Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 10 April 12 April >

Purge server cache

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

The result was Procedural close. Article was moved, remade, moved more, remade more, and ultimately deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Indian people.

This AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. (non-admin closure) jp× g 09:23, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply

East Indians (ethnic group)

East Indians (ethnic group) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Author requested G7 — Spaceman Spiff 19:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Kripa Menon

Kripa Menon (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article should be deleted because it is blank Semiticsmile ( talk) 17:19, 11 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 nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Intelligent sium 02:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Rae'Ven L Kelly

AfDs for this article:
Rae'Ven L Kelly (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail WP:ENT; she has not been in major roles that I can find, merely as "young X", minor characters and brief guest appearances on TV. Ironholds ( talk) 22:47, 11 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. JForget 01:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Vicki Noon

Vicki Noon (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only a small assertation of notability. Found absolutely no sources save for this. Having a notable role in a play ≠ notability, especially without any reliable sources to back up. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:01, 11 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) 02:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Glynn Geddie

Glynn Geddie (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable racing driver. Jonathan McLeod ( talk) 22:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  • That should be "comment", not "delete" - your vote is implicit in the nomination. The only relevant test for notability on Wikipedia is WP:N, "significant coverage in reliable indpendent sources", which has some explanatory guidelines. Either he has such coverage (and the links above suggest he has) or he doesn't. If he has the coverage , what events he competes in is really not relevant. - 23:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Yes, but is the coverage significant? It's not hard to appear in the press. Both I and my grandmother have been in articles in our local paper, and my dad once appeared on the local TV news (nothing bad!), but I don't think any of us really deserve a page on Wikipedia. Three of the sources given above are just press releases from either Geddies' agent or team, two in minor motorsport news sites and one in Geddie's local paper. The other two are race reports of which one is on a Porsche parts supplier website and the other is on the site of the company which I suspect does the coverage of the series for ITV4, a minor national channel in the UK. I don't think you could argue that the national press is taking notice of Geddie just yet. Note also from WP:N: "routine news coverage such as announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not a sufficient basis for a topic to have its own standalone article." 4u1e ( talk) 12:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Jonathan is right in that he should not really have an article on Wikipedia. If every racing driver who had an article written about them on the internet had a Wikipedia page about them it would be utter madness. However, it seems the guidelines do not meet this, and so it is a tricky one. - mspete 93 22:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. According to the suggested criteria at WP:ATHLETE it suggests that they should have competed at fully professional level. His current series efforts are all labelled Pro-Am, suggesting quite firmly that it is not a fully professional league. This in motor racing terms quite generous critera measures Geddie as failing athlete notability. -- Falcadore ( talk) 04:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete He's a very junior driver racing in a one-make national series and is in his first season as a professional this year. There doesn't appear to be any notable mention of him in the relevant media. Search didn't throw up any mention of his name on www.autosport.com, for example. Google shows mainly promotional sites, press releases and some race reports. My opinion is that he's one step short of meeting notability - were he to win something at the next level up then I guess he'd be scraping in. Did we ever define notability guidlines for WP:MOTOR? 4u1e ( talk) 12:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I think we definitely need to set some sort of minimum requirements in terms of acheivements in certain championships. Last year we had one user create articles for all of the teams and drivers in Euroseries 3000, a series that receives very little coverage. Here, for example, are WikiProject Football's guidlines: [1] - mspete 93 12:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC) reply
I've got a vague recollection that the project may have discussed it once. Worth asking back at the project page. If not, then we probably should create some, although perhaps after this deletion discussion ends. 4u1e ( talk) 12:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The main reason I brought this to the attention at WT:MOTOR was to see what people thought about driver notability because I'm worried it'll start getting out of hand if we don't take a stance. This example, though, is clearly a case of someone close to the driver creating an article. - mspete 93 12:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC) reply
With no policy guideline at WP:MOTOR, the criteria at WP:ATHLETE can be interpreted quite generously towards motor racing, and by this criteria he fails by any interpretation. -- Falcadore ( talk) 02:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Created by an account called Spindriftmedia - looking at the driver's website it states "Copyright © 2010 all rights reserved. Spindrift Media". Clearly a single purpose account which is only creating pages on subjects in which the user has a conflict of interest. Readro ( talk) 22:14, 17 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. JForget 01:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Plot immunity

AfDs for this article:
Plot immunity (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural. Previous AfD was tainted by sockpuppetry (see SPI investigation) and the outcome may well have been different without the sock !votes. I am neutral. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Delete seems like pure, unadulterated OR or some odd twist off of deus ex machina; if actual reliable sources aren't using the term or covering it, it isn't legit and it isn't worthy of inclusion here. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 12:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete too much OR and no reputable sources to fix it. Sadads ( talk) 13:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into deus ex machina, as it seems difficult to source. I'd be open to a rescue if anyone wants to work on this one. Bearian ( talk) 19:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: As much as I want to find a way to keep the article, there are no sources and the term doesn't seem to exist in scholarship or reliable sources. - Phoenixrod ( talk) 22:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I'm bummed out because this is an interesting article, but I found no mention of it in any articles in Google News Archives, Google Books, or journals. I don't know enough about the subject to find anything in paper sources. Burpelson AFB ( talk) 03:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I'm afraid this has to be deleted. The G search only pulls up mirror sites. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 00:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - As interesting as this is, it has no sources and consists almost entirely of OR. I think someone has mistaken Wikipedia for TV Tropes. Reyk YO!
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 E-mail encryption. JForget 01:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Cryptomail

Cryptomail (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be some sort of email service (I say "appears to be" because the article's title isn't even mentioned in the article) that doesn't pass WP:WEB. Couldn't find any reliable Ghits. Erpert (let's talk about it) 23:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Unless the term "cryptomail" is a plausible redirect that really does refer to encrypted e-mail (such as that encrypted with PGP), delete. Otherwise make it a redirect to E-mail encryption again (check history). PleaseStand (talk) 01:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • redirect to E-mail encryption based on the original article looking through the history. It'a portmanteau word for encrypted email that never caught on much, but I do see some usage of it. -- Whpq ( talk) 16:42, 14 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 Deletion per WP:CSD#A7 Polargeo ( talk) 12:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Tango Alpha Tango

Tango Alpha Tango (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No references for this band and searches result in primary sources but no press coverage. Cynof Gavuf 21:45, 11 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. JForget 01:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Scepter (band)

Scepter (band) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about an unsigned Christian heavy metal band. I can find no evidence of coverage in reliable sources to e4stablish notability. As a band, I don't see any evidence they meet any of the notability criteria specific to bands in WP:BAND. The one criteria where they might qualigy is based on an assertion that they were considered "The First Christian Heavy Metal band", but my immediate thought was " Stryper", and considering Stryper formed in 1983, and these guys claim to have formed in 1986, it's not surprising that I can find no evidence to back up that assertion. Whpq ( talk) 20:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ray Talk 20:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I can't even find a MySpace link for this band. (The article also reads like a press release.) Erpert (let's talk about it) 23:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
    • The myspace link to the band is in the article, not that it means anything in the way of sourcing for keeping this article. -- Whpq ( talk) 02:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources found. Not much in unreliable sources either for that matter.-- Michig ( talk) 17:19, 12 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. JForget 01:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Parent-offspring conflict over mating

Parent-offspring conflict over mating (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reads like an essay, one source which may very well be self-referential. Even if this isn't original research, Wikipedia is not a place to publish your essay. 2 says you, says two 20:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. Classic fail of WP:NOT. Ray Talk 21:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:ESSAY. "Mating decisions of offspring do not always comply with the wishes of their parents... The cause of this conflict is genetic: all of the offspring’s genes come from their parents, but not all of parents’ genes are inherited by their offspring." Yeah, maybe on the planet Vulcan. This is an example of drawing the wrong conclusions from an existing source. The cumulative effect of evolutionary trends has little relevance to individual situations. Mandsford ( talk) 21:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Well-written essay, but sadly not what Wikipedia is for. (BTW, Mandsford, WP:ESSAY doesn't apply because that's really a shortcut to a category.) Erpert (let's talk about it) 23:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per nom. - PlainSight ( talk) 01:15, 15 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 Deleted as a recreation of a deleted article (CSD G4). Them From Space 22:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

The Word Alive

AfDs for this article:
The Word Alive (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Still not notable? ××× BrightBlackHeaven( talk)××× 20:32, 11 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. Tone 10:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Chris M. Allport

Chris M. Allport (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable minor actor, apparently most notable for "dubb[ing] the crowing sounds for Robin Williams" in a scene in Hook. I can't find any evidence of his alleged upcoming pilot American Michael, and the most significant coverage of him is a couple of lines in this LA Times article from thirteen years ago. Fails WP:ENT. An apparent autobiography.  Glenfarclas  ( talk) 20:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Comment Some of THESE appear to be our Chris M Allport... who does not always use his middle initial. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC) reply
As MQS has pointed out, the subject has won some awards that, in my opinion, establish notability. References have been added for the awards and while their may be a COI, I believe that the article should be kept and cleaned of any COI info. OlYeller Talktome 06:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and futher improve, and warn author that COI requires he best not edit the article. Now that the article belongs to Wikipedia, and after doing some digging, and with respects to those opining delete, the man appears to meet notability through WP:ANYBIO in that from 1991 to 1996 he has three times won and three times been nominated for a Young Artist Award. That he has not won an award lately does not matter as notability is not temporary. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Notable voice actor, in notable roles, and he's won awards for his work as well. And he's done work other than voice acting as well, of course. Dream Focus 00:08, 18 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. JForget 01:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Hate man

Hate man (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, but denied speedy UtherSRG (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. [2], [3], [4] and [5] - there's four sources without me even trying - not even counting the ones that Panyd has pulled up. This is the same sort of article as Józef Stawinoga, which at first glance, is about a reclusive, unwashed, unloved tramp who lived in a tent in an English town - however, with a bit more work, he turned out to pass the guideline. Yes, the article needs work, but which articles don't? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry ( talk) 19:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
    Comment Your ref 3 links to Phillip Garrido, accused kidnapper of Jaycee Dugard, and the "backyard prison," and has nothing to do with the subject of this article. Your ref 4 is a campus paper, a class of publication not generally regarded as the most reliable sort of source, but in my estimate comparable to a small town paper. Edison ( talk) 20:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
I wasn't trying very hard - that was a thirty second search on Google Archives. Granted, not the best sources, but Panyd has pulled up some nice ones. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry ( talk) 11:37, 12 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 delete G11. — David Eppstein ( talk) 04:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Jeff Palmer Internet Marketing Consultant

Jeff Palmer Internet Marketing Consultant (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All sources are primary or links to other wikipedia articles. The creator removed speedy tags over and over too. May also be promotional. Cynof Gavuf 19:32, 11 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 London Irish. Stifle ( talk) 08:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC) reply

London Irish Amateur

AfDs for this article:
London Irish Amateur (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Amateur club. Fishead 2100 had nonadmin closed this unilaterally before within the first 24 hours, with the only other comment being from the article's creator.

There are no references other than a primary source, and it's a nonprofessional team. Cynof Gavuf 19:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

*Keep: Not again! We've been through this before. Just because it's an Amateur Club, that doesn't make it automatically not notible. If we went by your reasoning we should delete Queen's Park F.C. as well as this. Anyway the club is a branch of a Premiership club which goes with notibility. The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 19:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Merge: Well, I can see I'm fighting a losing battle so to make sure all my work hasn't been compleatly in vain, I have to accept the merge of all the information into London Irish untill such a time that an acceptable 3rd party source becomes avalible to make LIA suitible for it's own page. The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 16:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:CLUB by any standard. As for "club is a branch of a Premiership club", notability is not inherited. Rodhull andemu 19:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete (ec)- I can find no mention of this club in reliable secondary sources. Despite C of E's claim, branches of organizations do not automatically inherit notability from their parent organizations. Reyk YO! 19:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
According to your reasoning we should delete Sheffield United (Hong Kong) as that is just a branch of Chengdu Blades. The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 19:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Just because other similar articles exist doesn't mean this one automatically should. The other article may meet our inclusion criteria through coverage in independent sources, or maybe it doesn't but Wikipedia just hasn't got around to considering it yet. Reyk YO! 19:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
How about this source or maybe this as some sources from outside the Amateur site? The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk)
Please see WP:SPS; these cannot be used to establish notability. Rodhull andemu 20:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Fishhead nonadmin closed this before while violating a few policies on nonadmin closures in the process, did so within the first 24 hours, when only he and the article's creator had commented, and edit warred about re-oppening it. Cynof Gavuf 21:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Doesn't really matter what happened in the last one. If you had an issue with it, you should have done something about it at the time. Ged UK  16:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment The page now has a few 3rd party sources so that art of the nomination I believe is WP:STALE. And as for the second part of it just being a non-professional team, then if this page is deleted because of that, afterwards you should delete Queen's Park F.C. and Harlequin Amateurs as they are non-proffesional teams and so (according to CynofGavuf's resoning) they must be deleted too. The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 07:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Weak delete From current sources.
  • [9] is not in depth coverage
  • Anything from http://www.london-irish.com/GetInvolvedAmateurs.ink fails to be indendent from topic.
  • Anything from http://www.rfu.com fails to be independent from the topic since the London Irish is part of rfu.
  • Your local guardian gives indepth coverage. I think local newspapers are usually considered reliable.
  • [10] does not seem to cover the club, rather it covers a specific incidence that took place at the club. So not nontrivial coverage.
  • [11] [12] These article gives a play by play of a matches against the London Irish. I am not sure if I consider this as nontrivial coverage of the club, although it's far more borderline than the above.
  • [13] match results. Clearly trivial coverage.
We have indepth coverage from a single local newspaper, which I consider insufficient to establish notability. Taemyr ( talk) 08:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
A Merge should be unproblematic though. Taemyr ( talk) 12:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC) reply

How about this source? [14]? The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 08:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Also I have found a source here that says that LIA's ground also contains London Irish's Headquaters which must at least have some notibility. The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 08:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fishhead2100 (who uses a signature saying "Mr. C.C.") has given strings of links, but they are mostly just brief match reports in local media, trivial mentions, and at least one which does not even mention London Irish Amateur, (though it has an indirect connection). Fishhead2100 says "I could keep going, but you get this idea." Yes, I do indeed, but not perhaps the idea that Fishhead2100 had in mind. As for the arguments put forward by the one other "keep" editor (The C of E, author of the article), we are given the notion that notability is inherited, the notion that the article should exist because there are other articles with no more justification, links to the club's own site and a site selling tickets for it (described by The C of E as "sources"), and a link to a Wikimapia aerial photograph of a football ground, with a note saying it is the home ground of the London Irish Amateur. However, The C of E provides nothing at all that relates even vaguely to the notability guidelines. JamesBWatson ( talk) 09:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment Although it is not relevant to a decision on whether or not to delete, I should like to say that the behaviour of Fishhead2100 in the previous AfD was appalling. The first time this editor non-admin closed the AfD doing so could not, in my view, be justified, but perhaps there is room for disagreement, as the nomination was not well done. However, the second time the same editor closed the AfD it was clearly unacceptable. By this time the defects in the nomination had been put right (statement had been added that there were no references etc). The correct thing to do was to invite better explanations as to why the article was nominated, not to repeatedly remove the nomination. JamesBWatson ( talk) 09:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply

You seem to have missed that the wikimapedia source also gives that the HQ of the Parent club is located at the same ground that the amateur team plays at. The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 09:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
All together now - NOTABILITY IS NOT INHERITED. Standing in my garage does not make me a Skoda, being sited in the grounds does not make the pie stand notable either. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 10:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
I don't see that anything was missed. The link is to a page which gives no evidence whatever of notability for either of the teams: all it does is show us what the ground looks like from the air and tells us that it is their ground. 79.123.75.127 ( talk) 12:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply

OK, one last try. this source shows that it recieved a grant from Irish government which they must deem as notible as they are giving them money to be supported. The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 10:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply

The Irish Government gives small grants to many, many, hundreds of organisations overseas (that document just deals with the UK) that deal with Irish emigrants, from large groups such as the FIS and GAA, right down to a few hundred pounds here and there to refurbish Irish expat's clubs. It certainly doesn't make any of those groups notable in themselves (as you'll see when you look down the list). Black Kite (t) (c) 11:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Some years ago I received a government grant to contribute towards the cost of insulating my home. That does not make me notable enough for a Wikipedia article. 79.123.75.127 ( talk) 12:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment Just one thing I think I ought to mention to the closing admin. You should count the votes manually as the automatic AFD statistics are not recognising some of the votes cast here and so the article could be dealt with in a way that is not what consensus has been voted for. The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 19:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Errr - what automatic AfD statistics? Come to that, what votes, and what manual count? AfD is not a vote - the closing admin has the job of considering the policy arguments put forward, not counting the votes. 50 fans can !vote to keep an article, but all it takes is one or two people pointing out correctly that it fails notability standards; or conversely, 50 people can argue that it's cruft, and two people with good Google-fu (or a reference library) turn up 20 sources. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 23:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and then hide from my son who is a London Irish fan and can beat me in a fair fight despite only being 15 and I am over 6ft tall and fit. Guy ( Help!) 21:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. A lot of amateur clubs are generally not notable, but I'm a little concerned whether this content should be kept by merging it into a more notable club. Both clubs do have different players. If there are any highly notable players in an amateur club I would keep the content, but not at the moment. In other words I entirely agree with Rodhullandemu on this nomination. Minima c ( talk) 15:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Well it says here Irish internationals Justin Bishop and Kieran Campbell came from the club, so is that what you might consider notible? The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 15:18, 18 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 delete. I confirm Reyx's lack of results, and I speedy delete this as a hoax DGG ( talk ) 20:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Battle of Exakameron

Battle of Exakameron (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Likely hoax. I can find no google hits for "Exakameron", "Ikhsaqemahin" or "Leo Herzschnitt" outside of Wikipedia and it's mirrors. Two of the four sources, the Journal of East African Affairs and the Transactions of the Colonial Society appear not to exist either; at least I can't find them in Google Books or Google scholar (there is a Transactions of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, but that's on a whole different continent).

I'm also suspicious of the fact that, eight minutes after it was created, the article was reviewed by an editor who has made no edits to Wikipedia before or since. At the risk of looking like I'm assuming bad faith it looks to me like it might be a sneaky way to get a hoax article out of the sight of article reviewers.

I had proposed this for deletion, but the prod was declined by an IP who felt that "Exakameron" was a spelling mistake. However, I find this implausible because one of the purported sources uses the word "Exakameron" in the title, so it is unlikely to be a spelling error. Reyk YO! 19:10, 11 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 don't think there's any original content to be merged, but if someone would like to check, I can userfy for them or restore and redirect. Stifle ( talk) 08:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Albanian colonisation of Kosovo

Albanian colonisation of Kosovo (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was originally going to be speedy deleted as G3 (obvious vandalism), but I'd much prefer an AfD - it doesn't quite meet the standards for G3. Opinions Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry ( talk) 18:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect to History of Ottoman Kosovo. Essentially a pov fork. Ray Talk 21:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. kedadial 22:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This can also be covered in Albanians in Kosovo. Mandsford ( talk) 22:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Numerous sources has been removed from article, in order to minimize its importance, and now, it is requested on AfD, by POV pushing pro-Albanian editor. Give article a chance. This is historical information that need it's own article, specially in the moment of Kosovo disputed status. Citing from talk page:

This article has been created by the editor of Serbian nationality in order to offend Ethnic Albanians living in Kosovo

It is unrelated who created this article. Is this main reason for the delete? I think so. Article should be expanded, so it's relevance can be seen easier then. -- Tadija taking 00:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Aren't you Kosovo-topic banned, for 2 weeks? kedadial 18:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
No. And you should not worry about me, thanks anyway! -- Tadija taking 01:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Tadija is Balkans topic banned but only regarding articles.-- — ZjarriRrethues —  talk 16:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
No, i am not topic banned. You should stop talking about me, that is violation of wiki rules. -- Tadija taking 17:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
[15] according to this you are under editing restrictions.-- — ZjarriRrethues —  talk 17:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
As the administrator who placed that restriction, I can confirm that it applies only to articlespace and not the Wikipedia: namespace (such as AFD discussions). The Wordsmith Communicate 17:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, it must be delete because it is historical nonsense, it where the serbs that came from oeral to colonise the balkan-- Vinie 007 04:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, This article represents serbian POV. It's title is formed in a propagandistic style, trying to build a historical falseness. Piasoft ( talk) 17:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, This article is a provocation written by a serb nationalist. it's difficult to define the migration of albanian in Kosovo colonozation. User:Lucifero4
  • Keep There is a lot to be written here. -- Alexmilt ( talk) 12:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, as per piasoft and Lucifero4 reasoning. If someone is interested in population movements inside Kosovo, we can create an article about that since prehistorical times, but in my opinion is useless anyway Aigest ( talk) 16:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment: I see that wp:Albania was already informed about this afd, so I posted a notice on wp:serbia and wp:kosovo too. Alexikoua ( talk) 19:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Notes from the starter of the article: I haven't edited since i started the article and i'm about to expand the article, you can clearly see that the ones that oppose the article are all ethnic Albanians. The colonization of Kosovo was part of the wider Ottoman colonization, however this article will only encompasse the colonization of Albanians by the Ottoman Empire and later in the 19th and 20th centuries. Strong Keep / Ajdebre (talk) 20:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply
No, they're not. You're suggesting that even the nominator is an Albanian, which he isn't.-- — ZjarriRrethues —  talk 20:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Yes, it is. Nominator is Lontech, Chase me just moved it to AfD. -- Tadija taking 01:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
He wasn't obligated to move to AfD, as Manford, Kebeta and others who voted for its deletion aren't Albanians.-- — ZjarriRrethues —  talk 09:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Delete, pov fork article with subject mentioned in other articles.-- Kushtrim123 ( talk) 20:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply

* Keep. I think that this article should exist and should broadly cover this topic than History of Ottoman Kosovo solely from demographic aspects. History of Ottoman Kosovo should be reserved for fighting between Balkan nations, Serbian and Albanian national revival, etc. --  Bojan   Talk  02:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC) I have just seen this Demographics of Kosovo. So, I'm neutral on existence of this article as long as same facts are standing in article Demographics of Kosovo. --  Bojan   Talk  02:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Keep and stick to historicity. This is historically accurate, if presently politically-loaded. -- Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) ( talk) 03:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep ... demografic data is referenced. Like Bokica, I'm neutral on existence of this article as long as same facts are standing in article Demographics of Kosovo. -- Kaster ( talk) 12:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, not based on historical facts and pure fictional. Add it to stupidities section if it exists.--Joe The Dassaret 03:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC) — Joe The Dassaret ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 03:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC) (UTC). reply
Comment This user has zero contribs prior to voting here. Most likely a meat-puppet recruited off-wiki to participate here. Athenean ( talk) 21:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - There are many articles describing process of colonization of some territory. I don't see a problem with such articles especially if there are referenced sources in them.-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 13:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Strongly Delete. It is quite clear that the author of that article has created a POV-ish article, without the needed sources. It is the same as saying that the Slavic migration in the Balkans is a case of a Slavic colonisation (which it is a bit true). Even if Albanians would have gone in Kosovo after 1500, which is totally untrue (ask any historian as says Noel Malcolm) it can not be a different article, except of just a passage in Ottoman Kosovo. As for who colonised who, somebody may read Colonisation of Kosovo 1918-1941... Thanks, Balkanian`s word ( talk) 18:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, possibly rename to something more neutral like "Albanian migration to Kosovo". Subject is notable, there is no record of Albanians in Kosovo before the Ottoman conquest. I fail to see what article it is a content fork of, that is an inane argument. I also note most of the delete votes come from members of the Albanian National Wikipedia Team, all of whom have voted (some have even come out of retirement to do so), and are of the WP:IDONTLIKEIT type. Athenean ( talk) 22:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: 90-95% of users who have voted keep are either Serbs or Greeks. Obviously this AfD has turned into a polarized debate, with some users openly asking support [16] from other users (the message is in Serbian).-- — ZjarriRrethues —  talk 23:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment: First, and most important, that is not true, and second, you forgot to mentioned that higher percentage of Delete votes are Albanian, then Serbs and Greeks on Keep. -- Tadija speaks 12:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment: From the users who have voted delete most are Serbs, that's a plain fact.-- — ZjarriRrethues —  talk 14:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment:This vote is user's 8th edit, not included user space. Also likely a meat-puppet. -- Tadija speaks
Comment: If you actually checked this user's contributions you would see that he has written Sotir Peçi entirely by himself, managed to take it to DYK and his low number of article space edits is because if you check his contributions he's writing articles in his userspace before transfering them to article space. Also I see that this user has written several articles in the Albanian wikipedia as he says on his userpage. So no he's not a meatpuppet just because you don't like his opinion Tadija.-- — ZjarriRrethues —  talk 13:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC) reply
! -- Tadija speaks 14:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Keep: I dont see a reason why we should remove this. It's a historical article that needs expantion, that's all. It is noteworthy that the Albanian side mobilized all their member very quickly informing their Wikiproject 'only'. Alexikoua ( talk) 15:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Comment:Discussion about the article was started days before the article being nominated for deletion, so your theory is absolutely unreal. On another majority who want this article kept are Serbs or Greeks, as Alexikoua's keep opinion verified.-- — ZjarriRrethues —  talk 16:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment: We don't need a wikilaywer. The Albanian lobby informed wp:Albania 'only' and this is a fact. No wonder it was immediately mobilized. Alexikoua ( talk) 19:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Removing of almost entire article

