software. Wyatt Riot (talk) 21:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have proof or references that it is the site itself that attempts to install malicious software ? It could be hackers, uploaded software or ads... I visited the page and my virus scan and online security program did not detect any mallware on the pages I visited. I actually followed the links Norton Safeweb published that suposedly had malware and found they were missing, or no longer 'infected'. Since a webmaster of a listed site has to contest the Safeweb inclusion (and before a webmaster can contest them, he has to be ware of it), the inclusions might be out of date as apparently is the case here. I would say the Norton Safeweb page on Brothersoft is unreliable... Dscheers (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The comments on Norton's site are from as recent as "2 hours ago" so apparently others aren't having the same experience as you. Wyatt Riot (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Wyatt, but you appear to use 2 different standards... on one side you say blogs and those things are not reliable sources, on the other hand, you willingly except unknown users postings (on the Norton web) as being the truth... Dscheers (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All I'm saying is that Norton Safe Web is currently showing 33 threats on brothersoft.com. You say that you haven't had problems with Brothersoft while users on Safe Web claim to have ongoing issues. In this instance, Symantec—as a recognized provider of computer security software—is a reliable source. Neither you nor the anonymous users on Safe Web are reliable sources; I was merely pointing out the contradiction. Wyatt Riot (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that the information on Norton Safeweb is out of date, hence IMO it looses larger part of its reliability... for example, the first link in the spyware category says that a keylogger is found at http://files.brothersoft.com/RegNow/xpadvancedkeylogger.exe If you follow that link, you will notice it takes you to a file-not-found-page (look at the URL). Same thing happens with the second link http://files.brothersoft.com/chat_e-mail/misc_chat/YahooMessengerSpyMonitor.exe Dscheers (talk) 22:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added a review by PlayComet.com, a site that was apparently accepted as a reliable secondary sources by Wikipedia for the game Business Tycoon Online Dscheers (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another non-notable unreliable source. No indication of their editorial policies, no author credit, etc. And besides all that, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: something isn't allowed simply because you can find it in another article. And please remember to sign your comments. Wyatt Riot (talk) 21:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC) (apologies for the non-signing) Dscheers (talk) 21:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Business Tycoon Online, I see as references: Webgame Ranking, a Vietnamese link, the PlayComet link and another vietnamese link. Which of those "sources" listed then is a reliable secondary source and makes the listing of that game compliant with WP:WEB ??? Surely not the Vietnamse links (in that case I can post some Dutch and Philipine links) or a webranking ? Dscheers (talk) 21:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources appear reliable. Again, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Wyatt Riot (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so what does that game have that TinyWarz doesn't? And yes I've read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS which are not rules, just guidelines and say that just because another article hasn't been discovered as AfD ... Dscheers (talk) 18:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear to have anything that the TinyWarz article doesn't. As a result, it will probably be deleted eventually unless more reliable sources are added. And you're right, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a guideline, it's just a simple way of stating that other articles don't matter in this AfD. We're discussing this article and the closing admin will base his or her decision based on policies like WP:N and WP:V. If you feel that there's a double standard and that other articles should be deleted, then by all means bring them through the AfD process. Wyatt Riot (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, insufficient substantial coverage in reliable sources. User:Dscheers is recommended to read WP:BLUDGEON. Stifle (talk) 10:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - although the sources are largely press releases, what do we think of Gamertell as a reliable source? (About page) Marasmusine (talk) 13:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Enlightenment (window manager). (non-admin closure) --Darkwind (talk) 00:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eterm[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 00:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - For failing WP:N. As is usual for this kind of thing, lots of tech support and FAQ type stuff, but no coverage (that I can find) that is significant, independent and reliable all at the same time. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 03:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Enlightenment (window manager). There are a few book mentions, but I can find nothing in depth [33], and I doubt there's much that can be said about it. Pcap ping 07:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Pcap. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Whether or not the article should be merged or redirected can continue on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Escadrille[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this high school marching band. They won an award, but I don't think that it is a major award. Joe Chill (talk) 00:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per this and this (both articles in the Dallas Morning News), per here (Marching.com, sourcing the Dallas News) and the same story appearing here, in the Denton Record-Chronicle. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that those sources are very close to local, but I'll let others decide. Joe Chill (talk) 00:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Dallas Morning News services the entire Dallas, Texas area with around a quarter of a million subscribers, so it seems to be of at least city-wide interest, rather than community-wide. The Denton Record-Chronicle is much smaller but the fact that it (and Marching.com) picked up the story shows that the band is of wider interest than local-only. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 03:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 03:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - meets or exceeds WP:CLUB as the scope of this escadrille is both national and international. Citations have been provided to show that it has received independent coverage from a Dutch URL and from other sources that have Wikipedia articles. It has participated overseas in Dublin, Ireland and U.S. national parades to include Macy's Thanksgiving Day and the Tournament of Roses Parade. In addition, a citation has been introduced for the award of the the Sudler Shield given by the John Phillip Sousa Foundation. --Morenooso (talk) 05:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While I'm still in favour of "keep", that Dutch site doesn't constitute significant coverage; Allen are only mentioned in the final line of the article. It also doesn't demonstrate international scope; the article is talking about their actions within America. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Strong Keep is a definite stretch, although I'm willing to say keep, but let's keep our advocacy within reasonable bounds, otherwise we begin to doubt each other's explanations. Shadowjams (talk) 08:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Strong keep is used in AfDs. I regularly participate and referenced the applicable WP criteria for WP:CLUB. If you click on WP:CLUB, you will see the first criteria for notability says the scope of their activities is national or international in scale. The second criteria is met by the citations. --Morenooso (talk) 09:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - (in case my keep in the comment above was hidden). Shadowjams (talk) 00:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Smerge (selectively merge) to Allen High School (Allen, Texas), which already has a paragraph about the band. Many high school athletic teams, clubs or musical groups get coverage in the local or state newspapers, and if they have funding, high school bands go on trips like this one. It is worth mentioning in Wikipedia in the article about the high school of which it is one activity. High school or college musical groups have not generally been kept in AFD based on such weak referencing as this. Edison (talk) 14:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources demonstrate adequate notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news and Google book search have some results. The Dallas news coverage is sufficient to convince me though. Dream Focus 23:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Information about the organization and its activities have been verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources. Andy14and16 (talk) 05:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Valley2city^‽ 04:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb Heinze[edit]