User:Kedadi deleted almost entire article that was expanded in order to push article deletion. Also, here should be noted that meatpuppetry is stricltly forbiden on wikipedia. -- Tadija taking 01:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Yes, it is [17]. Alexmit should stop trying to get support.-- — ZjarriRrethues —  talk 09:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Artical is on voting here, so stop vandalising it now by deleting huge parts of it.-- Alexmilt ( talk) 08:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply

That's not the definition of vandalising, because most of the article is wp:or.-- — ZjarriRrethues —  talk 09:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Stop with that. No, you are not right. If you doubt about source, than you should ask for opinion on WP:RS. You ARE NOT allowed to delete all of that just because
you don't like it. That is essence of vandalism. -- Tadija taking 17:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
I'm not doubting the source, because there isn't a source for most of the article. It's a copy/paste article and the the only source related to the article is about the first sentence.-- — ZjarriRrethues —  talk 17:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
That's not true, sources are throughout entire article. And there is nothing bad in one copy from related article. As you see, article is under expansion. -- Tadija taking 08:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC) reply
99% of the sources have no relation to the subject itself. Being entirely a copy/paste from other articles is the essence of WP:CFORK and as such the article should be deleted.-- — ZjarriRrethues —  talk 09:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC) reply
You are completely out of point. First, it is not true, sources are ok, and highly related. Second, even that sources are not good, that cannot be reason for deletion. -- Tadija taking 19:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC) reply


  • Goal of the page

This page is trying to explain the proces of chaniging the demographic picture of Kosovo through Osmanian empire. And to answer on question how is it possible that the province that was more than 95% serbian in 14th century, come into 20th century when albanian population is more than 60%. How this happend? Was this just a normal thing where is no place for a topic or there were some proces that change demographic structure so dramaticly. There is a lot to be written but in this moment no one can work under the pressure of this voting. So I would like to get few monts (2-3) period when we can really work and make a credibile artical. I am sorry if this topic heart someones feelings but I can promise that everything what would be written can have credibile references. -- Alexmilt ( talk) 00:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Read History of Kosovo, Demographics of Kosovo, Kosovo Province, Ottoman Empire, Albanians in Kosovo, Serbs in Kosovo and wp:cfork(the essence of this article)-- — ZjarriRrethues —  talk 10:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC) reply

With this logic we should delete also Colonisation of Kosovo 1918-1941? -- Alexmilt ( talk) 13:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC) reply
If most of its content was found in the articles I mentioned then yes, but its content isn't mentioned in any of those articles.-- — ZjarriRrethues —  talk 13:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC) reply
But the article Albanian colonisation of Kosovo is just started to be written! How you know that this content is mentioned somewhere else? This article is on beginning. So stop with this sabotage, give people freedom to work and after some period of time it will be clear is there space for something like this or not. -- Alexmilt ( talk) 13:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Please read wp:cfork.-- — ZjarriRrethues —  talk 14:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Article appears to be well sourced, even though there have been attempts to remove sources, by many of the same users trying to delete the article now. POV problems are not a criteria for deletion. This deletion seems to be based on WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT type arguments. Kostja ( talk) 16:43, 18 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. JForget 01:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Global media

Global media (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article seems to be a random list of television programmes with no rationale for their inclusion. It has little or no connection with the title. The article was previously marked for PROD but the tag was removed with no explanation by an anonymous user. Malcolma ( talk) 18:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy Delete - The page is a total mess and it's unclear what the page is even about; it's utter nonsense. Leoniceno ( talk) 19:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete as garbage. There's enough profanity in there to qualify for G3. Ray Talk 21:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete An incoherent mess. Warrah ( talk) 16:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete Complete and utter nonsense. Most of the content contributed by a single author. Jonathan McLeod ( talk) 18:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete - It's garbage Imperatore ( talk) 22:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete though apparently no admin noticed... Pichpich ( talk) 20:24, 17 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 Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West#Characters. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Melena Thropp

Melena Thropp (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This Wicked character fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for fictional characters. Neelix ( talk) 15:40, 11 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. JForget 01:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Haiti organ harvesting

Haiti organ harvesting (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article (view history) is rife with questionable sources and is unsupported even by the facts from reliable sources. Even at that, the singular legitimate source (the claim of the Haitian PM on CNN) should be incorporated into 2010 Haitian earthquake and does not merit its own article. Mobius1ski ( talk) 15:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - though we might merge the content with some conspiracy theory article that discusses organ trafficking - and only because the article quotes the prime minister. Rklawton ( talk) 17:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - not notable for an article; this article was only created as another launch-pad for anti-israel attacks on wikipedia... now that the offending and undsourced material has been removed, it is very clear that the remaining 2 sentences are not worthy of their own article. As a matter of fact, why isn't this being speedily deleted? Breein1007 ( talk) 20:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- Ray Talk 21:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. Arguably speedy, but I'm not that familiar with applications of A10. Ray Talk 21:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - just a bunch of garbage, with clearly bad intentions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yydl ( talk • contribs)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 23:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The allegation doesn't merit more than a brief mention in the source; it certainly isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia article. —  Malik Shabazz  Talk/ Stalk 23:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - horrible propaganda, conspiracy theory, not notable, one man's claim, and that man a man who allows his people to eat dirt cookies. [18]. Per Breein, another attempt to smear Israel, which was saving lives in Haiti [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] Perhaps we could have an article about that? How sad that we even need to consider this for 2 minutes. Stellarkid ( talk) 23:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Snow Delete Unomi ( talk) 00:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and expand. notable topic. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 00:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Votes with no explanation are meaningless. Oh well. Breein1007 ( talk) 00:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Notable how? Doesn't seem like you really have much to say. Breein1007 ( talk) 01:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply

*Weak keep - Accusations received international news coverage and had an impact on British politics, so possible notability. EuroPride ( talk) 01:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Delete - Relevant information is included in the Antisemitic canard article and on the article of Tonge. No need to have a seperate article. EuroPride ( talk) 15:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply

The impact on British politics (one person getting fired from her post) is covered in the article about Jenny Tonge. This topic is not notable enough to have an article just because of Tonge. Breein1007 ( talk) 01:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Question - Regarding this edit - Please could you show the discussion that established that The Guardian is an unreliable source? Thanks. EuroPride ( talk) 01:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
This is not the proper place to discuss edits, but I will answer you in case other people are now curious about your question. It is Press TV that poses a problem, not The Guardian. The Guardian reference did not have anything to do with the Haiti allegations. Breein1007 ( talk) 01:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - This is news and not wiki-news worthy at that. I recall that this issue has already been kicking around in various wiki articles since the earthquake. There used to be a 2010 Haiti earthquake conspiracy theories article for instance which had interesting things like the earthquake was caused by a magnetometer in Alaska, someone dropped a large book/left the microwave on too long or whatever. In the end I think the organ stuff went into Antisemitic canard. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete-there is already too much anti semitic propaganda and no need for more under the unpersuasive argument of encyclopedic importance. Lets fly away this crap-WP is not a news site and more than that, it's not hospice for fringe theories. Who went to sleep with dogs wakes up with fleas.-- Gilisa ( talk) 04:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete what a garbage. Broccoli ( talk) 07:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Perfect for the National Enquirer.-- Hmbr ( talk) 07:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Request for early closure: Please close this AfD already, the unequivocal quality of this article truely justify early closure.-- Gilisa ( talk) 14:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Amen Stellarkid ( talk) 15:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete politically motivated soapbox wikicrap Bigglove talk 16:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Merge the needed material into 2010 Haitian earthquake and/or Urban legend and salt this. We don't need to perpetuate non-notable fairy tales. Bearian ( talk) 20:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - non notable conspiracy theory. May merit a mention on Tonge's page, but not an encyclopedic article. Tzu Zha Men ( talk) 20:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - For the record I am for deletion first or less preferably as a mention in the article on modern anti-Semitism or wherever such an article exists nowadays. The entire notion was based on biased conspiracy theorist sites with utterly no relevance to the truth. Keeping this as an article or portraying this idea as worthy of legitimate discussion would be a great disservice to Wikipedia's goals. 149.169.221.148 ( talk) 00:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, obviously. Wikipedia is not news, and it is not a repository of random conspiracy theories. It is also not a place for " supposed or rumored practices". — Ynhockey ( Talk) 11:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Malik Shabazz. I would leave this sort of stuff to snopes.com.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 20:36, 13 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. JForget 01:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Eiko Furukawa

Eiko Furukawa (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This two sentence, unreferenced biography was proposed for deletion in June 2008. The Prod tag was removed with no improvement or additions to the article. The article fails the notability criteria for musicians and ensembles - no evidence of a significant career, no independent, reliable, non-trivial sources can be found Voceditenore ( talk) 05:15, 10 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. JForget 01:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

World Peace One

World Peace One (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable according to WP:CLUB. Google web returns only links to the organisation's site and other press releases. Google news returns nothing. Content consists of WP:SOAPBOX referenced by the organisation's site. Simon-in-sagamihara ( talk) 14:30, 11 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. JForget 01:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Hugs and Hope Foundation for Sick Children

Hugs and Hope Foundation for Sick Children (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:ORG, nothing in gnews [24]. LibStar ( talk) 13:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

even then there are 6 hits. 2 of which say "Proceeds are expected to top $1000 to benefit the Hugs and Hope Foundation.". this is hardly significant coverage. LibStar ( talk) 07:57, 12 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. JForget 01:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

CunninLynguists

CunninLynguists (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nom - non-notable music group. The article makes a few claims, so I won't just speedily delete it, but every single source is self-published or published by one of the group's labels. If this group was notable, it would have independent sources. Rklawton ( talk) 12:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy keep. As I pointed out when I removed the totally inappropriate prod from this article, the band's albums have articles here, with at least 19 examples of significant coverage in reliable sources between them. There is a lot more coverage available judging by Google/news/books searches. Clearly WP:BEFORE has not been followed, and the nom appears not to have bothered looking at the album articles either. This group does have a large number of independent sources available and are in fact obviously a notable music group. Given that I deprodded it, speedy deleting it would have been a poor course of action. The listing here includes 'Find sources' links to Google searches - can I suggest that in future carrying out these searches before nominating would be a good idea. -- Michig ( talk) 12:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I see no improvements to this article and only sources that are self-published by the labels. Rather than remove the prod, you should have fixed the article (assuming that's possible). When I Google the subject and see that the top link is the group's MySpace page and Wikipedia article, it's obvious that this group has serious notability problems. Rklawton ( talk) 12:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
You should have made at least a minimal effort to establish notability before prodding it, and certainly before bringing it to AFD. I was perfectly entitled to remove the prod from this article without improving it, given that the subject is clearly notable. What do you see when you search on Google Books? Have you even yet looked at the articles on the group's albums to see the examples of coverage there? Judging notability based on what comes out first on a Google search is, frankly, stupid.-- Michig ( talk) 12:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
If you can't remain civil, then please refrain from participating. It's perfectly reasonable to submit an article for deletion that obviously lacks reliable sources and when other editors appear unable or unwilling to make improvements and when a search terms up the same sort of stuff one gets from a typical garage band. Rather than spend time telling us that our readers are perfectly capable of going to Google or wherever to find reliable information about a group (definitely not our policy), perhaps you could take a few minutes to improve the article instead. Rklawton ( talk) 13:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
I have been civil - pointing out your flawed logic is not uncivil. I have tried to assume good faith here, but your actions are looking increasingly WP:POINTy. Right above your nomination there are links for other editors to go "to Google or wherever to find reliable information about a group" yet you complain when I suggest you do the same. Please see WP:AFD: "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD" then look at the articles on the group's albums noting all of the examples of significant coverage linked/cited - the article can clearly be fixed through normal editing. Withdrawal would be your best course of action.-- Michig ( talk) 13:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Your use of the word "stupid" was not civil. I did look through Google, and I didn't see indications of notability. I did provide an opportunity for editors to improve the article, but none were willing or able. And it's our readers that we don't ask to Google for better information. It's our policy that our articles must be reliably sourced, and this one isn't. The article's claims to notability (if any) still aren't reliably sourced. If it was as easy to do as you claim, then whey haven't you done it? Rklawton ( talk) 13:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Judging notability by whatever comes out top in a Google search is ridiculous - I don't think it inappropriate to describe such an approach as 'stupid'. It could take 2-3 hours to go through all available sources and improve the article. I am prepared to do this - though you obviously are not - but don't have time right now. You still haven't indicated whether you have looked at the album articles or at Google Books - why is this? Do you dispute that the group is notable (at least per GNG) and that the article can be fixed? Do you want examples of significant coverage posting here? You can find plenty within the SouthernUnderground, A Piece of Strange, and Dirty Acres articles. The first page of Google Books hits include CMJ New Music Monthly (2005), CMJ New Music Monthly (Dec 2007), and Hip Hop in America: A Regional Guide: Volume 1: East Coast and West Coast by Micky Hess. Here's a link to the band's Allmusic bio.-- Michig ( talk) 13:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Fix the article or let it die - your choice. You chose to remove the prod tag, and that wasn't helpful. The appropriate interpretation of GNG for a music group is only through Wikipedia:Notability (music); that's why it's there. And no, I don't see how acknowledgement that this group exists proves its notability. Rklawton ( talk) 17:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Removing a prod tag from a fixable article on a notable subject is most certainly 'helpful'. Your refusal to behave in a constructive manner is not. Take a look at the first criterion of WP:BAND, which is essentially a restatement of GNG and is easily met here via a wealth of significant coverage in reliable sources. You might also wish to take a look at Wikipedia:Notability as it is apparent that you don't understand it. When the discussion closes as 'Keep' I'll improve the article. -- Michig ( talk) 17:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The article does not satisfy BAND, and that's what we're here to discuss. Rklawton ( talk) 19:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
But you know damn well that the group satisfies WP:BAND (the guideline applies to subjects of articles) and that the sources exist with which to get the article into that state, which is why your trying to force others to use their time to improve the article via this AFD is so disappointing.-- Michig ( talk) 19:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
I've asked you before to remain civil, I won't ask again. I will report it. Rklawton ( talk) 22:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
If you think reporting anything here as incivility will get you anywhere then go ahead - I'm confident that any uninvolved admins will struggle to see anything here other than a constructive editor stating the obvious. Making threats, as you did in your PROD nomination and again here, isn't a great way to behave. This is a collaborative project to build an encyclopedia, maybe you should have a think about that.-- Michig ( talk) 05:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete. I've seen mentions of this group in magazines from time to time, but I actually couldn't find any reliable Ghits. (BTW, Michig, calm down. It isn't inappropriate just because someone doesn't agree with you.) Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Did you not see all the reviews in the group's album articles, which are unquestionably significant coverage in reliable sources? I am calm, by the way, just increasingly disappointed with Rklawton's behaviour.-- Michig ( talk) 06:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
      • Only A Piece of Strange appears to be referenced -- by reviews, which aren't reliable sources. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
        • The magazines in which the reviews appear are reliable sources. The reviews themselves are significant coverage.-- Michig ( talk) 06:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
          • No, they aren't. Read WP:INHERITED. Erpert (let's talk about it) 16:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
            • Sorry, I don't know what point you're making here. Musical groups perform live and make records - coverage of musical groups generally constitutes features, live reviews and record reviews, and as is the case here, coverage in books. -- Michig ( talk) 17:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
              • The point I'm making is that when I Googled for that album, for example, I found reviews about it and nothing else. Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
I'd just like to point out that their appearance in magazines may be overstated. Most of these were from the period 2003-2007 when the group employed a publicist to spread their name around, as evidenced by the number of links to old articles on their myspace page, which have recently been removed, unfortunately. Since then, they have leaned more on 'internet buzz' through hip-hop forums and websites. Mathesoneon ( talk) 13:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Thus, a Google search is probably more valid. However, Rklawton's claim that 'When I Google the subject and see that the top link is the group's MySpace page and Wikipedia article, it's obvious that this group has serious notability problems' is completely and utterly ridiculous, as searching any music artist regardless of fame in Google will return the myspace and wikipedia pages as the top results - with an occasional official artist website slipping in the top 3, or more rarely, an unofficial fan page. TRY IT. Finally, I find it necessary to add that Rklawton's actions and words indicate to me that the user seems to be driven to eliminating this page regardless of evidence pertaining to the notability of the group which is in circulation. Personally, I would love to compile the sources necessary to fix up the article and those of the albums/mixtapes but I am in the middle of exams for my final year at university so I will not have the time to spare until mid-May. Keep Mathesoneon ( talk) 13:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - this is a good example of an article that needed improvement rather than deletion, but these days it appears that the best way to draw the necessary attention is to do an AfD. So be it. But not all AfD discussions have to end in a decision to delete, and should not end that way if the process inspires other editors to improve the article accordingly. That is what has happened here, and the nominator should acknowledge subsequent developments. DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 16:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Clear keep [25], [26], [27]. Did this really need to come to AfD? Hobit ( talk) 06:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep "KNO OF CUNNINLYNGUISTS" By Jake Iacovetta in Remix, 1 February 2008, Volume 10; Number 2. Dirty Acres (APOS Music) review (1 paragraph) in Remix, 1 December 2007, Volume 9; Number 12. "CUNNINLYNGUISTS MAKE THEIR WAY TO SANTA FE" by PABLO PAZ in The Santa Fe New Mexican, 12 May 2006. "MOVIE (sic) REVIEW: 'A PIECE OF STRANGE' HELPS CUNNINLYNGUISTS TURN CORNER" by PABLO PAZ in The Santa Fe New Mexican, 10 February 2006. (note for last two, Pablo Paz is a senior at Santa Fe High.) duffbeerforme ( talk) 10:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep The sources contained within the article show that the group easily meets WP:MUSIC. sparkl !sm hey! 17:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Clicking the Google News search link at the top of the AFD finds 138 results! They are clearly notable. Always use Google news search BEFORE nominating something or stating it should be deleted. It saves the rest of us a lot of time, and prevents something notable from being deleted by accident. Dream Focus 00:26, 18 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 and REDIRECT Consensus to merge content into CommutAir article and redirect this title. Mike Cline ( talk) 19:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply

CommutAir Flight 4821

CommutAir Flight 4821 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no indication in the article or the reference provided that this accident meets any of the notability criteria at WP:AIRCRASH. I've additionally not been able to find any other sources that demonstrate any reason for notability per these guidelines.

The article was previously prodded by user:YSSYguy with the concern "Notability is not established". The PROD tag was later removed by user:WhisperToMe with the comment "When people die in a plane crash, it becomes notable". However this is not a standard of notability supported by either by the WP:AIRCRASH guidelines (which are still in beta), nor any proposed alteration to them that has been raised on the talk page since discussion started on replacing the old guidelines in July 2009. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - non-notable, fails to meet guidelines for inclusion at WP:AIRCRASH. - Ahunt ( talk) 13:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Any scheduled airline flight where people die should be considered notable, if sources can be found. The project definition is just an essay, not even an attempted guideline, and is much too restrictive. However, this flight meets the criterion in that essay: "Airworthiness Directives - the accident/incident resulted in one or more official bodies issuing an Airworthiness Directive (AD) or similar" see [28], By their proposal in the essay, it should be merged to a section in the article on the airplane DGG ( talk ) 17:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Obvious redirect to CommutAir. The revisions to WP:AIRCRASH do not mean that we delete everything that we think doesn't meet it. What they do mean is that we relocate the information elsewhere. Mandsford ( talk) 17:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
    • I second this idea, for the same reasons. dude❶❽❶❽ Can or can't you read the characters? Tell me --> talk page 01:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. WP:AIRCRASH is an essay of a wikiproject so AfD is far from bound by it. This is more than a mere news event. It appears to have resulted in litigation [29]. This report also indicates that the crash resulted in regulatory change. It is significant, and notable. Air crashes are usually quite well-document so it would be unusual for a fatal air crash not to be significant enough and covered in enough reliable sources not to be notable. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 20:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Firstly, what Mkativerata said. Secondly, in practice, whenever someone dies in a commercial airliner crash, that crash becomes notable no matter what. Litigation always happens. Accident reports are always written. Significant coverage always occurs. Because of this, "Delete" and "Obvious redirect" are never appropriate outcomes for these articles. No, this is not an article to be redirected under any circumstances. WhisperToMe ( talk) 21:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
    • "Accident reports are always written. Significant coverage always occurs." this is exactly why these things are not sufficient on their own to demonstrate notability. Not every air accident is notable, and so some guidelines are set out at WP:AIRCRASH to help separate the wheat from the chaff. Thryduulf ( talk) 23:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
      • Keep Mkativerata made a very good case for it and I believe that if the resulting policy change is added, then it would be a bit more notable and be consistent with other such articles. -- Hourick ( talk) 00:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to an article that contains a short explaination of the crash, either the airline or the airliner article. 65.94.253.16 ( talk) 05:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I originally prodded the article because as it stood notability was not established and as yet I see nothing in the article or this discussion to change my mind. DGG's and Mkativerata's assertions that the NTSB letter is evidence of regulatory change are not necessarily correct; it is a recommendation for regulatory change and Airworthiness Regulators (in this case the FAA) can - and often do - decide not to act on such recommendations, which are frequently made by accident investigation bodies following accidents. If it can be demonstrated that the FAA did act on the NTSB letter and issue an AD, then that should be prominently mentioned in the article and it would become a keeper. YSSYguy ( talk) 12:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the flight was a scheduled flight, not an air taxi operation. Per the sources given above, it does meet WP:AIRCRASH criteria. (A3, A6). Just about notable enough to sustain an article. Mjroots ( talk) 12:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Same argument as User:Mjroots. The article meets WP:AIRCRASH criteria. -- Armchair Ace ( talk) 16:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Regrettably keep, as consensus has deemed that any commercial flight crash where someone dies is notable. Stifle ( talk) 08:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Where is this consensus? It's not one that I've seen evidenced anywhere, and it hasn't been suggested in any of the discussions about WP:AIRCRASH. Thryduulf ( talk) 10:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or merge. There is no consensus that 'deaths'='notability', not here, not at WP:AIRCRASH. Clicking on the news results at the top of this section gives a grand total of 2 news items, just a couple of loud voices, as I see it. If deaths "always" create lots of coverage, why don't we see it in this case. The 'AD' argument also fails. Note that the specific AD example used in AIRCRASH was a section of an article. So merging this incident to someother article (e.g. the airline) makes sense. David V Houston ( talk) 20:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or Merge to the aircraft (or airline) article. There is no encyclopedic information available, so per WP:NOT#NEWS it cannot have a stand-alone article. Abductive ( reasoning) 21:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC) reply
    • The 'AD' argument does not apply as there is no Airworthiness Directive against the radome installation on the Beech 1900 series of aircraft. I cannot find an Advisory Circular either. It is possible that the issue is one of insufficient maintenance on the part of the operator, but that is pure speculation on my part, derived from a lack of evidence that this is a fleet-wide problem. YSSYguy ( talk) 00:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per both User:DGG and User:Mjroots above, as a fairly sourceable scheduled flight. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 10:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Topics that are the subjects of articles are required to be notable in addition to being verifiable, so simply being "fairly sourceable" is not sufficient grounds for keeping this article. Thryduulf ( talk) 19:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
      • My mistake, "fairly" was meant to mean 'amply'; as in, sourcing seems just adequate enough to establish notability and verify content. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 20:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to CommutAir#Incidents and accidents, if the article could be expanded then I would say keep it. -- Andromedabluesphere440 ( talk) 12:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to CommutAir#Incidents and accidents. The incident does not seem to provide material enough to warrant a separate article apart from what is present at CommutAir#Incidents and accidents. Nageh ( talk) 15:07, 21 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) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Homai daughter of Bahman

Homai daughter of Bahman (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The references don't say she's notable. Just that she exists. Cynof Gavuf 11:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Keep- seems to me that ruling a country is sufficiently notable. Reyk YO! 11:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep(weak) if we have a whole series of Rulers of X, linked predecessor-successor, then the notability rises because they are part of that series. If nothing else, removing here will cause the links to go red, and people will keep trying to recreate the article 'for completeness'. David V Houston ( talk) 12:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, assuming she's a real person - the sources seem to indicate she is, but the phrase 'a legendary queen' suggests otherwise and should probably be reworded. I think ruling a country is notable just by common sense, but it also satisfies Wikipedia:POLITICIAN. Olaf Davis ( talk) 13:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Meets WP:POLITICIAN. Sources appear to verify the article's claims, in particular [30]. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 21:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 23:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 23:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above: rulers of Iran are notable. However, consider a rename. I'm pretty sure the article title isn't in accord with our naming conventions. Ray Talk 21:45, 13 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. JForget 01:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Note, a related redirect was actually deleted via the Twinkle closing script first. The actual list is now deleted too. -- JForget 01:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

List of common animals

AfDs for this article:
List of animals (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pointless list of random animals עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:01, 11 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. JForget 01:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Transcendence (video game)

Transcendence (video game) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non- notable freeware video game. All the links go to sources that are not independent of the subject, like the game's homepage, or are reviews at sites that are somewhat bloggish and of dubious reliability. Reyk YO! 10:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. ( Search video game sources) • Gene93k ( talk) 23:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • One of those sites features a review by Greg Costikyan, and may well be acceptable. What's our practice on Play This Thing? -- Kiz o r 01:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I use Play This Thing regularly, Greg's writings are great sources regardless of where they're published, both him and his deputy Patrick Dugan get quoted in magazine features etc. I also use TIGsource (it's Derek Yu, a noted indie developer). I also use Big Download since it's part of AOL's bulging bits, and look at the size of the bugger. Seems amply notable. Someone another 02:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The review sites look OK and non-trivial to me too. SharkD  Talk  01:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. As same as SharkD. Refs include AOL, 1UP.com, 4Gamer (no article yet but as Alexa ranks it around 4,400 and 276 in Japan (that is massive) with 4,500 sites linking in [31] while Gamespy is at 2,600 and 1,669 in USA with 3,500 sites linking in [32], 1UP.com is at 2,736 and 1,145 in USA with 11,500 sites linking in [33], and Gamershell is at 3,165 and 582 in Brazil with 7,500 sites linking in [34] there should be), Playthisthing and Abandonia Reloaded. All game reviews are bloggish. None of those sites are "dubious" while AOL, 1UP and 4Gamer are in the top 10 or 20 of their international fields. ~ R. T. G 08:35, 14 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. JForget 01:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Lighthouse in Sopot

Lighthouse in Sopot (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication this landmark is notable. Cynof Gavuf 10:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Delete It can be mentioned in the article about Sopot. Most local landmarks are not notable enough to be anything more than local, and don't rate their own article. Mandsford ( talk) 22:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 23:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 23:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. According to this article permission had to be obtained from the Conservator of Monuments to make alterations to the lighthouse ("Zgodę Wojewódzkiego Konserwatora Zabytków uzyskano pod koniec ubiegłego roku"), meaning that this is the equivalent of a UK listed building or US registered historic place, which are generally accepted as notable. There's also a six-page chapter about the lighthouse in this book, and plenty more coverage amongst these Google Books and these Google News hits. I'm a little sceptical about the range of it's light being 7 nm - if a ship gets that close then it's certainly in trouble. Phil Bridger ( talk) 08:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep if this lighthouse is equivalent to a listed builing, then it is notable enough sustain an article, it would be of interest to WP:HSITES. Article should be expanded using the above mention sources. BTW, 7 nm = 7 nautical miles (13 km). Mjroots ( talk) 12:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - the Polish language article linked above has the lighthouse as its primary subject. I suspect that more articles covering it exist in Polish. Certainly googling in english under books shows that it is a landmark well-identified with Sopot in travel literature. -- Whpq ( talk) 17:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. If I may add a bit of original research in confirmation, as I know Sopot well, I would point out that Sopot is by a long chalk Poland's top seaside resort, and the lighthouse is one of its top three landmarks, along with the pier and the Grand Hotel (I'm a bit miffed that I'm not mentioned alongside Charles de Gaulle and Adolf Hitler in that article), so it is well-known to a significant percentage of the population of Poland. Phil Bridger ( talk) 17:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Thanks for the clarification. And since this is a wiki, COI aside, you can add yourself to the Grand Hotel article! Just be sure you have a reliable source or I shall mercilessly revert you. :) -- Whpq ( talk) 18:33, 14 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 : Speedily deleted as blatant spam/copyright violation (copied from the company website). - Mike Rosoft ( talk) 11:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Legend Construction

Legend Construction (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indications of notability for this company. Cynof Gavuf 10:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy Delete looks like a G11 (with a sprinkling of A7) to me. Eeekster ( talk) 10:28, 11 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. Whilst number counting produces a majority of 5-3 to Delete, I have to consider the weight of argument here. Keep !votes seem mainly based on claiming notability but as more than one Delete !vote points out, for that to be a valid argument the subject would need to have significant coverage of the Italian community itself in third-party sources as opposed to passing mentions that there are Italians in Pakistan, which at the moment it clearly hasn't. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Italians in Pakistan

Italians in Pakistan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Random combination of groups. Just number over 300 is hardly enough to warrant an article. Cynof Gavuf 09:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

That's a non-issue. There are 57 Turks in India. Lyk4 ( talk) 11:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
My bad. 150 Turks, in a country with a population of 1 billion. Lyk4 ( talk) 11:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Besides, the problems of the "Turks in India" article (and many other "Turks in Xyzland" articles) have already been mentioned at this discussion; no one offered any solution or tried to improve the articles. I for one wouldn't object to deleting it. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turks in India. cab ( talk) 02:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Turks in India is just as non-notable, but isn't nominated... yet. In the case of "Italians in Pakistan", the article does nothing more than to recite a single statistic (that there are 300 Italian persons in a nation of 169,000,000). I suppose that we could write individual articles to answer questions like "How many Italians in Pakistan?" "How many Pakistanis in Italy?" "How many _____ians in the Republic of _____ia?" etc., but it would make more sense to write one intelligent article about the breakdown of a nation's census figures by national origin, rather than 200 nothingburgers like this. Mandsford ( talk) 21:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 22:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 22:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Small numbers or "random combination of groups" (whatever that means) aren't a reason for deletion per-se. However, it seems from various Google searches that this group of people have not been covered non-trivially by newspaper articles, scholarly papers, or government reports. Many other "Fooians in Pakistan" articles appear to have been created along the same lines without regard for WP:N (e.g. Koreans in Pakistan, Japanese in Pakistan). cab ( talk) 01:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per CaliforniaAliBaba (cab). A small yet notable group may be kept, but this is very small and non-notable, as shown by the stub itself and searches online. Bearian ( talk) 20:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Being a small group does not make it non-notable. There is at least one source provided in this article on the topic, and probably more can be found. The first source really goes into this. Dew Kane ( talk) 04:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I agree that the small size isn't relevant. All of these articles are encyclopedic in value. Also, did anyone search for news in either of the two languages of the countries involved? Dream Focus 04:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I'e added about 3-4 extra sources that mention the Italian community in Pakistan. Looking at the current level of information, and given the relatively small size of Italians in Pakistan, this article forms a perfect stub and the AFD should be withdrawn. Mar4d ( talk) 17:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: foreign relations and bilateral investment are not relevant to articles about human migration. Most of these "references" you added consist of routine one-paragraph news coverage about events (e.g. "Italy's national day celebrated in India"). cab ( talk) 00:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as arbitrary intersection of nationalities and setting a very bad precedent. There are 36,672 possible articles of the form [Nationality] in [Country] (that is 192P2; there being 192 members of the United Nations and order is relevant) and I suspect few are notable subjects. Bangladeshis in the Dominican Republic, anyone? Stifle ( talk) 08:40, 19 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) 17:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Dustin Robbins

Dustin Robbins (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be notable from the information presented here. Cassandra 73 ( talk) 18:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

*Delete. Not notable - Does not meet qualifications for notability -- SuperHappyPerson ( talk) 12:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)SuperHappyPerson reply

  • Keep. Thank you for taking this to AfD instead of just deleting the article. I am new, and just learning, but I have more articles I want to add in the same "alternative" industry, so I did a lot of research on what is and isn't notable, hoping that I would be able to demonstrate it with limited "main-stream" media sources. The reasons I believe this article should not be deleted are below.
  • I've added a new (March, 2010) source which details, to some degree, the notability of the subject's piercing technique (free-hand and 100% disposable), which is very unique to the art form and is only practiced by a handfull of body piercers in the world. Since the Body Modification industry itself is very small, to have such a presence as the subject has in his small industry is what gives him notability. By my understanding of the criteria for inclusion, if an individual is notable in their respective field, then they are allowed inclusion.
  • I understand that the sources for his work do not seem credible, as they are mainly online and 1st person accounts, however, they are independent sources from well known online news and information sources within the Body Modification industry, that back over a decade. Unfortunately, in an industry that is not "main-stream", main-stream media coverage is not readily available. I do know that there has been quite a bit more media coverage on the individual, I have just not been able to find exact references or links, since it is mostly television/news coverage.
  • In the notability criteria ( WP:BIO), it states under Biographies, that an individual must have been nominated for and/or given an award. The subject has received an award for his business, with the source I noted being a credible secondary source (a newspaper). Qquackk ( talk) 00:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Response: Hi Catfish Jim - Yes, the subject does. Both - "1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors." and - "2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique." For the first, the subject is well known in his profession and cited in many online and print publications, as noted in the article. For the second, the subject is known for practicing a very unique form of his art - a free-hand (without clamps) technique that uses 100% disposable equipment, which only a few shops in the U.S. use, as noted in the article. For reference see: Piercing.org which is the website of Brian Skellie, who is a board member of the Association of Professional Piercers who recommends only a few shops, one of which is Iris Piercing, the subject's shop. Also see: Slug Magazine Article, which also notes the unique way that the subjects performs piercings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qquackk ( talk • contribs) 16:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment from nominator: the Slugmag article is about the studio, not specifically Robbins, who is one of three partners of this business. The award is also for the studio. There isn't anything that indicates notability independent of the studio, or that significantly picks him out above the other two partners. The sources and evidence supplied by Qquackk may go some way towards establishing notability for the studio, but if the business is notable (I'm not saying it definitely is or isn't) that won't automatically confer notability on the people associated with it. Cassandra 73 ( talk) 16:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 08:19, 11 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 Hip hop. until enough RS sources that actually discuss the genre surface. Effectively this article is unsourced. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Avanthop

Avanthop (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Non-notable and barely existent genre. It doesn't help that a bunch of anon IPs are on a crusade filling up musician infobox templates with this supposed genre. JBsupreme ( talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 06:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Why should an encyclopedia not list all genres of music? A published music magazine mentions it. http://www.nme.com/artists/anticon It is clearly defined there, listing also some of the bands that are affiliated by that genre. Dream Focus 07:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The NME link above is to a copy of the Anticon. WP article, by the way.-- Michig ( talk) 09:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but consider renaming to 'Avant-garde hip hop'. 'Avanthop' appears to have little in the way of available sources. 'Avant-garde hip hip' however has a lot more, and enough to justify an article, including a lot of news items from Google news ( [35]), and several Google Books results ( [36]). The nominator's removal of links to Avanthop from all articles that it appears in (using UNDO without an edit summary, which presumably means that they consider its addition to be vandalism) immediately prior to bringing this to AFD is also not helpful.-- Michig ( talk) 08:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 22:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Google shows no WP:RS results for "Avanthop": [37]. As for renaming the page to Avant-garde hip hop, there is a reason WP:LOTSOFSOURCES is listed as an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. According to the same logic, we should also have articles for "hot hip hop", "cool hip hop" and "innovative hip hop" (582, 221 and 245 Google News results, respectively). Most of the Google News and Google Books results appear to be trivial mentions that display all possible combinations of "avant-garde" and "hip-hop", including ones separated by commas, periods and other punctuation marks. — Rankiri ( talk) 17:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Rankiri. We need to exercise caution when counting Google hits and actually examine their merits. It does not appear that there is any meaningful coverage of this genre in order to build up a proper article at this time. Unless we intend to also build articles for "cool hip hop" and "hot hip hop" as well.  ;-) RFerreira ( talk) 18:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC) reply
There's a big difference. When people write about "hot hip hop" they are not referring to a subgenre. There are many sources referring to the subgenre of "avant-garde hip hop" whether or not they constitute coverage specifically of the genre.-- Michig ( talk) 19:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Please list at least some of these sources. "Avant-garde" is a commonly used adjective. If the sources don't cover the subject directly, isn't it synthesis to assume that the phrase refers to a distinct subgenre? — Rankiri ( talk) 20:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC) reply
These, for instance: [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45]. -- Michig ( talk) 21:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Only two of these sources even try to discuss the subject in any detail. One is an album review that tries to define it as "hip-hop built from samples harder to grasp than a wall of Jell-O, whose time signatures change faster than a 15 year-old girl's fashion sense, all strung around beats dirtier than the old man asleep at the bus stop". I wouldn't exactly call its coverage of the subject significant or encyclopedic. In the other, the author criticizes some press release for using the phrase “hip-hop’s first avant-garde hip-hop troupe”, arguing that "[h]ip-hop itself is inherently avant-garde". I'll agree that at least some of these sources seem to refer to it as a subgenre ("in favor of classic jazz and against avant-garde hip-hop", "from post-rock to drum'n'bass, avant-garde hip-hop to modern jazz", etc.), but I still don't see enough significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to consider this supposed subgenre notable. Perhaps it can be mentioned on Hip hop. — Rankiri ( talk) 23:49, 16 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) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Noticiero Digital

Noticiero Digital (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doubtful and undemonstrated notability. On further review it's written as a right-wing screed and a BLP hatchet job. Peter Ian Staker ( talk) 06:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as an attempt at political demonization. Despite the fact that it was written by the executive director of the WMF, it seems that she is not familiar with our policy on attack pages. The page was written with an incredibly apparent bias, namely against the Venezuelan government and the democratically-elected President of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez. It was, intentionally or not, a politically charged attack on the government of Venezuela and an attempt to promote an extreme right-wing sector of the Venezuelan population, the "Venezuelan opposition". Additionally, it promoted the view that Chávez was censoring the Internet (or, in the article's original terminology, "regulating" it) and violates the civil rights of Venezuelans. As pointed out by the nominator, the article also does not demonstrate the notability of Noticiero Digital; there is no evidence that it even has any to assert. -- Mohammad Mosaddeq 06:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Google news gives 200 results. Its notable enough for various newspapers to talk about it. If it isn't written in a neutral tone as Wikipedia policy states it should, then tag it, and discuss on the talk page what should be changed. Or just make the edits yourself. Dream Focus 07:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep on the basis of sourcing, and NOT CENSORED though there are some problems with the language. At the very least, the use of terms like "right-wing" should be sourced inline. A NPOV discussion of politics will necessarily imply something about the politicians, and by the suggestion above, it would be impossible to cover many major news events or organizations in a country because it would be a BLP violation against the head of state or government. That's true censorship. DGG ( talk ) 17:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep, I will work over time on adding Spanish-language sources and trying to clean up the text to match sources, but in the meantime, even based on only English-language sources, the article is clearly notable, albeit was poorly written. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: WP:RS - is El Universal (Caracas) a reliable source, especially considering its anti-Chávez stance? -- Mohammad Mosaddeq 00:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • El Universal is Venezuela's leading newspaper, and meets RS, with editorial oversight, etc. Is CNN a reliable source considering its anti-Bush stance? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
All right, I will concede on the one point: it is very widely distributed. However, a search for "Venezuela's Leading Newspaper" with quotation marks mostly gives results for El Nacional. So, I think it can be a reliable source. CNN, well... -- Mohammad Mosaddeq 01:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Same deal-- they're equally popular. By the way, what "anti-Chavez stance" are you referring to, since it's illegal in Venezuela for the media to criticize the President? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Then why are people like RCTV's owner described as a vocal critic of Chávez? Shouldn't the Venezuelan opposition be in jail? Do you specialize in Venezuelan law? If you do, then you are probably correct, but I don't understand why so many people are described as critics of Chávez and are not convicted of any crime. Mohammad Mosaddeq 01:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Perhaps browsing Category:Human rights in Venezuela will help you understand better. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Note; that this article meets notability was never in question, and the AFD was the wrong way to approach the article issues. The article is now fully cited and rewritten, and the AFD should be speedily kept. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Plainly notable. I applaud Sandy for the work done on the article. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Clearly meets notability. And I fail to see any BLP issues - everything appears fully cited. Makes the NYT [46] Boston Globe etc. [47]. If the major US papers deem it notable, it is notable IMHO. If you do not like what the article says, add material which meets WP standards to it. AfD is not for saying "I don;t like it" about articles. Collect ( talk) 21:47, 13 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 Demographics of Australia. Some of the content may be useful, if not in this, maybe in another form (a graph?) For now, a merge is the best solution here. Tone 10:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Birth rate and fertility rate in Australia

Birth rate and fertility rate in Australia (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Is a list of charts and statistics that clearly fails WP:NOT#STATS. MBisanz talk 03:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

WP:ITSNOTABLE should be avoided. LibStar ( talk) 01:27, 12 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. JForget 01:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Canadian Dream

Canadian Dream (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete as much as I would like to see a valid notable article about the "Canadian Dream," there is nothing worth retaining here. The little that we have is given over to the article creator's POV that people in the cities should move to the farms, because "urban population cannot acheived that goal." (sic) Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as unsourced original research. There are no apparent uses of the term in print or otherwise which corresponds to this article. freshacconci talktalk 02:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete i could find no reliable sources for this use of the phrase. the lede is a dead giveaway to this being POV research/wishful thinking from someone with an agenda to push. there was NEVER a time when the dream of americans or canadians was for a MAN to live by HIMSELF on his own land (the dream of a family to have its own home/land, yes, but not in isolation). article creator is undoubtedly referring to the dream of home ownership and the great land grabs of the 19th c, but even the american dream article is much more than that. ironically, the main wp ref is to song lyrics praising canadian socialism... Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 02:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Everybody knows the Canadian dream is for [insert favorite hockey team] to win the Stanley Cup. Clarityfiend ( talk) 03:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
    • BTW, when I first saw the article title I had assumed it was about Pierre Berton's iconic The National Dream, which was, quite literally, the dream of a Canadian nation. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 03:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this is not the Canadian Dream. 65.94.253.16 ( talk) 05:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Love the concept! Failure of what should be a great article. Delete in its current form. Really hope its recreated though... Outback the koala ( talk) 08:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete if not swiftly improved. Unsourced, vague, POV, but on a sufficiently significant topic that there's a genuine danger of someone being misled if it's allowed to remain as it is. There's surely a good article to be written on Canadian national aspirations, but this isn't it. Just one or two authoritative sources indicating that this particular Canadian Dream is not the figment of someone's imagination would tip the balance in favour of keeping the article, however - so perhaps if the creator is reading this debate they could oblige? Barnabypage ( talk) 16:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
    • "There's surely a good article to be written on Canadian national aspirations." Upon reflection, and as a Canadian, that I think the Canadian nationalism article pretty much has it covered. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:14, 12 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. JForget 01:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Billy Koskinas

Billy Koskinas (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod denied without explanation. Player is not notable enough to pass WP:N or WP:Athlete. Drmies ( talk) 02:16, 11 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) 15:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Moveandstay

Moveandstay (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable online company lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Although, as the article points out, its name has appeared in some books and newspapers, I have not found anything beyond passing or list-type mentions (e.g., as in this travel book, or the one sentence about Moveandstay in this piece from bkmagazine.com), not substantial coverage of the company itself. Then you've got sources like this from a website called Gavroche.com, which reads like an advertisement: "Have a look at the website you will find a wide selection of rentals... Organize your holiday quietly with Move and Stay!" In sum, none of this amounts to significant coverage of the company itself from multiple independent reliable sources. PROD contested without comment.  Glenfarclas  ( talk) 18:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. As noted above, no evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. While the company's service may be novel, that doesn't mean the company is inherently notable. — C.Fred ( talk) 19:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Strange... there is a systematic deletion of the references I input... it seems that someone do not want the Wikipedia main editor to see these books...

I have given the references of at least 20 books(guides and travel + business books) that were talking about Moveandstay as a reliable source... Including Lonely planets (see http://books.google.com/books?q=moveandstay.com&btnG=Search+Books)

Our service is 9 years old and we are the number 1 provider of serviced apartments and serviced offices in the world

Please let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Efauvel ( talk • contribs) 02:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Be aware that you may be editing against out guidelines. Please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. -- œ ™ 09:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Dear Oe, I do not know what to do...

1. You gave me an example of article to get inspiration from and then I used a neutral tone and gave references for this article. 2. Someone (not you) tell me that it is advertising and delete the references 3. Then one editor helped to edit this article by bolding Moveandstay main word in first paragraph, removing some section and added other links. 4. I then put more references such as travel and business books and these are deleted again.