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

No reliable sources given or found to establish notability of an individual. Participated in several bluelinked bands, but none of them turn out to be terribly notable. tedder (talk) 00:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom, this is (if I recall correctly) a contested prod. --Joe Decker (talk) 01:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 03:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 03:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this person and the bands just are not notable at this time. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Biography of a living person that lacks basic sourcing. Steven Walling 20:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. (GregJackP (talk) 11:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Valley2city^‽ 04:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of county names in the U.S. in use with only one county[edit]

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

Seems to me a rather indiscriminate and unsourced list of trivia. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons given in nomination, and as fundamentally unencyclopedic content. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's an interesting list. Given the number of Union, Jefferson, Lincoln, etc. counties shared between states, a list of unique names might well be useful/informative/interesting. OTOH, just looking at Iowa, I see 26 names here out of 99 counties, so while the unique names are a distinct minority, they're not at all rare. There's a LOT of names in this list, and it's simply a list. Personally, I'd lean toward keep, but I'm rather more partial to lists than the Wiki consensus is.David V Houston (talk) 01:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly Wikipedia's guidelines for content don't make allowance for content on the basis of it being "interesting". WP:SALAT and WP:NOT are the relevant guidelines for lists; they're fairly forgiving but they do require the list to be neither too short or (relevantly here) too long, to have some potential value to either research or navigation, and to be content that might reasonably be expected to be found in an encyclopaedia. That's a triple fail for this list. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 03:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 03:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an indiscriminate list with a non-notable inclusion criterion. JIP | Talk 03:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, The list could be used to create something more useful; however, in it's current form it has no real purpose. Coopman86 (talk) 04:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:LC items 1-4. Stifle (talk) 09:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTDIRECTORY. --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 09:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is horrible; it's as notable as "List of county names where 'i' is the second letter." — Timneu22 · talk 14:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BEANS. Stifle (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Awesome. WP has WP:SOMETHING for any situation. — Timneu22 · talk 16:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless list. Like "Counties which are named after animals" or "Counties named after countries." I removed two sets of ineligible entries (where the same county name showed up in 2 states). There is no reason whatever that one state would not name a county with the same name as another. They never got together and divided up names among states. "Uniquely named counties" are in no way unusual, nor are "shared name counties." The odd thing is how many of these counties are quite familiar from having been there or read about them. Edison (talk) 14:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I appreciate the effort that was put into this by the article's author, but like everyone else, I can't really see any use for this bit of "American county trivia". I live in a county whose name is shared by only one other county, which is somewhat interesting to me and to some of the residents of the two different places, but it's not that interesting. Even within an individual county's article (such as "Abbeville County is the only county in America with that name") it's not that interesting. I think that WP:SNOW is on the horizon, and that this article looks like it is about to parish. Mandsford (talk) 15:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has no sources, original research and has not been added to any cats. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Joe Chill (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete List based on obviously arbitrary/random intersection; fails list content standards. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 13:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Ripper[edit]