Please help me because I really do not know now how to comply with Wikipedia policy. If Wikipedia remove all travel books references and some neutral tones sentences, of course this can be taken as advertising. Let me know, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Efauvel ( talk • contribs) 10:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC) -- Efauvel ( talk) 15:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Please see Talk:Moveandstay, where I've made comments about what the aricle needs for improvement. — C.Fred ( talk) 17:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Efauvel, try reading the various links and pages that I others have pointed out to you. You say you want to comply with Wikipedia's policy yet I get the impression that you're not even reading any of these pages.. after all, you still aren't signing your posts even after it's been explained to you twice how to do this. In fact it's become quite clear that your only intention here is to advertise "your" company. As you stated in your post above: "Our service is 9 years old and we are the number 1 provider...", that statement is why I pointed you to the Conflict of interest guideline. What it means is that because you seem to have a close connection with the subject it's probably not a good idea for you to be editing this article at all. -- œ ™ 05:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Well, the question, which you haven't yet answered, is why your company should meet WP:CORP. This generally requires that it have been "the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." Yes, Fodor's and Lonely Planet are reliable sources. But they mention tons of things briefly, and a hole-in-the-wall restaurant isn't encyclopedically notable because Fodor's listed it among a dozen other restaurants as places to eat in some town. And if five travel guides all list the same dozen restaurants because that's all there is in this particular town, the restaurants have still not received significant coverage. Now, does Fodor's have a two-page section about a restaurant? Then you could at least make an argument. So if you can explain how your company has received " significant coverage"—that is, coverage of some substantial depth—in a reliable source, I'll be happy to listen. P.S., looks like I cross-posted with C.Fred, but I think the message is the same.  Glenfarclas  ( talk) 17:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 00:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. WP is not a directory and a spot-checking of the refs finds only directory/roundup-of-services/capsule/annotated listings, not in-depth reporting. "we are the number 1 provider of serviced apartments and serviced offices in the world" is a strong claim of notability (our Serviced apartment article says there are something like 20,000 such operators!). Prove it with specific cite from a reliable source. DMacks ( talk) 06:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC) reply

A website cited as reference in more than 30 travel and business books such as Lonely Planet is not good enough to be noticed by Wikipedia users? (I can give you the references if you wish... they were approved by one editor and then deleted by another one) We have also article from Washington Post. We list also 16,484 Serviced Apartments and 10,392 Serviced Offices. We do not have an article about this and nor would we put it on Wikipedia as it would be clearly seen as advertising. Thank you to let me know.-- Efauvel ( talk) 10:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Although mentioned in a number of sources, it does not appear that coverage is substantial.-- Pink Bull 05:28, 11 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. just a tad enough consensus on coverage to keep the article. Otherwise there was nowhere near consensus for deletion JForget 01:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Art Projects International

Art Projects International (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable commercial art gallery. Though the article cites several sources (and more can be found if you look), these involve oblique mentions, passing statements that so-and-so had a piece at this gallery, etc. So, for instance, the article has a citation to Barron's Magazine, but if you look at the piece, which the gallery helpfully excerpts here, you'll see it's just quotation concerning some artist, followed by a short sentence about "her roster." The other coverage I've found is similarly insubstantial. My PROD was removed with the comment, "[P]ublished book and content with multiple independent references added to page." However, the "book" is just a self-published commemorative piece, as you can see here, which of course has no bearing on notability. All told, this company simply fails WP:CORP.  Glenfarclas  ( talk) 07:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Art Projects International works with internationally acclaimed artists and cultural institutions, including major museums and foundations. The fact that Barron's and other major news organizations, including the New York Times, Art In America, Art News and Art Asia Pacific have interviewed and reviewed its exhibitions indicates the notable stature of the organization and works of the artists that are highlighted. If one actually reads the entire articles, it is evident that Art Projects International is a sufficient authority that notable major news organizations have sought interviews and comments on trends in Asian contemporary art. Links and highlights of critically acclaimed exhibitions at San Jose Museum of Art, Crow Collection of Asian Art, Queens Museum and The Vilcek Foundation indicate noteworthy and substantial support. -- Ajlegal ( talk) 21:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC) — Ajlegal ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Welcome to Wikipedia! I'm glad you picked this AfD for your very first edit!  Glenfarclas  ( talk) 07:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Can you provide a citation to a reliable source, please? Or anything that would relate to the criteria discussed WP:CORP? After all, if Art Projects International represents such vital and important artists, I'm sure it'll be substantially covered in the press, right?  Glenfarclas  ( talk) 07:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • As in preceding post, what is needed is not articles which cover the gallery's artists with no mention of API, but articles where API is at least a part of the article; reviews of shows at API demonstrate notice for the gallery's activities. Ty 17:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • You might like to use any such references in the article!!! I have done so with this one. [48] Ty 16:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply


  • Comment I have tagged this for rescue. Silver seren C 05:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep From the sources, I would say that the subject is notable enough to have it's own article. It seems to have a considerable part in the New York art world and even have growth dealings with China. Silver seren C 05:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Lacking in-depth coverage.-- Pink Bull 05:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Sourced, documented, and interestingly unique gallery... Modernist ( talk) 13:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The activities of the gallery get worthwhile coverage in sources. Ty 16:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Comment Cited sources show that the gallery's exhibitions and activities have received press coverage throughout its 17 year history. -- Nyuarsx ( talk) 00:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC) (Struck out duplicate vote —  Glenfarclas  ( talk) 17:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)) changed to a comment Nyuarsx ( talk) 13:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Any coverage is enough, and it receives some. Dream Focus 07:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: DreamFocus, I hope "any coverage" isn't the criterion you're using around here. WP:GNG (and WP:CORP) as for "significant coverage," which is quite a different thing.  Glenfarclas  ( talk) 07:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
— FT101 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • The only mention of API in your refs 1 and 2 is an image credit. Refs 3 and 4 are OK, as they state API collaboration in the shows. Ty 03:34, 17 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. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 21:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Forvo.com

Forvo.com (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An interesting site, but I don't believe it is notable. Doesn't appear to meet WP:WEB. The only indication of notability is not by a third-party source (it is the "about" page of the site in question), and I can find no reliable sources to back this up. I also cannot find any significant coverage for this website. Shirik ( Questions or Comments?) 04:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Delete-Google search failed to turn up anything notable about this subject. The article only has one source, the website itself. Dinosaur Dan1 ( talk) 22:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - The website has been mentioned in a couple of places across the web, including well known sites such as Lifehacker and Mashable - more are listed under the News seciont. To look for Forvo on Google try searching for "forvo -forvo.com" in order to remove self-references (also remove quotations). Also searching from the Spanish Google (google.es) will bring up some interesting results, since the original Forvo was in Spanish and the company that runs it also is from Spain. Although the following does not make it necessarily notable, the database has over 555.000 words and 450.000 pronunciations in 240 languages. Note: If this is kept, I would suggest it simply be called "Forvo" rather than "Forvo.com"
  • Note: It has also been recently (April 5th) mentioned on Smashing Magazine's Twitter [49] Updated ~ TheSun ( talk) 19:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC) ~ reply
  • Pages such as Emily Brontë have also been using Forvo as a pronunciation guide. Though perhaps not helping the case as notable, it is interesting to note. It shows how Forvo is becoming better known and used. ~ TheSun ( talk) 00:08, 8 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) 00:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources.-- Pink Bull 05:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Redacted vote. See below.-- Pink Bull 19:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply


  • Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren C 05:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I was able to find a number of publications that had articles on the website, almost all of them spanish publications. Not everything can be found in English, you have to look beyond that. I have added the sources I found to the article and they establish notability. Silver seren C 05:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Is the Spanish-language coverage both substantial and in reliable sources? If you respond affirmatively to both queries, I would happily redact my vote.-- Pink Bull 05:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
It's substantial, yes, there are a couple of sources entirely about the site. As for reliable sources, I don't know. I'm not sure what is reliable for Spanish sources. They appear to be from publications that would be reliable, so I would say yes. Silver seren C 19:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Okay, I've redacted my vote.-- Pink Bull 19:12, 11 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. A merge discussion (or even just a bold merge, for that matter), is highly encouraged. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 21:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Ifco tray

Ifco tray (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable product. DimaG ( talk) 04:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Keep These containers are everywhere in the food retail business - you've seen them if you've been to the greengrocers in many countries around the world. The only non Wiki-referential source I could find was from the manufacturer's website, so I added that link as a reference in the article. Suprising how few RS showed up in a G-search for something as ubiquitous as these. Even so, until someone comes up with a generic "Reusable plastic container" article, this is all we have. Geoff Who, me? 22:13, 29 March 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) 00:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Not sure. On the one hand, I sort of suspect there are sources out there (government reports and investment newsletters and trade magazines spring to mind), probably using some generic name rather than a brand name. But the article we have now seems kind of over-specific and short. Perhaps it could be merged into Crate#Plastic crates?
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Appears to lack coverage in reliable sources.-- Pink Bull 05:43, 11 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. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 21:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

List of vaporware

AfDs for this article:
List of vaporware (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The term "vaporware" might be notable in the software industry, but this list is not encyclopedic. It lists software that has been called "vaporware" by Wired News and some other outlets. I argue that it will never become encyclopedic because of the highly subjective nature of the term "vaporware". Our definition: "Vaporware describes a product…that has been announced by a developer…if there is significant doubt whether the product will actually be released." Even if it weren't subjective, the list would never be complete (therefore practically useless for research) because of the raw number of software products announced any given year.

  • Comment hmm, this is a tricky one for me. im going to have to think about it. I do want to inform the nominator that one of their arguments, their last one, that the list cannot be complete and is thus useless for research, is not a valid argument. this list, as is all information (theoretically) on WP, is about NOTABLE vaporware, so will always exclude at least some extremely nonnotable vaporware. even so, because the inclusion criteria, regardless of how well defined they are, will always be subject to some debate, and since we really dont know the complete set of things we could call vaporware, then it MUST always be incomplete, and thats ok for WP. some lists are by definition complete, like, say, the List of centuries. this is not. their other points are potentially valid, though. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 01:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
I see your point, and I could be wrong about the list needing to be 100% complete, but this isn't a list of "notable vaporware". It's a list of (arguably) reliable sources that have used the subjective term "vaporware" to describe the development of a software program, mostly video games. I can't think of a use for that kind of information, and as somebody in the last afd mentioned, it invites people to come here and add subjective things. — Sebquantic ( talk) 03:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
thanks for your acknowledgement, and i think your other arguments for deletion are very compelling, and need to be thoroughly worked through. I suspect the term may be too ambiguous to be used as the basis for a list, similar to "box office bomb", or other industry specific catchphrases. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 23:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but cleanup. For what should essentially be a stand-alone list it's pretty wordy but most entries have their own articles. Get rid of the fluff and keep links to vaporware with articles, then it'll follow the usual guidelines.-- 70.80.234.196 ( talk) 04:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep some stuff is famous for being vaporware, or being vaporware in condition for a long time. (Duke Nukem 4, for instance... or Windows 1.0 which took forever to come out) 65.94.253.16 ( talk) 05:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This is a non-encyclopedic list, we should NOT have a category for this and if we do, it should be deleted as well. Too ambiguous and problematic to possibly maintain. Subjective lists have no place on Wikipedia, sorry. JBsupreme ( talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 06:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The computer business is notorious for vapourware and its nice to see a wikipedia article about the subject. Its well referenced and although it could be improved should not be removed. -- Gibnews ( talk) 10:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Gibnews David V Houston ( talk) 12:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Gibnews doesn't actually make a compelling argument to retain this subjective list. Is that all you have to say? JBsupreme ( talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 21:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. ( Search video game sources) • Gene93k ( talk) 22:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 22:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 22:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and trim to sourced statements by RS calling list entries vaporware. There's no reason that such a list isn't encyclopedic: vaporware is an established concept that appears routinely in IT/gaming industry press. Jclemens ( talk) 23:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Are you volunteering to clean up and maintain the page? -- intgr  [talk] 01:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
      • I've removed the unsourced entries now. I also removed those articles from "vaporware" categories, and that made me think - is a Vaporware category and sub-categories something we want, too? It has the same problem as this list - people tagging articles as a matter of opinion. Mdwh ( talk) 11:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I would tend towards Jclemens choice above, except that i suspect the list would shrink too much to be useful, and i also am concerned about the labeling of any software or software company with this epithet. its POV to cite the phrase being used if its not a significant opinion. the word has too many shades of meaning, and when taken out of context, ends up like "bomb" or "in development hell" in movies (some lists of films/projects in dev hell were deleted for the same reasons being proposed here). reviewing some of the items listed, many link to articles where the ONLY mention of "vaporware" is in their category listing, with no reliable sources quoted. the article may describe a history which justifies the brand, but i would still prefer that only products which were labelled vaporware by a major reviewer be called such. i think the category may have to go too. it seems to subjective, too informal, too gossipy for a list or category. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 23:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per my previous nomination. I think an article of notable vaporware products would be useful, IFF it had a paragraph written for each entry explaining what happened and why it's notable. But then it wouldn't be a "list" alone anymore. -- intgr  [talk] 01:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep (but cleanup). The article as it stands is messy, but clearly there is room for a list of notable vapo[u]rware on Wikipedia. Richard W.M. Jones ( talk) 17:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - As a list of "things that never existed" it is not, and can never be, encyclopedic content. Even if confined to "things that reliable sources have called vapourware" a complete list would be "far too long to be of value", which per WP:SALAT is an indicator of an inappropriate topic for a list. - DustFormsWords ( talk) 07:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I've tried to maintain the list so that it's at least based on what a 3rd party source lists, and not what any random editor thinks (which is a recipe for disaster), but there's still the problem that it's a vague term and a matter of opinion - and often a label that's used to ridicule a product or company. Whilst Wired's list might be notable for example, I'm not sure this is really enough for its own article. Particularly notable and well referenced articles can be mentioned either in vaporware, or it can be stated on the article for the product itself (e.g., Duke Nukem Forever) - I'm not sure a list is needed. Mdwh ( talk) 11:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as an unmaintainable list. A few of these games would certainly pass WP:N and WP:V on an individual basis, but on the whole the list will always boil down to original research. If a particular game is noted for being vaporware then it can be mentioned in that particular article, added to Category:Vaporware and mentioned (again, only if it's particularly notable for such) in the Vaporware article. As much as this list tries to meet criteria, it will always have the factor of opinion driving it, whether critical or not, making it not verifiable. -- Teancum ( talk) 14:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as it is difficult to see how this list can be maintainable under the circumstances. RFerreira ( talk) 18:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete It's an ambiguous way of labelling something as having not been completed or comercially released, one which is actively disputed by fans of whatever piece of software is in question. Vapourware is one of those terms where applying the label seems to be more about increasing the label's profile than classifying the thing in question in a meaningful way, if you get my drift. There are numerous alternative ways to catalogue unreleased (but notable) software without compiling a list using this divisive term. Any strongly associated games etc. like the last Duke Nukem can be covered as examples in the vapourware article itself. Someone another 06:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Note: Vaporware is being rewritten, and includes a lot of the examples still on this list. Either because they're notable (Ovation, DNF), or because they help describe how the term's meaning has broadened over time (Secure Digital Music INitiative) — Sebquantic ( talk) 12:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as this list fails WP:NOT#DIR as it has no verifiable source, without which it is just listcruft without any externally validated rationale for inclusion in Wikipedia. A list needs some form of external validation in accordance with WP:BURDEN to demonstrate that it is not entirely novel or the product of original research, and looking at the content of this list, its lack of souring that suggest it is entirely original research. -- Gavin Collins ( talk| contribs) 07:56, 18 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) 18:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Blank State

Blank State (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional/ WP:COI article for a self-published book of questionable notability. Provided references are either primary sources or local media. No significant coverage from established independent reliable sources. TheRealFennShysa ( talk) 23:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - Article is promotional in nature. "Blank Slate" by Dave Proctor, and published by Wooden Rocket Press (founded by Dave Proctor) has been created by user:Dvproctor, and the above keep vote is by user:Woodenrocketpress. Aside from these conflict of interest issues, there is the concern about sourcing. The only independent sourcing in the article is sourced to two University of Toronto newspapers. This doesn't establish notability. My own searches find no coverage outside of this. -- Whpq ( talk) 17:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not even in WorldCat. I might have deleted it by speedy, as G11, promotional. DGG ( talk ) 17:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. The University of Toronto newspapers mentioned aren't jokes, and many of their staff have gone on to prestigious media jobs, and others to academic positions. Circulation for each is about 20,000. More to the point, they take their cultural coverage seriously, which is why the Varsity calls its entertainment section Review rather than Entertainment. On that basis, I think that these two student newspapers are reliable sources. PureGrainAudio.com also appears to be a reliable online source, on the basis of the explanation at http://puregrainaudio.com/about

I think a review in The Varsity is a strong indication for notability in a Canadian novel. The article seems reasonably neutral, despite the COI issues. At the same time, I am not impressed by the absence of the book from WorldCat, which is why this is only a weak keep. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 19:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

not a formal requirement, but we've usually had reviews from at least two publications for books passing afd. And I do not accept the reviews of even a major student newspaper as showing notability for a book or any other work by a student or alumnus of that college. DGG ( talk ) 20:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I have a problem with someone writing a WP page about their own book. If it becomes notable in the future, someone independent from it will create an article. In addition, I'm having trouble finding any RS that demonstrate notability. PDCook ( talk) 21:04, 16 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) 15:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Mesrine (musical)

Mesrine (musical) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Independent concept album/musical of questionable notability. No coverage listed in independent third-party sources, no reviews, no assertations of importance. TheRealFennShysa ( talk) 23:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I also could not find any proof of notability online.-- Banana ( talk) 22:48, 11 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) 15:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Allegra Carpenter

Allegra Carpenter (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ENT. A quick look at the subject's Fashion Model Directory profile shows a very minor model's career. The models.com credit the article mentions is a single sentence.  Mbinebri  talk ← 23:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - not notable enough. Deb ( talk) 17:06, 11 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. Rough consensus is that none of the available sources serve to sufficiently establish notability. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 21:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science

International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail WP:ORG. Known in the fringe circles the professional organization to which cold fusion researchers belong, but due to the general ignoring by secondary and independent sources of this field in general, this organization does not have the requisite independent notice we require at Wikipedia for organizations. See the related deletion discussion for this society's secretary. ScienceApologist ( talk) 21:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

This seems a rather blatant attempt to discredit serious research and science, just because it is in an unpopular (untrendy) area. If this work is not considered scientific, are you going to delete all the articles about religions, too?
What exactly is the point in deleting the page in any case? The page is a useful starting point. quota ( talk) 07:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Unlike most notable religions, there are no independent sources which discuss this group. ScienceApologist ( talk) 15:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply


  • Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren C 08:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I have added some sources that show notability for the subject. Silver seren C 08:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
You've done no such thing. You've added a number of external links to cold fusion advocacy websites. How does this establish independent notability? ScienceApologist ( talk) 15:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. While the whole cold fusion area seems to have the scientific merit usually found in perpetual motion research, the subject of this article has received enough coverage and has been cited several times in scientific publications as a main resource for research in this area (by sources including the Wiley Encyclopedia of Energy and Springer). The society also sponsors an international conference in Condensed Matter Nuclear Sciences. Fleischmann and Pons have a lot to answer for, but this organization appears to be notable.-- Michig ( talk) 11:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Michig, what are the exact Springer & wiley mentions? Do they refer to the organization, or are they refs to papers presented at their conferences? DGG ( talk ) 21:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The Springer one is from the Journal of Fusion Energy ( [50]) - I can't access the whole paper unfortunately. I also found this from a researcher at Osaka University. The Wiley one is here - a sample of a publication from [ John Wiley & Sons].-- Michig ( talk) 06:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
I just checked all these papers. All of them refer to papers presented at their conference and NOT the organization. ScienceApologist ( talk) 00:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Just to be clear, the Wiley one includes in a list of resources: "The International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science is an independent, international nonprofit organization registered in England which represents and supports researchers in the field of condensed matter nuclear science. ISCMNS organizes scientific meetings, supports communication within the scientific community, and provides recognition for outstanding achievements in the CMNS field.", and the Takahashi one includes "The International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science is an independent, international nonprofit organization registered in England which represents and supports researchers in the field of condensed matter nuclear science. ISCMNS organizes scientific meetings, supports communication within the scientific community, and provides recognition for outstanding achievements in the CMNS field." Not significant coverage, I agree, and likely based on the same 'official' description of the society. -- Michig ( talk) 05:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Using Takahashi, an ardent cold fusion proponent, as a way to establish the encyclopedic nature of this organization does not seem to be on the up-and-up to me. The Encyclopedia of Energy is essentially a glorified Citizendium that was singled out by the cold fusion community to be used as a propaganda piece for their advocacy. (You'll note that the only nuclear power entries for the encyclopedia to be reserved are those associated with cold fusion.) So, sure, if you let a cold fusion advocate wax eloquent in your encyclopedia about cold fusion, they'll probably get around to mentioning this particular organization. How does this make the subject encyclopedic or reliably sourced from our end? ScienceApologist ( talk) 15:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral the organization may (in some circles) be notorious rather than famous, but 'notorious' is notable, no? OTOH, the article as stands doesn't really seem to me to have much useful information. David V Houston ( talk) 12:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Masquerading as a valid scientific organization. In-universe coverage from cold fusion fringe proponents does not show notability, and the independent coverage can essentially be summed up by appending "a society of cold fusion proponents" as appropriate where the Society is mentioned elsewhere. - 2/0 ( cont.) 17:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The members of the society seem to be perfectly respectable scientists, almost all from well-known scientific institutions, and their publications are peer-reviewed. Most have nothing to do with 'cold fusion'. No masquerade seems evident, and the organization is properly constituted. I agree the article could use some fleshing out. quota ( talk) 11:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
    • That they "seem" to you to be one way or another is irrelevant. All have something to do with cold fusion. I'm not even sure how you are coming to this judgment. ScienceApologist ( talk) 00:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
    • It's clear they all have some interest in the field that the organization covers, and the field includes topics similar to 'cold fusion'. But looking at the publications of some of the members shows that they have much wider interests, and not primarily in 'cold fusion'. Sorry I wasn't more clear. As to their respectability, they are members of respected institutions, including MIT, SRI, GSU, ENEA, etc. So the organization is established, scientific, runs and organizes conferences, helps publish papers, and is undoubtably the focus for research in its field. All of the above make it notable. (Why delete the article anyway? To save a few bytes of storage?) quota ( talk) 12:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
      • The field does not just "include" cold fusion. The field is cold fusion. The cold fusion community renamed their subject Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) and Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (CMNS) to avoid the stigma of "cold fusion". That the society has members who are active at prestigious institutions is irrelevant to their notability and relevance for Wikipedia. A number of people I know at prestigious institutions are members of a wide range of organizations -- many of which are not encyclopedic. The membership of the organization, unless noted by third-party independent sources as being notable is irrelevant to our discussion here. The rationale behind deleting this article is simply that it is impossible to write a neutral and source-based article since the only sources that are extant which discuss the society are primary sources supporting the goals and aims of the society. No independent notice means that an organization necessarily fails our notability guideline. Please read WP:ORG for more. ScienceApologist ( talk) 15:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Scientific publications that mention these sorts of things mention this. Click the Google news search at the top of the AFD. Credible news organizations do speak of this organization, so its notable. Dream Focus 23:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply
ZPEnergy is not a "credible news organization". ScienceApologist ( talk) 00:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete This is a fringe organization and the only sources I've been able to find for them is ZPEnergy, which seems to be a news portal that is currently seeking corespondents from its discussion groups. No way does that pass the RS smell test. Most other references to the group appear to be made by members of the group. AniMate 01:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete ZP energy is not a credible source. it does not have wide multiple sources. LibStar ( talk) 02:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I reviewed all the sources, and there are none which establish notability. Apparently there is not even a mention in anything approaching a reliable source per the WP standsrds. I am not making any judgment about the reality-bais of sites such as www.zpenergy.com, I'm merely saying that such mentions on a cold fusion website, and mentions like the brief note here cannot give us the remotest possibility of writing an NPOV article. Becritical ( talk) 16:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete- after checking all the sources in the article and having a bit of a poke around on Google, I agree entirely with Becritical's analysis. Reyk YO! 23:33, 16 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) 15:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply

William Collis

William Collis (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail WP:BIO. I am not seeing third-party sources that establish his notability. See the related AfD for the international society of which he is a secretary. ScienceApologist ( talk) 21:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Doesn't appear to be a widely-cited academic, and there is nothing else to suggest notability.-- Michig ( talk) 11:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Has a job is about all this says. Bluehotel ( talk) 14:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete WP:PROF. - 2/0 ( cont.) 17:53, 11 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) 15:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Dominic S John

Dominic S John (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I declined the CSD here because some notability was asserted, and PRODded it instead. The PROD was removed without comment. I can find nothing about this person that isn't created by themselves (blogs, flickr, myfdb pages) both under the article name, under "Dom John", "Dominic Sebastian John", or "Dominic John". (note there's an unrelated article of a pianist under the name Dominic John, which was also unsourced though I'm trying to fix that now). Black Kite 18:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:35, 11 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) 15:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply

3B/RTR Spades

AfDs for this article:
3B/RTR Spades (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a game guide. Also, there are no sources for this article. A Google search for the game returns no information on this game except from Wikipedia mirrors. ctzmsc3| talk 17:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Not a game guide. Not a redirect term either. Cynof Gavuf 07:10, 11 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) 18:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Terrell Golden

Terrell Golden (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Never played professionally, fails WP:ATH. Non-notable college career. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. — Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Article was created as a result of an AFC request when Golden was on the Eagles' roster. Of course, he was later cut before the season started, so I have no objection to the outcome of the AfD. Enigma msg 17:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and no other assertion of notability is given.  Frank  |   talk  18:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep article has cited sources, there appear to be many more on the web, and subject matter appears notable through general notability guideline. As an alternative, the data could be merged into the college team article for that year. While I have a problem with the content of the article (it does not appear to "strongly assert" notability) it's borderline to me and could be re-written. I'm not particularly enthusiastic about this subject so I'm not going to do that, but someone else might.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 03:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - fails WP:Athlete as he has never played professionally. I don't see separate compliance with WP:GNG. Of the sources, 2 links are broken, one is an incidental mention and two consist of college stats. Further, I note that he is not considered significant enough to warrant a mention in the Penn State Nittany Lions football article. Bridgeplayer ( talk) 20:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Comment not being listed in the Penn State football program Wikipedia page is not a reason to delete, as Wikipedia is far from complete. Google News shows a good 500+ articles.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 23:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Of the hits on Google News, few seem to be both independent and about him (the only one I saw that seriously seemed to be was from Sports Illustrated). There seemed to be a fair bit of mention of his signing with the Eagles, but as he was dropped without playing for them, I don't suppose that counts as notable. Several other hits seemed to be of other people entirely. David V Houston ( talk) 17:41, 18 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) 15:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Travelfusion

Travelfusion (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. No evidence of notability - just another travel search engine, not the biggest, not the best, not award winning, etc. References are all based on PR material. Fails WP:COMPANY, WP:RS andy ( talk) 11:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

References are not based on PR material and in fact are Reliable Sources based on the WP:RS standards of "news organisations." Tnooz, EyeForTravel and TravelMole are all considered to be industry leaders in travel technology media and therefore would be acceptable as reliable news organisations. The company is also the only one of its competitors to use location-based trip planning through GoogleMaps, allowing users to plug in specific geographic data/addresses to find the most convenient travel options. Kefinlondon ( talk) 10:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)KefinLondon reply

  • Of course they're not reliable sources! They are clearly rewrites of press releases - and sometimes not even rewrites. E.g. ref #2: "TRAVELfusion, a world leader in travel commerce, announces the launch of…" and ref #5: "TRAVELfusion, a world leader in travel commerce, announces the launch of…" andy ( talk) 12:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • And your argument against Tnooz as a reliable source? Would you be more comfortable if I removed the EyeForTravel references then? Kefinlondon ( talk) 12:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)KefinLondon reply
  • The reliability of these particular publishers is irrelevant. WP:RS clearly states that reliability is affected by the publisher, the author and the piece of work itself. An advert in the NYT, for example, is not reliable while a properly sourced piece written by a journalist would be. Rewritten PR material is not reliable. andy ( talk) 12:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:32, 11 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) 18:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Where's Olivia?

AfDs for this article:
Where's Olivia? (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
List Of Where's Olivia? Episodes (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable direct-to-video sitcom, search returns only false positives. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 09:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:32, 11 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. After evaluating the consensus here, it appears that the subject does not meet the relevant notability guidelines. NW ( Talk) 03:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Stephen Canning

AfDs for this article:
Stephen Canning (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability. This is no black-and-white case, but it is my suggestion that no single achievement (yet) of Stephen's accrues suitable notability, and that in examining the general notability, we find that sustained coverage is present in local sources, but not in national ones. Whilst the GNG makes no direct mention of a "national" source, I believe it is in the spirit of both the GNG and specific guidelines ( WP:POLITICIAN in this case) to limit notability to people near the top of their field. Taking the subject's most easily assessed achievement (Chairman of a Con.Fut. group), I find that there are many such groups and therefore they are not "province-wide" or similar. In fact, the bar set by WP:POLITICIAN is higher than Stephen's level. - Jarry1250  Humorous? Discuss. 08:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. As a local council candidate, falls well below the standard of WP:POLITICIAN. The coverage of this guy is nowhere near sufficient enough to pass the WP:GNG. The news source cited is plainly unreliable; reliable news sources do not give one-sided coverage of candidates plus a gratuitous link to the candidate's blog [51]. It is critical to uphold the reliable sources part of the GNG because without reliable sources we have unreliable articles. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 18:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The position as the youngest permanent advisor to the Home Secretary which remains notable in two aspects - one being the position of an advisor is notable in itself the second being the achievement of youngest advisor is also notable. These days the extra-Parliamentary coalition of conservative groups is becoming more important in preparing the Tory Party for government, much as happened in the 1970s. The YBF is a part of this and as such the people behind it are of note. I also direct you to the Wikipedia Bio guidelines for politcians in which point number two states "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterionof "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." In this case the subject is an unelected candidate of office and has significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. In this case we can clearly say that there is significant coverage to satisfy the Wikipedia General notability Guideline that "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. -- Swbcanning ( talk) 13:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 23:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 23:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Local political activist who fails WP:POLITICIAN. Mentions in the local party newsletter do not get you notability in the Wikipedia sense. Ray Talk 00:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep per Swbcanning. Although it's certainly on the line... Outback the koala ( talk) 07:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete in mainspace; possibly convert to user page -- Swbcanning is presumably the subject of the article. I therefore give little credence to his views. The article certainly has good citations, but that does not prevent the subject being NN. An "unelected candidate" almost invariably fails WP:POLITICIAN. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep Although questionable in my opinion swbcanning's argument is pretty thorough and solid hwoever I'd reiterate my previous point on the main discussion page that some other sort of independent source would be nice. Jasonbruges ( talk) 17:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Total fail on WP:POLITICIAN and too much WP:COI on the rest. Andy Dingley ( talk) 18:44, 14 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) 15:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply

2 Faces

2 Faces (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Rapper that seems to fail WP:MUSICBIO. The only Ghits I could find were YouTube and unsourced wikis. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete no notability shown, lacks coverage in reliable sources. duffbeerforme ( talk) 09:35, 12 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) 15:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Scourge (Band)

Scourge (Band) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non- notable band which has not yet even released an album. The article provides a few sources, but these are an interview and some unreliable website coverage. In most of it, there's practically no mention of this band at all. Fails WP:BAND. PROD contested by anonymous user without comment.  Glenfarclas  ( talk) 05:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:29, 11 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) 15:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Cinema 1-2-3

Cinema 1-2-3 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

notability PacificBoy 04:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:28, 11 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. JForget 00:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

George Patterson (psychologist)

George Patterson (psychologist) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

His biggest claim to notability is being part of the trio who sang the Gilligan's Island theme song. Clarityfiend ( talk) 03:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Nominators right. The sources are all to some website's primary page and those don't have enough in ways of assertion to keep. Cynof Gavuf 07:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep Enough there to establish notability, although it's really on the line. Reliable sources - the acknowledgment from the President of the US and Gov. of Cali. stand out also. Outback the koala ( talk) 07:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Outback the koala ( talk) 01:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC) reply
    • What reliable sources? duffbeerforme ( talk) 11:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC) reply
      • Comment. Good point. There are none. Even the ones for the Sierra Tucson Treatment Center and the Glendale Memorial Hospital don't mention him, as far as I can see. Plus, you'd think he would note that on his resume (fifth reference). Clarityfiend ( talk) 20:14, 15 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 Jesse Fritsch. Redirecting on the advice of the only !voter. Consider this a no consensus close. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Sayvinyl

Sayvinyl (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Neutral bump up from speedy. Please see discussion on the article's talk page. I have no opinion. Chaser ( talk) 02:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Why don't they just do it? If they want it deleted, then they should do it if they want it done so bad. Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 05:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Jesse Fritsch. award isn't good enough in my eyes, music in some ads or playing on a seemingly non notable show doesn't make notable. sandiegoreader looks user edited. legacy.signonsandiego.com coverage is trivial. skratchmagazine is short and is of questionably reliability. I found no significant coverage in independent sources. duffbeerforme ( talk) 11:45, 14 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) 15:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Mian Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq Zia

Mian Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq Zia (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I removed the {{ db-person}} because notability is asserted. However, searches for sources return no results to confirm that this person exists. I used this Google search (with the search term: "صُوفِيّ میاں محمد ضياء الحق ضياء") and this Google search (with the search term: "Mian Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq Zia"). If/when a reliable source is provided to confirm the subject's existence, I will withdraw this nomination. Cunard ( talk) 01:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:22, 11 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. JForget 00:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Master Title Deed

Master Title Deed (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a hoax or an article about a non-notable hoax. See also two references I added to the article's Talk page. Nurg ( talk) 00:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:20, 11 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) 15:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Wayne Loren Wilson

Wayne Loren Wilson (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable author. DimaG ( talk) 00:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I can't even verify he exists from Google books, scholar, or news; all of which produce Zero Ghits. (Go ahead, try it yourself from the links above). I found only 38 hits on Bing, including this article, and most are duds, like his NY Times listing. Bearian ( talk) 20:36, 12 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) 15:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Doghouse Fan Series: As Friends Rust

Doghouse Fan Series: As Friends Rust (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(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☯ 17:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:19, 11 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. A quick google search indicates it's not a hoax though. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Two Steps Waltz

Two Steps Waltz (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable dance. Might be a hoax. DimaG ( talk) 00:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:17, 11 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. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC) reply

I-OOA

I-OOA (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable software DimaG ( talk) 04:16, 28 March 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) 00:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:13, 11 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_April_11&oldid=1142642837"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 10 April 12 April >

Purge server cache

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

The result was Procedural close. Article was moved, remade, moved more, remade more, and ultimately deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Indian people.

This AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. (non-admin closure) jp× g 09:23, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply

East Indians (ethnic group)

East Indians (ethnic group) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Author requested G7 — Spaceman Spiff 19:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Kripa Menon

Kripa Menon (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article should be deleted because it is blank Semiticsmile ( talk) 17:19, 11 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 nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Intelligent sium 02:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Rae'Ven L Kelly

AfDs for this article:
Rae'Ven L Kelly (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail WP:ENT; she has not been in major roles that I can find, merely as "young X", minor characters and brief guest appearances on TV. Ironholds ( talk) 22:47, 11 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. JForget 01:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Vicki Noon

Vicki Noon (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only a small assertation of notability. Found absolutely no sources save for this. Having a notable role in a play ≠ notability, especially without any reliable sources to back up. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:01, 11 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) 02:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Glynn Geddie

Glynn Geddie (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable racing driver. Jonathan McLeod ( talk) 22:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  • That should be "comment", not "delete" - your vote is implicit in the nomination. The only relevant test for notability on Wikipedia is WP:N, "significant coverage in reliable indpendent sources", which has some explanatory guidelines. Either he has such coverage (and the links above suggest he has) or he doesn't. If he has the coverage , what events he competes in is really not relevant. - 23:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Yes, but is the coverage significant? It's not hard to appear in the press. Both I and my grandmother have been in articles in our local paper, and my dad once appeared on the local TV news (nothing bad!), but I don't think any of us really deserve a page on Wikipedia. Three of the sources given above are just press releases from either Geddies' agent or team, two in minor motorsport news sites and one in Geddie's local paper. The other two are race reports of which one is on a Porsche parts supplier website and the other is on the site of the company which I suspect does the coverage of the series for ITV4, a minor national channel in the UK. I don't think you could argue that the national press is taking notice of Geddie just yet. Note also from WP:N: "routine news coverage such as announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not a sufficient basis for a topic to have its own standalone article." 4u1e ( talk) 12:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Jonathan is right in that he should not really have an article on Wikipedia. If every racing driver who had an article written about them on the internet had a Wikipedia page about them it would be utter madness. However, it seems the guidelines do not meet this, and so it is a tricky one. - mspete 93 22:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. According to the suggested criteria at WP:ATHLETE it suggests that they should have competed at fully professional level. His current series efforts are all labelled Pro-Am, suggesting quite firmly that it is not a fully professional league. This in motor racing terms quite generous critera measures Geddie as failing athlete notability. -- Falcadore ( talk) 04:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete He's a very junior driver racing in a one-make national series and is in his first season as a professional this year. There doesn't appear to be any notable mention of him in the relevant media. Search didn't throw up any mention of his name on www.autosport.com, for example. Google shows mainly promotional sites, press releases and some race reports. My opinion is that he's one step short of meeting notability - were he to win something at the next level up then I guess he'd be scraping in. Did we ever define notability guidlines for WP:MOTOR? 4u1e ( talk) 12:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I think we definitely need to set some sort of minimum requirements in terms of acheivements in certain championships. Last year we had one user create articles for all of the teams and drivers in Euroseries 3000, a series that receives very little coverage. Here, for example, are WikiProject Football's guidlines: [1] - mspete 93 12:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC) reply
I've got a vague recollection that the project may have discussed it once. Worth asking back at the project page. If not, then we probably should create some, although perhaps after this deletion discussion ends. 4u1e ( talk) 12:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The main reason I brought this to the attention at WT:MOTOR was to see what people thought about driver notability because I'm worried it'll start getting out of hand if we don't take a stance. This example, though, is clearly a case of someone close to the driver creating an article. - mspete 93 12:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC) reply
With no policy guideline at WP:MOTOR, the criteria at WP:ATHLETE can be interpreted quite generously towards motor racing, and by this criteria he fails by any interpretation. -- Falcadore ( talk) 02:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Created by an account called Spindriftmedia - looking at the driver's website it states "Copyright © 2010 all rights reserved. Spindrift Media". Clearly a single purpose account which is only creating pages on subjects in which the user has a conflict of interest. Readro ( talk) 22:14, 17 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. JForget 01:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Plot immunity

AfDs for this article:
Plot immunity (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural. Previous AfD was tainted by sockpuppetry (see SPI investigation) and the outcome may well have been different without the sock !votes. I am neutral. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Delete seems like pure, unadulterated OR or some odd twist off of deus ex machina; if actual reliable sources aren't using the term or covering it, it isn't legit and it isn't worthy of inclusion here. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 12:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete too much OR and no reputable sources to fix it. Sadads ( talk) 13:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into deus ex machina, as it seems difficult to source. I'd be open to a rescue if anyone wants to work on this one. Bearian ( talk) 19:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: As much as I want to find a way to keep the article, there are no sources and the term doesn't seem to exist in scholarship or reliable sources. - Phoenixrod ( talk) 22:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I'm bummed out because this is an interesting article, but I found no mention of it in any articles in Google News Archives, Google Books, or journals. I don't know enough about the subject to find anything in paper sources. Burpelson AFB ( talk) 03:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I'm afraid this has to be deleted. The G search only pulls up mirror sites. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 00:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - As interesting as this is, it has no sources and consists almost entirely of OR. I think someone has mistaken Wikipedia for TV Tropes. Reyk YO!
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 E-mail encryption. JForget 01:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Cryptomail

Cryptomail (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be some sort of email service (I say "appears to be" because the article's title isn't even mentioned in the article) that doesn't pass WP:WEB. Couldn't find any reliable Ghits. Erpert (let's talk about it) 23:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Unless the term "cryptomail" is a plausible redirect that really does refer to encrypted e-mail (such as that encrypted with PGP), delete. Otherwise make it a redirect to E-mail encryption again (check history). PleaseStand (talk) 01:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • redirect to E-mail encryption based on the original article looking through the history. It'a portmanteau word for encrypted email that never caught on much, but I do see some usage of it. -- Whpq ( talk) 16:42, 14 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 Deletion per WP:CSD#A7 Polargeo ( talk) 12:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Tango Alpha Tango

Tango Alpha Tango (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No references for this band and searches result in primary sources but no press coverage. Cynof Gavuf 21:45, 11 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. JForget 01:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Scepter (band)

Scepter (band) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about an unsigned Christian heavy metal band. I can find no evidence of coverage in reliable sources to e4stablish notability. As a band, I don't see any evidence they meet any of the notability criteria specific to bands in WP:BAND. The one criteria where they might qualigy is based on an assertion that they were considered "The First Christian Heavy Metal band", but my immediate thought was " Stryper", and considering Stryper formed in 1983, and these guys claim to have formed in 1986, it's not surprising that I can find no evidence to back up that assertion. Whpq ( talk) 20:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ray Talk 20:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I can't even find a MySpace link for this band. (The article also reads like a press release.) Erpert (let's talk about it) 23:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
    • The myspace link to the band is in the article, not that it means anything in the way of sourcing for keeping this article. -- Whpq ( talk) 02:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources found. Not much in unreliable sources either for that matter.-- Michig ( talk) 17:19, 12 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. JForget 01:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Parent-offspring conflict over mating

Parent-offspring conflict over mating (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reads like an essay, one source which may very well be self-referential. Even if this isn't original research, Wikipedia is not a place to publish your essay. 2 says you, says two 20:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. Classic fail of WP:NOT. Ray Talk 21:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:ESSAY. "Mating decisions of offspring do not always comply with the wishes of their parents... The cause of this conflict is genetic: all of the offspring’s genes come from their parents, but not all of parents’ genes are inherited by their offspring." Yeah, maybe on the planet Vulcan. This is an example of drawing the wrong conclusions from an existing source. The cumulative effect of evolutionary trends has little relevance to individual situations. Mandsford ( talk) 21:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Well-written essay, but sadly not what Wikipedia is for. (BTW, Mandsford, WP:ESSAY doesn't apply because that's really a shortcut to a category.) Erpert (let's talk about it) 23:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per nom. - PlainSight ( talk) 01:15, 15 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 Deleted as a recreation of a deleted article (CSD G4). Them From Space 22:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

The Word Alive

AfDs for this article:
The Word Alive (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Still not notable? ××× BrightBlackHeaven( talk)××× 20:32, 11 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. Tone 10:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Chris M. Allport

Chris M. Allport (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable minor actor, apparently most notable for "dubb[ing] the crowing sounds for Robin Williams" in a scene in Hook. I can't find any evidence of his alleged upcoming pilot American Michael, and the most significant coverage of him is a couple of lines in this LA Times article from thirteen years ago. Fails WP:ENT. An apparent autobiography.  Glenfarclas  ( talk) 20:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Comment Some of THESE appear to be our Chris M Allport... who does not always use his middle initial. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC) reply
As MQS has pointed out, the subject has won some awards that, in my opinion, establish notability. References have been added for the awards and while their may be a COI, I believe that the article should be kept and cleaned of any COI info. OlYeller Talktome 06:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and futher improve, and warn author that COI requires he best not edit the article. Now that the article belongs to Wikipedia, and after doing some digging, and with respects to those opining delete, the man appears to meet notability through WP:ANYBIO in that from 1991 to 1996 he has three times won and three times been nominated for a Young Artist Award. That he has not won an award lately does not matter as notability is not temporary. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Notable voice actor, in notable roles, and he's won awards for his work as well. And he's done work other than voice acting as well, of course. Dream Focus 00:08, 18 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. JForget 01:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Hate man

Hate man (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, but denied speedy UtherSRG (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. [2], [3], [4] and [5] - there's four sources without me even trying - not even counting the ones that Panyd has pulled up. This is the same sort of article as Józef Stawinoga, which at first glance, is about a reclusive, unwashed, unloved tramp who lived in a tent in an English town - however, with a bit more work, he turned out to pass the guideline. Yes, the article needs work, but which articles don't? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry ( talk) 19:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
    Comment Your ref 3 links to Phillip Garrido, accused kidnapper of Jaycee Dugard, and the "backyard prison," and has nothing to do with the subject of this article. Your ref 4 is a campus paper, a class of publication not generally regarded as the most reliable sort of source, but in my estimate comparable to a small town paper. Edison ( talk) 20:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
I wasn't trying very hard - that was a thirty second search on Google Archives. Granted, not the best sources, but Panyd has pulled up some nice ones. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry ( talk) 11:37, 12 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 delete G11. — David Eppstein ( talk) 04:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Jeff Palmer Internet Marketing Consultant

Jeff Palmer Internet Marketing Consultant (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All sources are primary or links to other wikipedia articles. The creator removed speedy tags over and over too. May also be promotional. Cynof Gavuf 19:32, 11 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 London Irish. Stifle ( talk) 08:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC) reply

London Irish Amateur

AfDs for this article:
London Irish Amateur (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Amateur club. Fishead 2100 had nonadmin closed this unilaterally before within the first 24 hours, with the only other comment being from the article's creator.

There are no references other than a primary source, and it's a nonprofessional team. Cynof Gavuf 19:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

*Keep: Not again! We've been through this before. Just because it's an Amateur Club, that doesn't make it automatically not notible. If we went by your reasoning we should delete Queen's Park F.C. as well as this. Anyway the club is a branch of a Premiership club which goes with notibility. The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 19:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Merge: Well, I can see I'm fighting a losing battle so to make sure all my work hasn't been compleatly in vain, I have to accept the merge of all the information into London Irish untill such a time that an acceptable 3rd party source becomes avalible to make LIA suitible for it's own page. The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 16:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:CLUB by any standard. As for "club is a branch of a Premiership club", notability is not inherited. Rodhull andemu 19:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete (ec)- I can find no mention of this club in reliable secondary sources. Despite C of E's claim, branches of organizations do not automatically inherit notability from their parent organizations. Reyk YO! 19:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
According to your reasoning we should delete Sheffield United (Hong Kong) as that is just a branch of Chengdu Blades. The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 19:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Just because other similar articles exist doesn't mean this one automatically should. The other article may meet our inclusion criteria through coverage in independent sources, or maybe it doesn't but Wikipedia just hasn't got around to considering it yet. Reyk YO! 19:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
How about this source or maybe this as some sources from outside the Amateur site? The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk)
Please see WP:SPS; these cannot be used to establish notability. Rodhull andemu 20:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Fishhead nonadmin closed this before while violating a few policies on nonadmin closures in the process, did so within the first 24 hours, when only he and the article's creator had commented, and edit warred about re-oppening it. Cynof Gavuf 21:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Doesn't really matter what happened in the last one. If you had an issue with it, you should have done something about it at the time. Ged UK  16:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment The page now has a few 3rd party sources so that art of the nomination I believe is WP:STALE. And as for the second part of it just being a non-professional team, then if this page is deleted because of that, afterwards you should delete Queen's Park F.C. and Harlequin Amateurs as they are non-proffesional teams and so (according to CynofGavuf's resoning) they must be deleted too. The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 07:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Weak delete From current sources.
  • [9] is not in depth coverage
  • Anything from http://www.london-irish.com/GetInvolvedAmateurs.ink fails to be indendent from topic.
  • Anything from http://www.rfu.com fails to be independent from the topic since the London Irish is part of rfu.
  • Your local guardian gives indepth coverage. I think local newspapers are usually considered reliable.
  • [10] does not seem to cover the club, rather it covers a specific incidence that took place at the club. So not nontrivial coverage.
  • [11] [12] These article gives a play by play of a matches against the London Irish. I am not sure if I consider this as nontrivial coverage of the club, although it's far more borderline than the above.
  • [13] match results. Clearly trivial coverage.
We have indepth coverage from a single local newspaper, which I consider insufficient to establish notability. Taemyr ( talk) 08:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
A Merge should be unproblematic though. Taemyr ( talk) 12:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC) reply

How about this source? [14]? The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 08:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Also I have found a source here that says that LIA's ground also contains London Irish's Headquaters which must at least have some notibility. The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 08:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fishhead2100 (who uses a signature saying "Mr. C.C.") has given strings of links, but they are mostly just brief match reports in local media, trivial mentions, and at least one which does not even mention London Irish Amateur, (though it has an indirect connection). Fishhead2100 says "I could keep going, but you get this idea." Yes, I do indeed, but not perhaps the idea that Fishhead2100 had in mind. As for the arguments put forward by the one other "keep" editor (The C of E, author of the article), we are given the notion that notability is inherited, the notion that the article should exist because there are other articles with no more justification, links to the club's own site and a site selling tickets for it (described by The C of E as "sources"), and a link to a Wikimapia aerial photograph of a football ground, with a note saying it is the home ground of the London Irish Amateur. However, The C of E provides nothing at all that relates even vaguely to the notability guidelines. JamesBWatson ( talk) 09:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment Although it is not relevant to a decision on whether or not to delete, I should like to say that the behaviour of Fishhead2100 in the previous AfD was appalling. The first time this editor non-admin closed the AfD doing so could not, in my view, be justified, but perhaps there is room for disagreement, as the nomination was not well done. However, the second time the same editor closed the AfD it was clearly unacceptable. By this time the defects in the nomination had been put right (statement had been added that there were no references etc). The correct thing to do was to invite better explanations as to why the article was nominated, not to repeatedly remove the nomination. JamesBWatson ( talk) 09:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply

You seem to have missed that the wikimapedia source also gives that the HQ of the Parent club is located at the same ground that the amateur team plays at. The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 09:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
All together now - NOTABILITY IS NOT INHERITED. Standing in my garage does not make me a Skoda, being sited in the grounds does not make the pie stand notable either. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 10:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
I don't see that anything was missed. The link is to a page which gives no evidence whatever of notability for either of the teams: all it does is show us what the ground looks like from the air and tells us that it is their ground. 79.123.75.127 ( talk) 12:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply

OK, one last try. this source shows that it recieved a grant from Irish government which they must deem as notible as they are giving them money to be supported. The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 10:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply

The Irish Government gives small grants to many, many, hundreds of organisations overseas (that document just deals with the UK) that deal with Irish emigrants, from large groups such as the FIS and GAA, right down to a few hundred pounds here and there to refurbish Irish expat's clubs. It certainly doesn't make any of those groups notable in themselves (as you'll see when you look down the list). Black Kite (t) (c) 11:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Some years ago I received a government grant to contribute towards the cost of insulating my home. That does not make me notable enough for a Wikipedia article. 79.123.75.127 ( talk) 12:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment Just one thing I think I ought to mention to the closing admin. You should count the votes manually as the automatic AFD statistics are not recognising some of the votes cast here and so the article could be dealt with in a way that is not what consensus has been voted for. The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 19:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Errr - what automatic AfD statistics? Come to that, what votes, and what manual count? AfD is not a vote - the closing admin has the job of considering the policy arguments put forward, not counting the votes. 50 fans can !vote to keep an article, but all it takes is one or two people pointing out correctly that it fails notability standards; or conversely, 50 people can argue that it's cruft, and two people with good Google-fu (or a reference library) turn up 20 sources. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 23:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and then hide from my son who is a London Irish fan and can beat me in a fair fight despite only being 15 and I am over 6ft tall and fit. Guy ( Help!) 21:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. A lot of amateur clubs are generally not notable, but I'm a little concerned whether this content should be kept by merging it into a more notable club. Both clubs do have different players. If there are any highly notable players in an amateur club I would keep the content, but not at the moment. In other words I entirely agree with Rodhullandemu on this nomination. Minima c ( talk) 15:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Well it says here Irish internationals Justin Bishop and Kieran Campbell came from the club, so is that what you might consider notible? The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 15:18, 18 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 delete. I confirm Reyx's lack of results, and I speedy delete this as a hoax DGG ( talk ) 20:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Battle of Exakameron

Battle of Exakameron (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Likely hoax. I can find no google hits for "Exakameron", "Ikhsaqemahin" or "Leo Herzschnitt" outside of Wikipedia and it's mirrors. Two of the four sources, the Journal of East African Affairs and the Transactions of the Colonial Society appear not to exist either; at least I can't find them in Google Books or Google scholar (there is a Transactions of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, but that's on a whole different continent).