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

Does not meet the guidelines of WP:MUSIC, tagged as non-notable since October 2007. Also claims that the eponymous singer was "raised by squirrels". &dorno rocks. (talk) 11:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Raised by squirrels" was not part of the original revision of the article (check the history). PleaseStand ^(talk) 11:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I overlooked that. &dorno rocks. (talk) 13:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Ripper appears to be a established part of the modern Canadian music industry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.171.195 (talk) 02:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also re: Notability...It appears this songwriter fulfills vis a vis

Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.
Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.171.195 (talk) 02:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't believe this musician to be notable, not as a musician (with some minor nominations) nor as a person. In the one reliable source mentioned in the article he says "I’m still looking to find my audience" and I believe that to be correct: no coverage, no notability. Drmies (talk) 16:52, 30 April 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) 01:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Prator[edit]

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

This person seems to have filled in as a temporary drummer for a lot of different bands over the years, but he's never stuck with one or developed a name for himself. This is an unsourced BLP with no hits on Google Books or Google News. Neelix (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There are a few stories about this drummer I found on Google news - [34], [35], [36], [37], and [38]. Are these enough for him to pass WP:MUSICBIO? Bearian (talk) 20:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (without prejudice) - I was undecided on this one because Mr. Prator has an impressive resume. But since there are BLP concerns and not too many sources available to demonstrate notability in his own right, we can settle for the listing of Mr. Prator's name in a whole bunch of other articles. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:39, 28 April 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) 01:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sevens and More[edit]

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

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - to correct a misinterpretation/assumption in the nomination. The guideline WP:MUSIC says that demos are general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 00:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No significant coverage for this demo in independent reliable sources; does not meet WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 17:29, 28 April 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 The_Circus_(Take_That_album)#Track_listings. Redirecting on the suggestion from the only !voter. Consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hold Up A Light[edit]

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

Previously deleted page been recreated. the references in the article do not reference anything. song only charted in the uk at number 123. not notable. fails WP:NSONGS Mister sparky (talk) 17:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article that has relevance to Take That's discography. It charted in the UK and was released to radios. Gary Barlow said himself that it was released to promote the live album and would be the final song released from the album. it also had a music video released to all music channels. The page meets required criteria and is an important addition as their next musical release after the single Said It All, so thus does not meet deletion criterion under A9. That is why it should not be deleted.

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yids2010 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Just merge and redirect to the appropriate article. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 00:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 28 April 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. Stifle (talk) 10:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nicky Mutenda[edit]

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

I'm a bit unsure about this one. Self-written, poorly sourced (not one of the entries is in essence about him - one is an opinion piece written by Mutenda, another one quotes him in his role as Deputy) collection of what he said to the media. Mutenda is Deputy Secretary General of the Namibia National Students Organisation (NANSO) and a former Vice President of the Student Representative Council of the University of Namibia. However, although a national organisation, NANSO is quite small, and I am not convinced SRC roles establish notability. I would say he does not yet reach the notability threshold. Pgallert (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO. Mo ainm~Talk 18:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:BIO, as there are multiple independent sources which establish notability. No matter the size of NANSO, it is itself a notable and important organization in both the history of Namibia and the current political situation. As a student leader who has been quoted in a wide variety of sources (a UNAM publication and both of Namibia's top English-language newspapers), that is itself an important claim to notability.--TM 20:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Passing mention doesn't infer notability, and neither dose a student publication. Mo ainm~Talk 20:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call publishing an op-ed and a story in which he is repeatedly and directly quoted a passing mention.--TM 19:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the sources cover the subject of the article. One gives her mentions but the coverage is of her organisation - the article tells us next to nothing about the subject. The other is an opinion piece written by the subject. Plainly insufficient for biographical material. Fails WP:BIO. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nicky Mutenda has been credited with a number of op-eds in one of Namibia's largest newspapers, New Era see [39]. As a noted student activist at the largest university in Namibia, I think that this is an indication of notability even if there are not direct stories specifically about him.--TM 22:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without material written by independent people we don't have reliable material for a biographical article. I know of a number of wikipedia editors who write op-ed columns for news sources; they certainly wouldn't consider themselves notable. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:20, 28 April 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. listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hommage à J.S.Bach[edit]