I'm also suspicious of the fact that, eight minutes after it was created, the article was reviewed by an editor who has made no edits to Wikipedia before or since. At the risk of looking like I'm assuming bad faith it looks to me like it might be a sneaky way to get a hoax article out of the sight of article reviewers.

I had proposed this for deletion, but the prod was declined by an IP who felt that "Exakameron" was a spelling mistake. However, I find this implausible because one of the purported sources uses the word "Exakameron" in the title, so it is unlikely to be a spelling error. Reyk YO! 19:10, 11 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 don't think there's any original content to be merged, but if someone would like to check, I can userfy for them or restore and redirect. Stifle ( talk) 08:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Albanian colonisation of Kosovo

Albanian colonisation of Kosovo (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was originally going to be speedy deleted as G3 (obvious vandalism), but I'd much prefer an AfD - it doesn't quite meet the standards for G3. Opinions Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry ( talk) 18:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect to History of Ottoman Kosovo. Essentially a pov fork. Ray Talk 21:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. kedadial 22:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This can also be covered in Albanians in Kosovo. Mandsford ( talk) 22:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Numerous sources has been removed from article, in order to minimize its importance, and now, it is requested on AfD, by POV pushing pro-Albanian editor. Give article a chance. This is historical information that need it's own article, specially in the moment of Kosovo disputed status. Citing from talk page:

This article has been created by the editor of Serbian nationality in order to offend Ethnic Albanians living in Kosovo

It is unrelated who created this article. Is this main reason for the delete? I think so. Article should be expanded, so it's relevance can be seen easier then. -- Tadija taking 00:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Aren't you Kosovo-topic banned, for 2 weeks? kedadial 18:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
No. And you should not worry about me, thanks anyway! -- Tadija taking 01:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Tadija is Balkans topic banned but only regarding articles.-- — ZjarriRrethues —  talk 16:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
No, i am not topic banned. You should stop talking about me, that is violation of wiki rules. -- Tadija taking 17:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
[15] according to this you are under editing restrictions.-- — ZjarriRrethues —  talk 17:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
As the administrator who placed that restriction, I can confirm that it applies only to articlespace and not the Wikipedia: namespace (such as AFD discussions). The Wordsmith Communicate 17:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, it must be delete because it is historical nonsense, it where the serbs that came from oeral to colonise the balkan-- Vinie 007 04:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, This article represents serbian POV. It's title is formed in a propagandistic style, trying to build a historical falseness. Piasoft ( talk) 17:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, This article is a provocation written by a serb nationalist. it's difficult to define the migration of albanian in Kosovo colonozation. User:Lucifero4
  • Keep There is a lot to be written here. -- Alexmilt ( talk) 12:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, as per piasoft and Lucifero4 reasoning. If someone is interested in population movements inside Kosovo, we can create an article about that since prehistorical times, but in my opinion is useless anyway Aigest ( talk) 16:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment: I see that wp:Albania was already informed about this afd, so I posted a notice on wp:serbia and wp:kosovo too. Alexikoua ( talk) 19:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Notes from the starter of the article: I haven't edited since i started the article and i'm about to expand the article, you can clearly see that the ones that oppose the article are all ethnic Albanians. The colonization of Kosovo was part of the wider Ottoman colonization, however this article will only encompasse the colonization of Albanians by the Ottoman Empire and later in the 19th and 20th centuries. Strong Keep / Ajdebre (talk) 20:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply
No, they're not. You're suggesting that even the nominator is an Albanian, which he isn't.-- — ZjarriRrethues —  talk 20:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Yes, it is. Nominator is Lontech, Chase me just moved it to AfD. -- Tadija taking 01:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
He wasn't obligated to move to AfD, as Manford, Kebeta and others who voted for its deletion aren't Albanians.-- — ZjarriRrethues —  talk 09:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Delete, pov fork article with subject mentioned in other articles.-- Kushtrim123 ( talk) 20:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply

* Keep. I think that this article should exist and should broadly cover this topic than History of Ottoman Kosovo solely from demographic aspects. History of Ottoman Kosovo should be reserved for fighting between Balkan nations, Serbian and Albanian national revival, etc. --  Bojan   Talk  02:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC) I have just seen this Demographics of Kosovo. So, I'm neutral on existence of this article as long as same facts are standing in article Demographics of Kosovo. --  Bojan   Talk  02:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Keep and stick to historicity. This is historically accurate, if presently politically-loaded. -- Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) ( talk) 03:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep ... demografic data is referenced. Like Bokica, I'm neutral on existence of this article as long as same facts are standing in article Demographics of Kosovo. -- Kaster ( talk) 12:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, not based on historical facts and pure fictional. Add it to stupidities section if it exists.--Joe The Dassaret 03:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC) — Joe The Dassaret ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 03:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC) (UTC). reply
Comment This user has zero contribs prior to voting here. Most likely a meat-puppet recruited off-wiki to participate here. Athenean ( talk) 21:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - There are many articles describing process of colonization of some territory. I don't see a problem with such articles especially if there are referenced sources in them.-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 13:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Strongly Delete. It is quite clear that the author of that article has created a POV-ish article, without the needed sources. It is the same as saying that the Slavic migration in the Balkans is a case of a Slavic colonisation (which it is a bit true). Even if Albanians would have gone in Kosovo after 1500, which is totally untrue (ask any historian as says Noel Malcolm) it can not be a different article, except of just a passage in Ottoman Kosovo. As for who colonised who, somebody may read Colonisation of Kosovo 1918-1941... Thanks, Balkanian`s word ( talk) 18:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, possibly rename to something more neutral like "Albanian migration to Kosovo". Subject is notable, there is no record of Albanians in Kosovo before the Ottoman conquest. I fail to see what article it is a content fork of, that is an inane argument. I also note most of the delete votes come from members of the Albanian National Wikipedia Team, all of whom have voted (some have even come out of retirement to do so), and are of the WP:IDONTLIKEIT type. Athenean ( talk) 22:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: 90-95% of users who have voted keep are either Serbs or Greeks. Obviously this AfD has turned into a polarized debate, with some users openly asking support [16] from other users (the message is in Serbian).-- — ZjarriRrethues —  talk 23:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment: First, and most important, that is not true, and second, you forgot to mentioned that higher percentage of Delete votes are Albanian, then Serbs and Greeks on Keep. -- Tadija speaks 12:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment: From the users who have voted delete most are Serbs, that's a plain fact.-- — ZjarriRrethues —  talk 14:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment:This vote is user's 8th edit, not included user space. Also likely a meat-puppet. -- Tadija speaks
Comment: If you actually checked this user's contributions you would see that he has written Sotir Peçi entirely by himself, managed to take it to DYK and his low number of article space edits is because if you check his contributions he's writing articles in his userspace before transfering them to article space. Also I see that this user has written several articles in the Albanian wikipedia as he says on his userpage. So no he's not a meatpuppet just because you don't like his opinion Tadija.-- — ZjarriRrethues —  talk 13:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC) reply
! -- Tadija speaks 14:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Keep: I dont see a reason why we should remove this. It's a historical article that needs expantion, that's all. It is noteworthy that the Albanian side mobilized all their member very quickly informing their Wikiproject 'only'. Alexikoua ( talk) 15:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Comment:Discussion about the article was started days before the article being nominated for deletion, so your theory is absolutely unreal. On another majority who want this article kept are Serbs or Greeks, as Alexikoua's keep opinion verified.-- — ZjarriRrethues —  talk 16:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment: We don't need a wikilaywer. The Albanian lobby informed wp:Albania 'only' and this is a fact. No wonder it was immediately mobilized. Alexikoua ( talk) 19:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Removing of almost entire article

User:Kedadi deleted almost entire article that was expanded in order to push article deletion. Also, here should be noted that meatpuppetry is stricltly forbiden on wikipedia. -- Tadija taking 01:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Yes, it is [17]. Alexmit should stop trying to get support.-- — ZjarriRrethues —  talk 09:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Artical is on voting here, so stop vandalising it now by deleting huge parts of it.-- Alexmilt ( talk) 08:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply

That's not the definition of vandalising, because most of the article is wp:or.-- — ZjarriRrethues —  talk 09:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Stop with that. No, you are not right. If you doubt about source, than you should ask for opinion on WP:RS. You ARE NOT allowed to delete all of that just because
you don't like it. That is essence of vandalism. -- Tadija taking 17:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
I'm not doubting the source, because there isn't a source for most of the article. It's a copy/paste article and the the only source related to the article is about the first sentence.-- — ZjarriRrethues —  talk 17:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
That's not true, sources are throughout entire article. And there is nothing bad in one copy from related article. As you see, article is under expansion. -- Tadija taking 08:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC) reply
99% of the sources have no relation to the subject itself. Being entirely a copy/paste from other articles is the essence of WP:CFORK and as such the article should be deleted.-- — ZjarriRrethues —  talk 09:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC) reply
You are completely out of point. First, it is not true, sources are ok, and highly related. Second, even that sources are not good, that cannot be reason for deletion. -- Tadija taking 19:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC) reply


  • Goal of the page

This page is trying to explain the proces of chaniging the demographic picture of Kosovo through Osmanian empire. And to answer on question how is it possible that the province that was more than 95% serbian in 14th century, come into 20th century when albanian population is more than 60%. How this happend? Was this just a normal thing where is no place for a topic or there were some proces that change demographic structure so dramaticly. There is a lot to be written but in this moment no one can work under the pressure of this voting. So I would like to get few monts (2-3) period when we can really work and make a credibile artical. I am sorry if this topic heart someones feelings but I can promise that everything what would be written can have credibile references. -- Alexmilt ( talk) 00:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Read History of Kosovo, Demographics of Kosovo, Kosovo Province, Ottoman Empire, Albanians in Kosovo, Serbs in Kosovo and wp:cfork(the essence of this article)-- — ZjarriRrethues —  talk 10:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC) reply

With this logic we should delete also Colonisation of Kosovo 1918-1941? -- Alexmilt ( talk) 13:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC) reply
If most of its content was found in the articles I mentioned then yes, but its content isn't mentioned in any of those articles.-- — ZjarriRrethues —  talk 13:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC) reply
But the article Albanian colonisation of Kosovo is just started to be written! How you know that this content is mentioned somewhere else? This article is on beginning. So stop with this sabotage, give people freedom to work and after some period of time it will be clear is there space for something like this or not. -- Alexmilt ( talk) 13:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Please read wp:cfork.-- — ZjarriRrethues —  talk 14:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Article appears to be well sourced, even though there have been attempts to remove sources, by many of the same users trying to delete the article now. POV problems are not a criteria for deletion. This deletion seems to be based on WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT type arguments. Kostja ( talk) 16:43, 18 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. JForget 01:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Global media

Global media (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article seems to be a random list of television programmes with no rationale for their inclusion. It has little or no connection with the title. The article was previously marked for PROD but the tag was removed with no explanation by an anonymous user. Malcolma ( talk) 18:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy Delete - The page is a total mess and it's unclear what the page is even about; it's utter nonsense. Leoniceno ( talk) 19:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete as garbage. There's enough profanity in there to qualify for G3. Ray Talk 21:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete An incoherent mess. Warrah ( talk) 16:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete Complete and utter nonsense. Most of the content contributed by a single author. Jonathan McLeod ( talk) 18:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete - It's garbage Imperatore ( talk) 22:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete though apparently no admin noticed... Pichpich ( talk) 20:24, 17 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 Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West#Characters. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Melena Thropp

Melena Thropp (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This Wicked character fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for fictional characters. Neelix ( talk) 15:40, 11 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. JForget 01:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Haiti organ harvesting

Haiti organ harvesting (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article (view history) is rife with questionable sources and is unsupported even by the facts from reliable sources. Even at that, the singular legitimate source (the claim of the Haitian PM on CNN) should be incorporated into 2010 Haitian earthquake and does not merit its own article. Mobius1ski ( talk) 15:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - though we might merge the content with some conspiracy theory article that discusses organ trafficking - and only because the article quotes the prime minister. Rklawton ( talk) 17:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - not notable for an article; this article was only created as another launch-pad for anti-israel attacks on wikipedia... now that the offending and undsourced material has been removed, it is very clear that the remaining 2 sentences are not worthy of their own article. As a matter of fact, why isn't this being speedily deleted? Breein1007 ( talk) 20:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- Ray Talk 21:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. Arguably speedy, but I'm not that familiar with applications of A10. Ray Talk 21:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - just a bunch of garbage, with clearly bad intentions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yydl ( talk • contribs)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 23:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The allegation doesn't merit more than a brief mention in the source; it certainly isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia article. —  Malik Shabazz  Talk/ Stalk 23:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - horrible propaganda, conspiracy theory, not notable, one man's claim, and that man a man who allows his people to eat dirt cookies. [18]. Per Breein, another attempt to smear Israel, which was saving lives in Haiti [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] Perhaps we could have an article about that? How sad that we even need to consider this for 2 minutes. Stellarkid ( talk) 23:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Snow Delete Unomi ( talk) 00:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and expand. notable topic. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 00:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Votes with no explanation are meaningless. Oh well. Breein1007 ( talk) 00:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Notable how? Doesn't seem like you really have much to say. Breein1007 ( talk) 01:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply

*Weak keep - Accusations received international news coverage and had an impact on British politics, so possible notability. EuroPride ( talk) 01:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Delete - Relevant information is included in the Antisemitic canard article and on the article of Tonge. No need to have a seperate article. EuroPride ( talk) 15:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply

The impact on British politics (one person getting fired from her post) is covered in the article about Jenny Tonge. This topic is not notable enough to have an article just because of Tonge. Breein1007 ( talk) 01:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Question - Regarding this edit - Please could you show the discussion that established that The Guardian is an unreliable source? Thanks. EuroPride ( talk) 01:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
This is not the proper place to discuss edits, but I will answer you in case other people are now curious about your question. It is Press TV that poses a problem, not The Guardian. The Guardian reference did not have anything to do with the Haiti allegations. Breein1007 ( talk) 01:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - This is news and not wiki-news worthy at that. I recall that this issue has already been kicking around in various wiki articles since the earthquake. There used to be a 2010 Haiti earthquake conspiracy theories article for instance which had interesting things like the earthquake was caused by a magnetometer in Alaska, someone dropped a large book/left the microwave on too long or whatever. In the end I think the organ stuff went into Antisemitic canard. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete-there is already too much anti semitic propaganda and no need for more under the unpersuasive argument of encyclopedic importance. Lets fly away this crap-WP is not a news site and more than that, it's not hospice for fringe theories. Who went to sleep with dogs wakes up with fleas.-- Gilisa ( talk) 04:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete what a garbage. Broccoli ( talk) 07:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Perfect for the National Enquirer.-- Hmbr ( talk) 07:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Request for early closure: Please close this AfD already, the unequivocal quality of this article truely justify early closure.-- Gilisa ( talk) 14:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Amen Stellarkid ( talk) 15:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete politically motivated soapbox wikicrap Bigglove talk 16:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Merge the needed material into 2010 Haitian earthquake and/or Urban legend and salt this. We don't need to perpetuate non-notable fairy tales. Bearian ( talk) 20:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - non notable conspiracy theory. May merit a mention on Tonge's page, but not an encyclopedic article. Tzu Zha Men ( talk) 20:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - For the record I am for deletion first or less preferably as a mention in the article on modern anti-Semitism or wherever such an article exists nowadays. The entire notion was based on biased conspiracy theorist sites with utterly no relevance to the truth. Keeping this as an article or portraying this idea as worthy of legitimate discussion would be a great disservice to Wikipedia's goals. 149.169.221.148 ( talk) 00:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, obviously. Wikipedia is not news, and it is not a repository of random conspiracy theories. It is also not a place for " supposed or rumored practices". — Ynhockey ( Talk) 11:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Malik Shabazz. I would leave this sort of stuff to snopes.com.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 20:36, 13 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. JForget 01:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Eiko Furukawa

Eiko Furukawa (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This two sentence, unreferenced biography was proposed for deletion in June 2008. The Prod tag was removed with no improvement or additions to the article. The article fails the notability criteria for musicians and ensembles - no evidence of a significant career, no independent, reliable, non-trivial sources can be found Voceditenore ( talk) 05:15, 10 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. JForget 01:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

World Peace One

World Peace One (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable according to WP:CLUB. Google web returns only links to the organisation's site and other press releases. Google news returns nothing. Content consists of WP:SOAPBOX referenced by the organisation's site. Simon-in-sagamihara ( talk) 14:30, 11 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. JForget 01:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Hugs and Hope Foundation for Sick Children

Hugs and Hope Foundation for Sick Children (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:ORG, nothing in gnews [24]. LibStar ( talk) 13:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

even then there are 6 hits. 2 of which say "Proceeds are expected to top $1000 to benefit the Hugs and Hope Foundation.". this is hardly significant coverage. LibStar ( talk) 07:57, 12 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. JForget 01:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

CunninLynguists

CunninLynguists (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nom - non-notable music group. The article makes a few claims, so I won't just speedily delete it, but every single source is self-published or published by one of the group's labels. If this group was notable, it would have independent sources. Rklawton ( talk) 12:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy keep. As I pointed out when I removed the totally inappropriate prod from this article, the band's albums have articles here, with at least 19 examples of significant coverage in reliable sources between them. There is a lot more coverage available judging by Google/news/books searches. Clearly WP:BEFORE has not been followed, and the nom appears not to have bothered looking at the album articles either. This group does have a large number of independent sources available and are in fact obviously a notable music group. Given that I deprodded it, speedy deleting it would have been a poor course of action. The listing here includes 'Find sources' links to Google searches - can I suggest that in future carrying out these searches before nominating would be a good idea. -- Michig ( talk) 12:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I see no improvements to this article and only sources that are self-published by the labels. Rather than remove the prod, you should have fixed the article (assuming that's possible). When I Google the subject and see that the top link is the group's MySpace page and Wikipedia article, it's obvious that this group has serious notability problems. Rklawton ( talk) 12:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
You should have made at least a minimal effort to establish notability before prodding it, and certainly before bringing it to AFD. I was perfectly entitled to remove the prod from this article without improving it, given that the subject is clearly notable. What do you see when you search on Google Books? Have you even yet looked at the articles on the group's albums to see the examples of coverage there? Judging notability based on what comes out first on a Google search is, frankly, stupid.-- Michig ( talk) 12:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
If you can't remain civil, then please refrain from participating. It's perfectly reasonable to submit an article for deletion that obviously lacks reliable sources and when other editors appear unable or unwilling to make improvements and when a search terms up the same sort of stuff one gets from a typical garage band. Rather than spend time telling us that our readers are perfectly capable of going to Google or wherever to find reliable information about a group (definitely not our policy), perhaps you could take a few minutes to improve the article instead. Rklawton ( talk) 13:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
I have been civil - pointing out your flawed logic is not uncivil. I have tried to assume good faith here, but your actions are looking increasingly WP:POINTy. Right above your nomination there are links for other editors to go "to Google or wherever to find reliable information about a group" yet you complain when I suggest you do the same. Please see WP:AFD: "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD" then look at the articles on the group's albums noting all of the examples of significant coverage linked/cited - the article can clearly be fixed through normal editing. Withdrawal would be your best course of action.-- Michig ( talk) 13:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Your use of the word "stupid" was not civil. I did look through Google, and I didn't see indications of notability. I did provide an opportunity for editors to improve the article, but none were willing or able. And it's our readers that we don't ask to Google for better information. It's our policy that our articles must be reliably sourced, and this one isn't. The article's claims to notability (if any) still aren't reliably sourced. If it was as easy to do as you claim, then whey haven't you done it? Rklawton ( talk) 13:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Judging notability by whatever comes out top in a Google search is ridiculous - I don't think it inappropriate to describe such an approach as 'stupid'. It could take 2-3 hours to go through all available sources and improve the article. I am prepared to do this - though you obviously are not - but don't have time right now. You still haven't indicated whether you have looked at the album articles or at Google Books - why is this? Do you dispute that the group is notable (at least per GNG) and that the article can be fixed? Do you want examples of significant coverage posting here? You can find plenty within the SouthernUnderground, A Piece of Strange, and Dirty Acres articles. The first page of Google Books hits include CMJ New Music Monthly (2005), CMJ New Music Monthly (Dec 2007), and Hip Hop in America: A Regional Guide: Volume 1: East Coast and West Coast by Micky Hess. Here's a link to the band's Allmusic bio.-- Michig ( talk) 13:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Fix the article or let it die - your choice. You chose to remove the prod tag, and that wasn't helpful. The appropriate interpretation of GNG for a music group is only through Wikipedia:Notability (music); that's why it's there. And no, I don't see how acknowledgement that this group exists proves its notability. Rklawton ( talk) 17:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Removing a prod tag from a fixable article on a notable subject is most certainly 'helpful'. Your refusal to behave in a constructive manner is not. Take a look at the first criterion of WP:BAND, which is essentially a restatement of GNG and is easily met here via a wealth of significant coverage in reliable sources. You might also wish to take a look at Wikipedia:Notability as it is apparent that you don't understand it. When the discussion closes as 'Keep' I'll improve the article. -- Michig ( talk) 17:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The article does not satisfy BAND, and that's what we're here to discuss. Rklawton ( talk) 19:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
But you know damn well that the group satisfies WP:BAND (the guideline applies to subjects of articles) and that the sources exist with which to get the article into that state, which is why your trying to force others to use their time to improve the article via this AFD is so disappointing.-- Michig ( talk) 19:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
I've asked you before to remain civil, I won't ask again. I will report it. Rklawton ( talk) 22:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
If you think reporting anything here as incivility will get you anywhere then go ahead - I'm confident that any uninvolved admins will struggle to see anything here other than a constructive editor stating the obvious. Making threats, as you did in your PROD nomination and again here, isn't a great way to behave. This is a collaborative project to build an encyclopedia, maybe you should have a think about that.-- Michig ( talk) 05:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete. I've seen mentions of this group in magazines from time to time, but I actually couldn't find any reliable Ghits. (BTW, Michig, calm down. It isn't inappropriate just because someone doesn't agree with you.) Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Did you not see all the reviews in the group's album articles, which are unquestionably significant coverage in reliable sources? I am calm, by the way, just increasingly disappointed with Rklawton's behaviour.-- Michig ( talk) 06:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
      • Only A Piece of Strange appears to be referenced -- by reviews, which aren't reliable sources. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
        • The magazines in which the reviews appear are reliable sources. The reviews themselves are significant coverage.-- Michig ( talk) 06:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
          • No, they aren't. Read WP:INHERITED. Erpert (let's talk about it) 16:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
            • Sorry, I don't know what point you're making here. Musical groups perform live and make records - coverage of musical groups generally constitutes features, live reviews and record reviews, and as is the case here, coverage in books. -- Michig ( talk) 17:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
              • The point I'm making is that when I Googled for that album, for example, I found reviews about it and nothing else. Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
I'd just like to point out that their appearance in magazines may be overstated. Most of these were from the period 2003-2007 when the group employed a publicist to spread their name around, as evidenced by the number of links to old articles on their myspace page, which have recently been removed, unfortunately. Since then, they have leaned more on 'internet buzz' through hip-hop forums and websites. Mathesoneon ( talk) 13:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Thus, a Google search is probably more valid. However, Rklawton's claim that 'When I Google the subject and see that the top link is the group's MySpace page and Wikipedia article, it's obvious that this group has serious notability problems' is completely and utterly ridiculous, as searching any music artist regardless of fame in Google will return the myspace and wikipedia pages as the top results - with an occasional official artist website slipping in the top 3, or more rarely, an unofficial fan page. TRY IT. Finally, I find it necessary to add that Rklawton's actions and words indicate to me that the user seems to be driven to eliminating this page regardless of evidence pertaining to the notability of the group which is in circulation. Personally, I would love to compile the sources necessary to fix up the article and those of the albums/mixtapes but I am in the middle of exams for my final year at university so I will not have the time to spare until mid-May. Keep Mathesoneon ( talk) 13:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - this is a good example of an article that needed improvement rather than deletion, but these days it appears that the best way to draw the necessary attention is to do an AfD. So be it. But not all AfD discussions have to end in a decision to delete, and should not end that way if the process inspires other editors to improve the article accordingly. That is what has happened here, and the nominator should acknowledge subsequent developments. DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 16:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Clear keep [25], [26], [27]. Did this really need to come to AfD? Hobit ( talk) 06:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep "KNO OF CUNNINLYNGUISTS" By Jake Iacovetta in Remix, 1 February 2008, Volume 10; Number 2. Dirty Acres (APOS Music) review (1 paragraph) in Remix, 1 December 2007, Volume 9; Number 12. "CUNNINLYNGUISTS MAKE THEIR WAY TO SANTA FE" by PABLO PAZ in The Santa Fe New Mexican, 12 May 2006. "MOVIE (sic) REVIEW: 'A PIECE OF STRANGE' HELPS CUNNINLYNGUISTS TURN CORNER" by PABLO PAZ in The Santa Fe New Mexican, 10 February 2006. (note for last two, Pablo Paz is a senior at Santa Fe High.) duffbeerforme ( talk) 10:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep The sources contained within the article show that the group easily meets WP:MUSIC. sparkl !sm hey! 17:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Clicking the Google News search link at the top of the AFD finds 138 results! They are clearly notable. Always use Google news search BEFORE nominating something or stating it should be deleted. It saves the rest of us a lot of time, and prevents something notable from being deleted by accident. Dream Focus 00:26, 18 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 and REDIRECT Consensus to merge content into CommutAir article and redirect this title. Mike Cline ( talk) 19:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply

CommutAir Flight 4821

CommutAir Flight 4821 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no indication in the article or the reference provided that this accident meets any of the notability criteria at WP:AIRCRASH. I've additionally not been able to find any other sources that demonstrate any reason for notability per these guidelines.

The article was previously prodded by user:YSSYguy with the concern "Notability is not established". The PROD tag was later removed by user:WhisperToMe with the comment "When people die in a plane crash, it becomes notable". However this is not a standard of notability supported by either by the WP:AIRCRASH guidelines (which are still in beta), nor any proposed alteration to them that has been raised on the talk page since discussion started on replacing the old guidelines in July 2009. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - non-notable, fails to meet guidelines for inclusion at WP:AIRCRASH. - Ahunt ( talk) 13:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Any scheduled airline flight where people die should be considered notable, if sources can be found. The project definition is just an essay, not even an attempted guideline, and is much too restrictive. However, this flight meets the criterion in that essay: "Airworthiness Directives - the accident/incident resulted in one or more official bodies issuing an Airworthiness Directive (AD) or similar" see [28], By their proposal in the essay, it should be merged to a section in the article on the airplane DGG ( talk ) 17:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Obvious redirect to CommutAir. The revisions to WP:AIRCRASH do not mean that we delete everything that we think doesn't meet it. What they do mean is that we relocate the information elsewhere. Mandsford ( talk) 17:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
    • I second this idea, for the same reasons. dude❶❽❶❽ Can or can't you read the characters? Tell me --> talk page 01:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. WP:AIRCRASH is an essay of a wikiproject so AfD is far from bound by it. This is more than a mere news event. It appears to have resulted in litigation [29]. This report also indicates that the crash resulted in regulatory change. It is significant, and notable. Air crashes are usually quite well-document so it would be unusual for a fatal air crash not to be significant enough and covered in enough reliable sources not to be notable. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 20:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Firstly, what Mkativerata said. Secondly, in practice, whenever someone dies in a commercial airliner crash, that crash becomes notable no matter what. Litigation always happens. Accident reports are always written. Significant coverage always occurs. Because of this, "Delete" and "Obvious redirect" are never appropriate outcomes for these articles. No, this is not an article to be redirected under any circumstances. WhisperToMe ( talk) 21:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
    • "Accident reports are always written. Significant coverage always occurs." this is exactly why these things are not sufficient on their own to demonstrate notability. Not every air accident is notable, and so some guidelines are set out at WP:AIRCRASH to help separate the wheat from the chaff. Thryduulf ( talk) 23:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
      • Keep Mkativerata made a very good case for it and I believe that if the resulting policy change is added, then it would be a bit more notable and be consistent with other such articles. -- Hourick ( talk) 00:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to an article that contains a short explaination of the crash, either the airline or the airliner article. 65.94.253.16 ( talk) 05:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I originally prodded the article because as it stood notability was not established and as yet I see nothing in the article or this discussion to change my mind. DGG's and Mkativerata's assertions that the NTSB letter is evidence of regulatory change are not necessarily correct; it is a recommendation for regulatory change and Airworthiness Regulators (in this case the FAA) can - and often do - decide not to act on such recommendations, which are frequently made by accident investigation bodies following accidents. If it can be demonstrated that the FAA did act on the NTSB letter and issue an AD, then that should be prominently mentioned in the article and it would become a keeper. YSSYguy ( talk) 12:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the flight was a scheduled flight, not an air taxi operation. Per the sources given above, it does meet WP:AIRCRASH criteria. (A3, A6). Just about notable enough to sustain an article. Mjroots ( talk) 12:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Same argument as User:Mjroots. The article meets WP:AIRCRASH criteria. -- Armchair Ace ( talk) 16:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Regrettably keep, as consensus has deemed that any commercial flight crash where someone dies is notable. Stifle ( talk) 08:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Where is this consensus? It's not one that I've seen evidenced anywhere, and it hasn't been suggested in any of the discussions about WP:AIRCRASH. Thryduulf ( talk) 10:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or merge. There is no consensus that 'deaths'='notability', not here, not at WP:AIRCRASH. Clicking on the news results at the top of this section gives a grand total of 2 news items, just a couple of loud voices, as I see it. If deaths "always" create lots of coverage, why don't we see it in this case. The 'AD' argument also fails. Note that the specific AD example used in AIRCRASH was a section of an article. So merging this incident to someother article (e.g. the airline) makes sense. David V Houston ( talk) 20:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or Merge to the aircraft (or airline) article. There is no encyclopedic information available, so per WP:NOT#NEWS it cannot have a stand-alone article. Abductive ( reasoning) 21:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC) reply
    • The 'AD' argument does not apply as there is no Airworthiness Directive against the radome installation on the Beech 1900 series of aircraft. I cannot find an Advisory Circular either. It is possible that the issue is one of insufficient maintenance on the part of the operator, but that is pure speculation on my part, derived from a lack of evidence that this is a fleet-wide problem. YSSYguy ( talk) 00:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per both User:DGG and User:Mjroots above, as a fairly sourceable scheduled flight. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 10:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Topics that are the subjects of articles are required to be notable in addition to being verifiable, so simply being "fairly sourceable" is not sufficient grounds for keeping this article. Thryduulf ( talk) 19:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
      • My mistake, "fairly" was meant to mean 'amply'; as in, sourcing seems just adequate enough to establish notability and verify content. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 20:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to CommutAir#Incidents and accidents, if the article could be expanded then I would say keep it. -- Andromedabluesphere440 ( talk) 12:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to CommutAir#Incidents and accidents. The incident does not seem to provide material enough to warrant a separate article apart from what is present at CommutAir#Incidents and accidents. Nageh ( talk) 15:07, 21 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) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Homai daughter of Bahman

Homai daughter of Bahman (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The references don't say she's notable. Just that she exists. Cynof Gavuf 11:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Keep- seems to me that ruling a country is sufficiently notable. Reyk YO! 11:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep(weak) if we have a whole series of Rulers of X, linked predecessor-successor, then the notability rises because they are part of that series. If nothing else, removing here will cause the links to go red, and people will keep trying to recreate the article 'for completeness'. David V Houston ( talk) 12:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, assuming she's a real person - the sources seem to indicate she is, but the phrase 'a legendary queen' suggests otherwise and should probably be reworded. I think ruling a country is notable just by common sense, but it also satisfies Wikipedia:POLITICIAN. Olaf Davis ( talk) 13:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Meets WP:POLITICIAN. Sources appear to verify the article's claims, in particular [30]. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 21:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 23:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 23:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above: rulers of Iran are notable. However, consider a rename. I'm pretty sure the article title isn't in accord with our naming conventions. Ray Talk 21:45, 13 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. JForget 01:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Note, a related redirect was actually deleted via the Twinkle closing script first. The actual list is now deleted too. -- JForget 01:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

List of common animals

AfDs for this article:
List of animals (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pointless list of random animals עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:01, 11 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. JForget 01:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Transcendence (video game)

Transcendence (video game) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non- notable freeware video game. All the links go to sources that are not independent of the subject, like the game's homepage, or are reviews at sites that are somewhat bloggish and of dubious reliability. Reyk YO! 10:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. ( Search video game sources) • Gene93k ( talk) 23:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • One of those sites features a review by Greg Costikyan, and may well be acceptable. What's our practice on Play This Thing? -- Kiz o r 01:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I use Play This Thing regularly, Greg's writings are great sources regardless of where they're published, both him and his deputy Patrick Dugan get quoted in magazine features etc. I also use TIGsource (it's Derek Yu, a noted indie developer). I also use Big Download since it's part of AOL's bulging bits, and look at the size of the bugger. Seems amply notable. Someone another 02:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The review sites look OK and non-trivial to me too. SharkD  Talk  01:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. As same as SharkD. Refs include AOL, 1UP.com, 4Gamer (no article yet but as Alexa ranks it around 4,400 and 276 in Japan (that is massive) with 4,500 sites linking in [31] while Gamespy is at 2,600 and 1,669 in USA with 3,500 sites linking in [32], 1UP.com is at 2,736 and 1,145 in USA with 11,500 sites linking in [33], and Gamershell is at 3,165 and 582 in Brazil with 7,500 sites linking in [34] there should be), Playthisthing and Abandonia Reloaded. All game reviews are bloggish. None of those sites are "dubious" while AOL, 1UP and 4Gamer are in the top 10 or 20 of their international fields. ~ R. T. G 08:35, 14 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. JForget 01:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Lighthouse in Sopot

Lighthouse in Sopot (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication this landmark is notable. Cynof Gavuf 10:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Delete It can be mentioned in the article about Sopot. Most local landmarks are not notable enough to be anything more than local, and don't rate their own article. Mandsford ( talk) 22:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 23:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 23:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. According to this article permission had to be obtained from the Conservator of Monuments to make alterations to the lighthouse ("Zgodę Wojewódzkiego Konserwatora Zabytków uzyskano pod koniec ubiegłego roku"), meaning that this is the equivalent of a UK listed building or US registered historic place, which are generally accepted as notable. There's also a six-page chapter about the lighthouse in this book, and plenty more coverage amongst these Google Books and these Google News hits. I'm a little sceptical about the range of it's light being 7 nm - if a ship gets that close then it's certainly in trouble. Phil Bridger ( talk) 08:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep if this lighthouse is equivalent to a listed builing, then it is notable enough sustain an article, it would be of interest to WP:HSITES. Article should be expanded using the above mention sources. BTW, 7 nm = 7 nautical miles (13 km). Mjroots ( talk) 12:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - the Polish language article linked above has the lighthouse as its primary subject. I suspect that more articles covering it exist in Polish. Certainly googling in english under books shows that it is a landmark well-identified with Sopot in travel literature. -- Whpq ( talk) 17:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. If I may add a bit of original research in confirmation, as I know Sopot well, I would point out that Sopot is by a long chalk Poland's top seaside resort, and the lighthouse is one of its top three landmarks, along with the pier and the Grand Hotel (I'm a bit miffed that I'm not mentioned alongside Charles de Gaulle and Adolf Hitler in that article), so it is well-known to a significant percentage of the population of Poland. Phil Bridger ( talk) 17:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Thanks for the clarification. And since this is a wiki, COI aside, you can add yourself to the Grand Hotel article! Just be sure you have a reliable source or I shall mercilessly revert you. :) -- Whpq ( talk) 18:33, 14 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 : Speedily deleted as blatant spam/copyright violation (copied from the company website). - Mike Rosoft ( talk) 11:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Legend Construction

Legend Construction (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indications of notability for this company. Cynof Gavuf 10:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy Delete looks like a G11 (with a sprinkling of A7) to me. Eeekster ( talk) 10:28, 11 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. Whilst number counting produces a majority of 5-3 to Delete, I have to consider the weight of argument here. Keep !votes seem mainly based on claiming notability but as more than one Delete !vote points out, for that to be a valid argument the subject would need to have significant coverage of the Italian community itself in third-party sources as opposed to passing mentions that there are Italians in Pakistan, which at the moment it clearly hasn't. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Italians in Pakistan

Italians in Pakistan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Random combination of groups. Just number over 300 is hardly enough to warrant an article. Cynof Gavuf 09:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

That's a non-issue. There are 57 Turks in India. Lyk4 ( talk) 11:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
My bad. 150 Turks, in a country with a population of 1 billion. Lyk4 ( talk) 11:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Besides, the problems of the "Turks in India" article (and many other "Turks in Xyzland" articles) have already been mentioned at this discussion; no one offered any solution or tried to improve the articles. I for one wouldn't object to deleting it. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turks in India. cab ( talk) 02:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Turks in India is just as non-notable, but isn't nominated... yet. In the case of "Italians in Pakistan", the article does nothing more than to recite a single statistic (that there are 300 Italian persons in a nation of 169,000,000). I suppose that we could write individual articles to answer questions like "How many Italians in Pakistan?" "How many Pakistanis in Italy?" "How many _____ians in the Republic of _____ia?" etc., but it would make more sense to write one intelligent article about the breakdown of a nation's census figures by national origin, rather than 200 nothingburgers like this. Mandsford ( talk) 21:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 22:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 22:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Small numbers or "random combination of groups" (whatever that means) aren't a reason for deletion per-se. However, it seems from various Google searches that this group of people have not been covered non-trivially by newspaper articles, scholarly papers, or government reports. Many other "Fooians in Pakistan" articles appear to have been created along the same lines without regard for WP:N (e.g. Koreans in Pakistan, Japanese in Pakistan). cab ( talk) 01:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per CaliforniaAliBaba (cab). A small yet notable group may be kept, but this is very small and non-notable, as shown by the stub itself and searches online. Bearian ( talk) 20:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Being a small group does not make it non-notable. There is at least one source provided in this article on the topic, and probably more can be found. The first source really goes into this. Dew Kane ( talk) 04:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I agree that the small size isn't relevant. All of these articles are encyclopedic in value. Also, did anyone search for news in either of the two languages of the countries involved? Dream Focus 04:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I'e added about 3-4 extra sources that mention the Italian community in Pakistan. Looking at the current level of information, and given the relatively small size of Italians in Pakistan, this article forms a perfect stub and the AFD should be withdrawn. Mar4d ( talk) 17:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: foreign relations and bilateral investment are not relevant to articles about human migration. Most of these "references" you added consist of routine one-paragraph news coverage about events (e.g. "Italy's national day celebrated in India"). cab ( talk) 00:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as arbitrary intersection of nationalities and setting a very bad precedent. There are 36,672 possible articles of the form [Nationality] in [Country] (that is 192P2; there being 192 members of the United Nations and order is relevant) and I suspect few are notable subjects. Bangladeshis in the Dominican Republic, anyone? Stifle ( talk) 08:40, 19 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) 17:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Dustin Robbins

Dustin Robbins (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be notable from the information presented here. Cassandra 73 ( talk) 18:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC) reply

*Delete. Not notable - Does not meet qualifications for notability -- SuperHappyPerson ( talk) 12:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)SuperHappyPerson reply

  • Keep. Thank you for taking this to AfD instead of just deleting the article. I am new, and just learning, but I have more articles I want to add in the same "alternative" industry, so I did a lot of research on what is and isn't notable, hoping that I would be able to demonstrate it with limited "main-stream" media sources. The reasons I believe this article should not be deleted are below.
  • I've added a new (March, 2010) source which details, to some degree, the notability of the subject's piercing technique (free-hand and 100% disposable), which is very unique to the art form and is only practiced by a handfull of body piercers in the world. Since the Body Modification industry itself is very small, to have such a presence as the subject has in his small industry is what gives him notability. By my understanding of the criteria for inclusion, if an individual is notable in their respective field, then they are allowed inclusion.
  • I understand that the sources for his work do not seem credible, as they are mainly online and 1st person accounts, however, they are independent sources from well known online news and information sources within the Body Modification industry, that back over a decade. Unfortunately, in an industry that is not "main-stream", main-stream media coverage is not readily available. I do know that there has been quite a bit more media coverage on the individual, I have just not been able to find exact references or links, since it is mostly television/news coverage.
  • In the notability criteria ( WP:BIO), it states under Biographies, that an individual must have been nominated for and/or given an award. The subject has received an award for his business, with the source I noted being a credible secondary source (a newspaper). Qquackk ( talk) 00:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Response: Hi Catfish Jim - Yes, the subject does. Both - "1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors." and - "2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique." For the first, the subject is well known in his profession and cited in many online and print publications, as noted in the article. For the second, the subject is known for practicing a very unique form of his art - a free-hand (without clamps) technique that uses 100% disposable equipment, which only a few shops in the U.S. use, as noted in the article. For reference see: Piercing.org which is the website of Brian Skellie, who is a board member of the Association of Professional Piercers who recommends only a few shops, one of which is Iris Piercing, the subject's shop. Also see: Slug Magazine Article, which also notes the unique way that the subjects performs piercings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qquackk ( talk • contribs) 16:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment from nominator: the Slugmag article is about the studio, not specifically Robbins, who is one of three partners of this business. The award is also for the studio. There isn't anything that indicates notability independent of the studio, or that significantly picks him out above the other two partners. The sources and evidence supplied by Qquackk may go some way towards establishing notability for the studio, but if the business is notable (I'm not saying it definitely is or isn't) that won't automatically confer notability on the people associated with it. Cassandra 73 ( talk) 16:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 08:19, 11 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 Hip hop. until enough RS sources that actually discuss the genre surface. Effectively this article is unsourced. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Avanthop

Avanthop (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Non-notable and barely existent genre. It doesn't help that a bunch of anon IPs are on a crusade filling up musician infobox templates with this supposed genre. JBsupreme ( talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 06:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Why should an encyclopedia not list all genres of music? A published music magazine mentions it. http://www.nme.com/artists/anticon It is clearly defined there, listing also some of the bands that are affiliated by that genre. Dream Focus 07:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The NME link above is to a copy of the Anticon. WP article, by the way.-- Michig ( talk) 09:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but consider renaming to 'Avant-garde hip hop'. 'Avanthop' appears to have little in the way of available sources. 'Avant-garde hip hip' however has a lot more, and enough to justify an article, including a lot of news items from Google news ( [35]), and several Google Books results ( [36]). The nominator's removal of links to Avanthop from all articles that it appears in (using UNDO without an edit summary, which presumably means that they consider its addition to be vandalism) immediately prior to bringing this to AFD is also not helpful.-- Michig ( talk) 08:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 22:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Google shows no WP:RS results for "Avanthop": [37]. As for renaming the page to Avant-garde hip hop, there is a reason WP:LOTSOFSOURCES is listed as an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. According to the same logic, we should also have articles for "hot hip hop", "cool hip hop" and "innovative hip hop" (582, 221 and 245 Google News results, respectively). Most of the Google News and Google Books results appear to be trivial mentions that display all possible combinations of "avant-garde" and "hip-hop", including ones separated by commas, periods and other punctuation marks. — Rankiri ( talk) 17:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Rankiri. We need to exercise caution when counting Google hits and actually examine their merits. It does not appear that there is any meaningful coverage of this genre in order to build up a proper article at this time. Unless we intend to also build articles for "cool hip hop" and "hot hip hop" as well.  ;-) RFerreira ( talk) 18:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC) reply
There's a big difference. When people write about "hot hip hop" they are not referring to a subgenre. There are many sources referring to the subgenre of "avant-garde hip hop" whether or not they constitute coverage specifically of the genre.-- Michig ( talk) 19:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Please list at least some of these sources. "Avant-garde" is a commonly used adjective. If the sources don't cover the subject directly, isn't it synthesis to assume that the phrase refers to a distinct subgenre? — Rankiri ( talk) 20:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC) reply
These, for instance: [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45]. -- Michig ( talk) 21:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Only two of these sources even try to discuss the subject in any detail. One is an album review that tries to define it as "hip-hop built from samples harder to grasp than a wall of Jell-O, whose time signatures change faster than a 15 year-old girl's fashion sense, all strung around beats dirtier than the old man asleep at the bus stop". I wouldn't exactly call its coverage of the subject significant or encyclopedic. In the other, the author criticizes some press release for using the phrase “hip-hop’s first avant-garde hip-hop troupe”, arguing that "[h]ip-hop itself is inherently avant-garde". I'll agree that at least some of these sources seem to refer to it as a subgenre ("in favor of classic jazz and against avant-garde hip-hop", "from post-rock to drum'n'bass, avant-garde hip-hop to modern jazz", etc.), but I still don't see enough significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to consider this supposed subgenre notable. Perhaps it can be mentioned on Hip hop. — Rankiri ( talk) 23:49, 16 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) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Noticiero Digital

Noticiero Digital (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doubtful and undemonstrated notability. On further review it's written as a right-wing screed and a BLP hatchet job. Peter Ian Staker ( talk) 06:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as an attempt at political demonization. Despite the fact that it was written by the executive director of the WMF, it seems that she is not familiar with our policy on attack pages. The page was written with an incredibly apparent bias, namely against the Venezuelan government and the democratically-elected President of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez. It was, intentionally or not, a politically charged attack on the government of Venezuela and an attempt to promote an extreme right-wing sector of the Venezuelan population, the "Venezuelan opposition". Additionally, it promoted the view that Chávez was censoring the Internet (or, in the article's original terminology, "regulating" it) and violates the civil rights of Venezuelans. As pointed out by the nominator, the article also does not demonstrate the notability of Noticiero Digital; there is no evidence that it even has any to assert. -- Mohammad Mosaddeq 06:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Google news gives 200 results. Its notable enough for various newspapers to talk about it. If it isn't written in a neutral tone as Wikipedia policy states it should, then tag it, and discuss on the talk page what should be changed. Or just make the edits yourself. Dream Focus 07:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep on the basis of sourcing, and NOT CENSORED though there are some problems with the language. At the very least, the use of terms like "right-wing" should be sourced inline. A NPOV discussion of politics will necessarily imply something about the politicians, and by the suggestion above, it would be impossible to cover many major news events or organizations in a country because it would be a BLP violation against the head of state or government. That's true censorship. DGG ( talk ) 17:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep, I will work over time on adding Spanish-language sources and trying to clean up the text to match sources, but in the meantime, even based on only English-language sources, the article is clearly notable, albeit was poorly written. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: WP:RS - is El Universal (Caracas) a reliable source, especially considering its anti-Chávez stance? -- Mohammad Mosaddeq 00:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • El Universal is Venezuela's leading newspaper, and meets RS, with editorial oversight, etc. Is CNN a reliable source considering its anti-Bush stance? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
All right, I will concede on the one point: it is very widely distributed. However, a search for "Venezuela's Leading Newspaper" with quotation marks mostly gives results for El Nacional. So, I think it can be a reliable source. CNN, well... -- Mohammad Mosaddeq 01:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Same deal-- they're equally popular. By the way, what "anti-Chavez stance" are you referring to, since it's illegal in Venezuela for the media to criticize the President? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Then why are people like RCTV's owner described as a vocal critic of Chávez? Shouldn't the Venezuelan opposition be in jail? Do you specialize in Venezuelan law? If you do, then you are probably correct, but I don't understand why so many people are described as critics of Chávez and are not convicted of any crime. Mohammad Mosaddeq 01:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Perhaps browsing Category:Human rights in Venezuela will help you understand better. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Note; that this article meets notability was never in question, and the AFD was the wrong way to approach the article issues. The article is now fully cited and rewritten, and the AFD should be speedily kept. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Plainly notable. I applaud Sandy for the work done on the article. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Clearly meets notability. And I fail to see any BLP issues - everything appears fully cited. Makes the NYT [46] Boston Globe etc. [47]. If the major US papers deem it notable, it is notable IMHO. If you do not like what the article says, add material which meets WP standards to it. AfD is not for saying "I don;t like it" about articles. Collect ( talk) 21:47, 13 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 Demographics of Australia. Some of the content may be useful, if not in this, maybe in another form (a graph?) For now, a merge is the best solution here. Tone 10:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Birth rate and fertility rate in Australia