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

NN song by NN artist UtherSRG (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the artist behind this Marián Varga is notable without question, just do a google news archive search for him (yes the stuff is largely in Czech, are you suprised?). We still need some reliable evidence that this individual song is notable though. Polargeo (talk) 08:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- just for the record - most of the news articles about Marian are in Slovak, Czech is the next most frequent --Hlucho (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A Google search for "Marián Varga Hommage a J.S.Bach" will give you many references - unfortunately most of them only in Slovak or Czech. The song is often referenced only as "Hommage" or sometimes "Pocta Bachovi" (which is the Slovak translation of its title) or just "Pocta". For some references see below. --Hlucho (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- JASLOVSKÝ, Marian: Collegium Musicum, Bratislava, Slovart, 2007. ISBN 978-80-7145-962-0 (in Slovak)
- ULIČNÝ, Peter - Marián Varga, O cestách, ktoré nevedú do Ríma, Bratislava, Slovart, 2004. ISBN 978-80-7145-849-0 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum (in Slovak)
- 10 best keyboard records according to Michael Kocáb (in Czech)
- Hommage a J. S. Bach - Marian Varga performing the song with a symphony orchestra in 2008, Nitra. Or check YouTube on how many versions of this song are out there (sometimes as Collegium Musicum, sometimes as Marian Varga, some performed by other artists).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. —Polargeo (talk) 15:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. —Polargeo (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge Marián Varga is a real icon of Slovak music. The importance of perhaps his most popular composition is mentioned by multiple reliable sources: Pravda.sk, Muzikus.cz, iDnes, Muzikus.cz. I say mentioned, as the sources don't cover the subject substantially. However, I believe that above mentioned books contain sufficient information for the expansion of the article. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 13:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MANJUL[edit]

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

Looks like a possible fan creation, most edits by single user. Either way, fails WP:BIO, I don't see this person covered in any independent sources. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 13:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Need expert. Seems like we need someone from India to determine if this person is notable. While the first page of Google hits shows Facebook, LinkedIn, and other social networks for this person, further pages of the Google results do show some mildly notable links. However, the results are littered with blog pages and such. Get rid of the blogs and the social networks and there are a few legitimate links to newspapers and such where the cartoons have been printed. Does this show notability? I don't know which papers in India are notable; need an expert. — Timneu22 · talk 14:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the outlets he has worked for all major newspapers/magazines with circulations in hundreds of thousands. But i can't find any coverage of him personally.--Sodabottle (talk) 16:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly DNA, The Economic Times, India Today and The Financial Express are all notable. And he has won what may (or may not) be a significant prize from the Indian Institute of Cartoonists - http://www.cartoonistsindia.com/htm/home.htm. But I think we really need a Hindi-speaker to establish whether there's any third-party coverage in that huge chunk of Indian media us (presumed) English-speakers are missing. Barnabypage (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - With regrets. He is a cartoonist with major newspapers. But with no coverage in secondary sources, this BLP cannot be reliably sourced.--Sodabottle (talk) 14:19, 28 April 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) 01:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frail (Jars of Clay album)[edit]

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

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 13:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - to correct a misinterpretation/assumption in the nomination. The guideline WP:MUSIC says that demos are general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find only passing mentions of this demo (e.g. [40][41]); per WP:NALBUMS this is not enough for a demo to warrant an independent article. Gongshow ^Talk 17:26, 28 April 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) 01:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Necromanteion (album)[edit]

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

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 13:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and delete this. I don't have any time to find sources for this because I'm in A-school for the United States Navy. :) Cheers. Undead Warrior (talk) 00:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - to correct a misinterpretation/assumption in the nomination. The guideline WP:MUSIC says that demos are general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 16:26, 28 April 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) 01:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beneath the Boardwalk[edit]

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

Non-notable self-released bootleg. See WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Like most bootlegs, this is non-notable. I found no significant coverage. Joe Chill (talk) 00:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable bootleg collection that can get mentioned in a miscellaneous section of Arctic Monkeys discography. I guess that "Under the Boardwalk" was taken. Mandsford (talk) 15:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not finding any significant coverage for this bootleg in independent reliable sources; fails WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 17:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator and the only delete !voter has changed his !vote. The issue of merging can continue on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vicious White Kids[edit]

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

Since this ephemeral "band" only played one concert, never released any studio albums or singles, and never had any hits, I don't think it satisfies the notability guidelines at all. This might deserve a brief mention in the Sex Pistols or Sid Vicious article, but it certainly doesn't deserve its own article. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete - There is some historical interest here but only for other bands. The historical info can be merged to Sex Pistols, Rich Kids, and The Damned (band) accordingly. No need to preserve the rest of the info in this article so it can then be deleted. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – meets the general notability guideline. Since the AfD nomination, I've added multiple references. From what I see, every time there's a release of the live recording, the band gets media coverage including reviews from music critics. I've added a sampling. I've not an expert in the history of punk music, but looking at the sources I'm getting the impression that this one-off concert was an important event in the history of the genre: Sid Vicious' final concert in England before his death, an unusual collaboration between a musician from the Sex Pistols (Vicious) and the musician he had replaced (Glen Matlock). Anyway, if nothing else the subject meets WP:BAND criterion #1. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum to my previous vote - Paul Erik above made some valid points, but I have checked out the sources and I'm not convinced that the coverage is truly about Vicious White Kids as a stand-alone entity, because there are almost always mentions of the Sex Pistols, the Rich Kids, and/or the Damned. That is the basis for my Merge/Delete vote above. But Paul Erik made some good points about notability for the Vicious White Kids in the historical sense. If he and I end up being the only voters in this debate, I see no problem with closing it as Keep. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, note that voting "merge and delete" is discouraged per Wikipedia:Merge and delete. Polarpanda (talk) 20:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I knew that but in this case there is no single article to redirect to. A decision would have to be made among three eligible band articles, or four if you include Sid Vicious. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:58, 29 April 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. Stifle (talk) 09:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HomeTips.com[edit]

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

I haven't been able to find significant coverage of this website in reliable, third party sources that aren't promotional in nature, so this looks to fail WP:N and WP:WEB. Them From Space 05:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC) Please see new additional third-party references that illustrate this site's significance as a respected informational source in the world of home improvement information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DonVander (talk • contribs) 04:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment none of the references added discuss the site in significant detail. They are either passing mentions of the site, or not reliable sources. Them From Space 05:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete HomeTips--this company has been a major player in the world of home improvement books (and Don Vandervort's television appearances) for over 25 years. The HomeTips Web site, established in 1996, was one of the first DIY home improvement sites on the Internet and offered free advice to homeowners without any commercial motive for over 4 years. If you Google any home improvement term such as "stucco siding," "dripping faucet," or "fix air conditioner," you will see HomeTips listed on the first page of results. Regarding the references added: Please note that a few of the sites which only mention HomeTips are presented as examples of major news organizations (The New York Times and US News & World Report) that have contacted HomeTips for expertise on home improvement stories. Google, however, discusses HomeTips in depth in both their AdSense Blog and in the Google AdSense Case Study. Although MSN has changed the nature of their home improvement site, MSN featured Vandervort and HomeTips as the home improvement expert on their earlier HomeAdvisor.com site--including about 200 pages of HomeTips content--from 2000 to 2005. Please do not delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DonVander (talk • contribs) 21:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 00:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This page looks as if it was created to help advertise the company as the primary contributer, User:DonVander, happens to be the founder. Coopman86 (talk) 05:11, 28 April 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) 01:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ma mard nistim (Album)[edit]

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

NN album of NN band released on NN self-label. delete UtherSRG (talk) 04:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A9 - the band's article doesn't exist. --Darkwind (talk) 19:40, 28 April 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) 01:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ryerson Commerce Society[edit]

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

Non-notable student organization. Me-123567-Me (talk) 01:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N - lots of coverage, none of it both significant and independent. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:00, 28 April 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.