Birth rate and fertility rate in Australia (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Is a list of charts and statistics that clearly fails WP:NOT#STATS. MBisanz talk 03:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

WP:ITSNOTABLE should be avoided. LibStar ( talk) 01:27, 12 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. JForget 01:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Canadian Dream

Canadian Dream (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete as much as I would like to see a valid notable article about the "Canadian Dream," there is nothing worth retaining here. The little that we have is given over to the article creator's POV that people in the cities should move to the farms, because "urban population cannot acheived that goal." (sic) Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as unsourced original research. There are no apparent uses of the term in print or otherwise which corresponds to this article. freshacconci talktalk 02:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete i could find no reliable sources for this use of the phrase. the lede is a dead giveaway to this being POV research/wishful thinking from someone with an agenda to push. there was NEVER a time when the dream of americans or canadians was for a MAN to live by HIMSELF on his own land (the dream of a family to have its own home/land, yes, but not in isolation). article creator is undoubtedly referring to the dream of home ownership and the great land grabs of the 19th c, but even the american dream article is much more than that. ironically, the main wp ref is to song lyrics praising canadian socialism... Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 02:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Everybody knows the Canadian dream is for [insert favorite hockey team] to win the Stanley Cup. Clarityfiend ( talk) 03:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
    • BTW, when I first saw the article title I had assumed it was about Pierre Berton's iconic The National Dream, which was, quite literally, the dream of a Canadian nation. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 03:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this is not the Canadian Dream. 65.94.253.16 ( talk) 05:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Love the concept! Failure of what should be a great article. Delete in its current form. Really hope its recreated though... Outback the koala ( talk) 08:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete if not swiftly improved. Unsourced, vague, POV, but on a sufficiently significant topic that there's a genuine danger of someone being misled if it's allowed to remain as it is. There's surely a good article to be written on Canadian national aspirations, but this isn't it. Just one or two authoritative sources indicating that this particular Canadian Dream is not the figment of someone's imagination would tip the balance in favour of keeping the article, however - so perhaps if the creator is reading this debate they could oblige? Barnabypage ( talk) 16:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
    • "There's surely a good article to be written on Canadian national aspirations." Upon reflection, and as a Canadian, that I think the Canadian nationalism article pretty much has it covered. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:14, 12 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. JForget 01:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Billy Koskinas

Billy Koskinas (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod denied without explanation. Player is not notable enough to pass WP:N or WP:Athlete. Drmies ( talk) 02:16, 11 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) 15:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Moveandstay

Moveandstay (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable online company lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Although, as the article points out, its name has appeared in some books and newspapers, I have not found anything beyond passing or list-type mentions (e.g., as in this travel book, or the one sentence about Moveandstay in this piece from bkmagazine.com), not substantial coverage of the company itself. Then you've got sources like this from a website called Gavroche.com, which reads like an advertisement: "Have a look at the website you will find a wide selection of rentals... Organize your holiday quietly with Move and Stay!" In sum, none of this amounts to significant coverage of the company itself from multiple independent reliable sources. PROD contested without comment.  Glenfarclas  ( talk) 18:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. As noted above, no evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. While the company's service may be novel, that doesn't mean the company is inherently notable. — C.Fred ( talk) 19:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Strange... there is a systematic deletion of the references I input... it seems that someone do not want the Wikipedia main editor to see these books...

I have given the references of at least 20 books(guides and travel + business books) that were talking about Moveandstay as a reliable source... Including Lonely planets (see http://books.google.com/books?q=moveandstay.com&btnG=Search+Books)

Our service is 9 years old and we are the number 1 provider of serviced apartments and serviced offices in the world

Please let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Efauvel ( talk • contribs) 02:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Be aware that you may be editing against out guidelines. Please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. -- œ ™ 09:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Dear Oe, I do not know what to do...

1. You gave me an example of article to get inspiration from and then I used a neutral tone and gave references for this article. 2. Someone (not you) tell me that it is advertising and delete the references 3. Then one editor helped to edit this article by bolding Moveandstay main word in first paragraph, removing some section and added other links. 4. I then put more references such as travel and business books and these are deleted again.

Please help me because I really do not know now how to comply with Wikipedia policy. If Wikipedia remove all travel books references and some neutral tones sentences, of course this can be taken as advertising. Let me know, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Efauvel ( talk • contribs) 10:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC) -- Efauvel ( talk) 15:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Please see Talk:Moveandstay, where I've made comments about what the aricle needs for improvement. — C.Fred ( talk) 17:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Efauvel, try reading the various links and pages that I others have pointed out to you. You say you want to comply with Wikipedia's policy yet I get the impression that you're not even reading any of these pages.. after all, you still aren't signing your posts even after it's been explained to you twice how to do this. In fact it's become quite clear that your only intention here is to advertise "your" company. As you stated in your post above: "Our service is 9 years old and we are the number 1 provider...", that statement is why I pointed you to the Conflict of interest guideline. What it means is that because you seem to have a close connection with the subject it's probably not a good idea for you to be editing this article at all. -- œ ™ 05:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Well, the question, which you haven't yet answered, is why your company should meet WP:CORP. This generally requires that it have been "the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." Yes, Fodor's and Lonely Planet are reliable sources. But they mention tons of things briefly, and a hole-in-the-wall restaurant isn't encyclopedically notable because Fodor's listed it among a dozen other restaurants as places to eat in some town. And if five travel guides all list the same dozen restaurants because that's all there is in this particular town, the restaurants have still not received significant coverage. Now, does Fodor's have a two-page section about a restaurant? Then you could at least make an argument. So if you can explain how your company has received " significant coverage"—that is, coverage of some substantial depth—in a reliable source, I'll be happy to listen. P.S., looks like I cross-posted with C.Fred, but I think the message is the same.  Glenfarclas  ( talk) 17:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 00:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. WP is not a directory and a spot-checking of the refs finds only directory/roundup-of-services/capsule/annotated listings, not in-depth reporting. "we are the number 1 provider of serviced apartments and serviced offices in the world" is a strong claim of notability (our Serviced apartment article says there are something like 20,000 such operators!). Prove it with specific cite from a reliable source. DMacks ( talk) 06:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC) reply

A website cited as reference in more than 30 travel and business books such as Lonely Planet is not good enough to be noticed by Wikipedia users? (I can give you the references if you wish... they were approved by one editor and then deleted by another one) We have also article from Washington Post. We list also 16,484 Serviced Apartments and 10,392 Serviced Offices. We do not have an article about this and nor would we put it on Wikipedia as it would be clearly seen as advertising. Thank you to let me know.-- Efauvel ( talk) 10:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Although mentioned in a number of sources, it does not appear that coverage is substantial.-- Pink Bull 05:28, 11 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. just a tad enough consensus on coverage to keep the article. Otherwise there was nowhere near consensus for deletion JForget 01:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Art Projects International

Art Projects International (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable commercial art gallery. Though the article cites several sources (and more can be found if you look), these involve oblique mentions, passing statements that so-and-so had a piece at this gallery, etc. So, for instance, the article has a citation to Barron's Magazine, but if you look at the piece, which the gallery helpfully excerpts here, you'll see it's just quotation concerning some artist, followed by a short sentence about "her roster." The other coverage I've found is similarly insubstantial. My PROD was removed with the comment, "[P]ublished book and content with multiple independent references added to page." However, the "book" is just a self-published commemorative piece, as you can see here, which of course has no bearing on notability. All told, this company simply fails WP:CORP.  Glenfarclas  ( talk) 07:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Art Projects International works with internationally acclaimed artists and cultural institutions, including major museums and foundations. The fact that Barron's and other major news organizations, including the New York Times, Art In America, Art News and Art Asia Pacific have interviewed and reviewed its exhibitions indicates the notable stature of the organization and works of the artists that are highlighted. If one actually reads the entire articles, it is evident that Art Projects International is a sufficient authority that notable major news organizations have sought interviews and comments on trends in Asian contemporary art. Links and highlights of critically acclaimed exhibitions at San Jose Museum of Art, Crow Collection of Asian Art, Queens Museum and The Vilcek Foundation indicate noteworthy and substantial support. -- Ajlegal ( talk) 21:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC) — Ajlegal ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Welcome to Wikipedia! I'm glad you picked this AfD for your very first edit!  Glenfarclas  ( talk) 07:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Can you provide a citation to a reliable source, please? Or anything that would relate to the criteria discussed WP:CORP? After all, if Art Projects International represents such vital and important artists, I'm sure it'll be substantially covered in the press, right?  Glenfarclas  ( talk) 07:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • As in preceding post, what is needed is not articles which cover the gallery's artists with no mention of API, but articles where API is at least a part of the article; reviews of shows at API demonstrate notice for the gallery's activities. Ty 17:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • You might like to use any such references in the article!!! I have done so with this one. [48] Ty 16:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply


  • Comment I have tagged this for rescue. Silver seren C 05:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep From the sources, I would say that the subject is notable enough to have it's own article. It seems to have a considerable part in the New York art world and even have growth dealings with China. Silver seren C 05:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Lacking in-depth coverage.-- Pink Bull 05:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Sourced, documented, and interestingly unique gallery... Modernist ( talk) 13:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The activities of the gallery get worthwhile coverage in sources. Ty 16:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Comment Cited sources show that the gallery's exhibitions and activities have received press coverage throughout its 17 year history. -- Nyuarsx ( talk) 00:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC) (Struck out duplicate vote —  Glenfarclas  ( talk) 17:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)) changed to a comment Nyuarsx ( talk) 13:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Any coverage is enough, and it receives some. Dream Focus 07:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: DreamFocus, I hope "any coverage" isn't the criterion you're using around here. WP:GNG (and WP:CORP) as for "significant coverage," which is quite a different thing.  Glenfarclas  ( talk) 07:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
— FT101 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • The only mention of API in your refs 1 and 2 is an image credit. Refs 3 and 4 are OK, as they state API collaboration in the shows. Ty 03:34, 17 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. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 21:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Forvo.com

Forvo.com (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An interesting site, but I don't believe it is notable. Doesn't appear to meet WP:WEB. The only indication of notability is not by a third-party source (it is the "about" page of the site in question), and I can find no reliable sources to back this up. I also cannot find any significant coverage for this website. Shirik ( Questions or Comments?) 04:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Delete-Google search failed to turn up anything notable about this subject. The article only has one source, the website itself. Dinosaur Dan1 ( talk) 22:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - The website has been mentioned in a couple of places across the web, including well known sites such as Lifehacker and Mashable - more are listed under the News seciont. To look for Forvo on Google try searching for "forvo -forvo.com" in order to remove self-references (also remove quotations). Also searching from the Spanish Google (google.es) will bring up some interesting results, since the original Forvo was in Spanish and the company that runs it also is from Spain. Although the following does not make it necessarily notable, the database has over 555.000 words and 450.000 pronunciations in 240 languages. Note: If this is kept, I would suggest it simply be called "Forvo" rather than "Forvo.com"
  • Note: It has also been recently (April 5th) mentioned on Smashing Magazine's Twitter [49] Updated ~ TheSun ( talk) 19:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC) ~ reply
  • Pages such as Emily Brontë have also been using Forvo as a pronunciation guide. Though perhaps not helping the case as notable, it is interesting to note. It shows how Forvo is becoming better known and used. ~ TheSun ( talk) 00:08, 8 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) 00:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources.-- Pink Bull 05:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Redacted vote. See below.-- Pink Bull 19:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply


  • Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren C 05:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I was able to find a number of publications that had articles on the website, almost all of them spanish publications. Not everything can be found in English, you have to look beyond that. I have added the sources I found to the article and they establish notability. Silver seren C 05:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Is the Spanish-language coverage both substantial and in reliable sources? If you respond affirmatively to both queries, I would happily redact my vote.-- Pink Bull 05:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
It's substantial, yes, there are a couple of sources entirely about the site. As for reliable sources, I don't know. I'm not sure what is reliable for Spanish sources. They appear to be from publications that would be reliable, so I would say yes. Silver seren C 19:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Okay, I've redacted my vote.-- Pink Bull 19:12, 11 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. A merge discussion (or even just a bold merge, for that matter), is highly encouraged. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 21:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Ifco tray

Ifco tray (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable product. DimaG ( talk) 04:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Keep These containers are everywhere in the food retail business - you've seen them if you've been to the greengrocers in many countries around the world. The only non Wiki-referential source I could find was from the manufacturer's website, so I added that link as a reference in the article. Suprising how few RS showed up in a G-search for something as ubiquitous as these. Even so, until someone comes up with a generic "Reusable plastic container" article, this is all we have. Geoff Who, me? 22:13, 29 March 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) 00:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Not sure. On the one hand, I sort of suspect there are sources out there (government reports and investment newsletters and trade magazines spring to mind), probably using some generic name rather than a brand name. But the article we have now seems kind of over-specific and short. Perhaps it could be merged into Crate#Plastic crates?
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Appears to lack coverage in reliable sources.-- Pink Bull 05:43, 11 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. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 21:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

List of vaporware

AfDs for this article:
List of vaporware (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The term "vaporware" might be notable in the software industry, but this list is not encyclopedic. It lists software that has been called "vaporware" by Wired News and some other outlets. I argue that it will never become encyclopedic because of the highly subjective nature of the term "vaporware". Our definition: "Vaporware describes a product…that has been announced by a developer…if there is significant doubt whether the product will actually be released." Even if it weren't subjective, the list would never be complete (therefore practically useless for research) because of the raw number of software products announced any given year.

  • Comment hmm, this is a tricky one for me. im going to have to think about it. I do want to inform the nominator that one of their arguments, their last one, that the list cannot be complete and is thus useless for research, is not a valid argument. this list, as is all information (theoretically) on WP, is about NOTABLE vaporware, so will always exclude at least some extremely nonnotable vaporware. even so, because the inclusion criteria, regardless of how well defined they are, will always be subject to some debate, and since we really dont know the complete set of things we could call vaporware, then it MUST always be incomplete, and thats ok for WP. some lists are by definition complete, like, say, the List of centuries. this is not. their other points are potentially valid, though. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 01:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
I see your point, and I could be wrong about the list needing to be 100% complete, but this isn't a list of "notable vaporware". It's a list of (arguably) reliable sources that have used the subjective term "vaporware" to describe the development of a software program, mostly video games. I can't think of a use for that kind of information, and as somebody in the last afd mentioned, it invites people to come here and add subjective things. — Sebquantic ( talk) 03:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
thanks for your acknowledgement, and i think your other arguments for deletion are very compelling, and need to be thoroughly worked through. I suspect the term may be too ambiguous to be used as the basis for a list, similar to "box office bomb", or other industry specific catchphrases. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 23:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but cleanup. For what should essentially be a stand-alone list it's pretty wordy but most entries have their own articles. Get rid of the fluff and keep links to vaporware with articles, then it'll follow the usual guidelines.-- 70.80.234.196 ( talk) 04:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep some stuff is famous for being vaporware, or being vaporware in condition for a long time. (Duke Nukem 4, for instance... or Windows 1.0 which took forever to come out) 65.94.253.16 ( talk) 05:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This is a non-encyclopedic list, we should NOT have a category for this and if we do, it should be deleted as well. Too ambiguous and problematic to possibly maintain. Subjective lists have no place on Wikipedia, sorry. JBsupreme ( talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 06:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The computer business is notorious for vapourware and its nice to see a wikipedia article about the subject. Its well referenced and although it could be improved should not be removed. -- Gibnews ( talk) 10:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Gibnews David V Houston ( talk) 12:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Gibnews doesn't actually make a compelling argument to retain this subjective list. Is that all you have to say? JBsupreme ( talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 21:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. ( Search video game sources) • Gene93k ( talk) 22:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 22:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 22:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and trim to sourced statements by RS calling list entries vaporware. There's no reason that such a list isn't encyclopedic: vaporware is an established concept that appears routinely in IT/gaming industry press. Jclemens ( talk) 23:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Are you volunteering to clean up and maintain the page? -- intgr  [talk] 01:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
      • I've removed the unsourced entries now. I also removed those articles from "vaporware" categories, and that made me think - is a Vaporware category and sub-categories something we want, too? It has the same problem as this list - people tagging articles as a matter of opinion. Mdwh ( talk) 11:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I would tend towards Jclemens choice above, except that i suspect the list would shrink too much to be useful, and i also am concerned about the labeling of any software or software company with this epithet. its POV to cite the phrase being used if its not a significant opinion. the word has too many shades of meaning, and when taken out of context, ends up like "bomb" or "in development hell" in movies (some lists of films/projects in dev hell were deleted for the same reasons being proposed here). reviewing some of the items listed, many link to articles where the ONLY mention of "vaporware" is in their category listing, with no reliable sources quoted. the article may describe a history which justifies the brand, but i would still prefer that only products which were labelled vaporware by a major reviewer be called such. i think the category may have to go too. it seems to subjective, too informal, too gossipy for a list or category. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 23:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per my previous nomination. I think an article of notable vaporware products would be useful, IFF it had a paragraph written for each entry explaining what happened and why it's notable. But then it wouldn't be a "list" alone anymore. -- intgr  [talk] 01:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep (but cleanup). The article as it stands is messy, but clearly there is room for a list of notable vapo[u]rware on Wikipedia. Richard W.M. Jones ( talk) 17:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - As a list of "things that never existed" it is not, and can never be, encyclopedic content. Even if confined to "things that reliable sources have called vapourware" a complete list would be "far too long to be of value", which per WP:SALAT is an indicator of an inappropriate topic for a list. - DustFormsWords ( talk) 07:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I've tried to maintain the list so that it's at least based on what a 3rd party source lists, and not what any random editor thinks (which is a recipe for disaster), but there's still the problem that it's a vague term and a matter of opinion - and often a label that's used to ridicule a product or company. Whilst Wired's list might be notable for example, I'm not sure this is really enough for its own article. Particularly notable and well referenced articles can be mentioned either in vaporware, or it can be stated on the article for the product itself (e.g., Duke Nukem Forever) - I'm not sure a list is needed. Mdwh ( talk) 11:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as an unmaintainable list. A few of these games would certainly pass WP:N and WP:V on an individual basis, but on the whole the list will always boil down to original research. If a particular game is noted for being vaporware then it can be mentioned in that particular article, added to Category:Vaporware and mentioned (again, only if it's particularly notable for such) in the Vaporware article. As much as this list tries to meet criteria, it will always have the factor of opinion driving it, whether critical or not, making it not verifiable. -- Teancum ( talk) 14:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as it is difficult to see how this list can be maintainable under the circumstances. RFerreira ( talk) 18:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete It's an ambiguous way of labelling something as having not been completed or comercially released, one which is actively disputed by fans of whatever piece of software is in question. Vapourware is one of those terms where applying the label seems to be more about increasing the label's profile than classifying the thing in question in a meaningful way, if you get my drift. There are numerous alternative ways to catalogue unreleased (but notable) software without compiling a list using this divisive term. Any strongly associated games etc. like the last Duke Nukem can be covered as examples in the vapourware article itself. Someone another 06:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Note: Vaporware is being rewritten, and includes a lot of the examples still on this list. Either because they're notable (Ovation, DNF), or because they help describe how the term's meaning has broadened over time (Secure Digital Music INitiative) — Sebquantic ( talk) 12:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as this list fails WP:NOT#DIR as it has no verifiable source, without which it is just listcruft without any externally validated rationale for inclusion in Wikipedia. A list needs some form of external validation in accordance with WP:BURDEN to demonstrate that it is not entirely novel or the product of original research, and looking at the content of this list, its lack of souring that suggest it is entirely original research. -- Gavin Collins ( talk| contribs) 07:56, 18 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) 18:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Blank State

Blank State (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional/ WP:COI article for a self-published book of questionable notability. Provided references are either primary sources or local media. No significant coverage from established independent reliable sources. TheRealFennShysa ( talk) 23:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - Article is promotional in nature. "Blank Slate" by Dave Proctor, and published by Wooden Rocket Press (founded by Dave Proctor) has been created by user:Dvproctor, and the above keep vote is by user:Woodenrocketpress. Aside from these conflict of interest issues, there is the concern about sourcing. The only independent sourcing in the article is sourced to two University of Toronto newspapers. This doesn't establish notability. My own searches find no coverage outside of this. -- Whpq ( talk) 17:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not even in WorldCat. I might have deleted it by speedy, as G11, promotional. DGG ( talk ) 17:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. The University of Toronto newspapers mentioned aren't jokes, and many of their staff have gone on to prestigious media jobs, and others to academic positions. Circulation for each is about 20,000. More to the point, they take their cultural coverage seriously, which is why the Varsity calls its entertainment section Review rather than Entertainment. On that basis, I think that these two student newspapers are reliable sources. PureGrainAudio.com also appears to be a reliable online source, on the basis of the explanation at http://puregrainaudio.com/about

I think a review in The Varsity is a strong indication for notability in a Canadian novel. The article seems reasonably neutral, despite the COI issues. At the same time, I am not impressed by the absence of the book from WorldCat, which is why this is only a weak keep. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 19:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply

not a formal requirement, but we've usually had reviews from at least two publications for books passing afd. And I do not accept the reviews of even a major student newspaper as showing notability for a book or any other work by a student or alumnus of that college. DGG ( talk ) 20:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I have a problem with someone writing a WP page about their own book. If it becomes notable in the future, someone independent from it will create an article. In addition, I'm having trouble finding any RS that demonstrate notability. PDCook ( talk) 21:04, 16 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) 15:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Mesrine (musical)

Mesrine (musical) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Independent concept album/musical of questionable notability. No coverage listed in independent third-party sources, no reviews, no assertations of importance. TheRealFennShysa ( talk) 23:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I also could not find any proof of notability online.-- Banana ( talk) 22:48, 11 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) 15:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Allegra Carpenter

Allegra Carpenter (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ENT. A quick look at the subject's Fashion Model Directory profile shows a very minor model's career. The models.com credit the article mentions is a single sentence.  Mbinebri  talk ← 23:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - not notable enough. Deb ( talk) 17:06, 11 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. Rough consensus is that none of the available sources serve to sufficiently establish notability. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 21:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science

International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail WP:ORG. Known in the fringe circles the professional organization to which cold fusion researchers belong, but due to the general ignoring by secondary and independent sources of this field in general, this organization does not have the requisite independent notice we require at Wikipedia for organizations. See the related deletion discussion for this society's secretary. ScienceApologist ( talk) 21:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

This seems a rather blatant attempt to discredit serious research and science, just because it is in an unpopular (untrendy) area. If this work is not considered scientific, are you going to delete all the articles about religions, too?
What exactly is the point in deleting the page in any case? The page is a useful starting point. quota ( talk) 07:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Unlike most notable religions, there are no independent sources which discuss this group. ScienceApologist ( talk) 15:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply


  • Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren C 08:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I have added some sources that show notability for the subject. Silver seren C 08:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
You've done no such thing. You've added a number of external links to cold fusion advocacy websites. How does this establish independent notability? ScienceApologist ( talk) 15:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. While the whole cold fusion area seems to have the scientific merit usually found in perpetual motion research, the subject of this article has received enough coverage and has been cited several times in scientific publications as a main resource for research in this area (by sources including the Wiley Encyclopedia of Energy and Springer). The society also sponsors an international conference in Condensed Matter Nuclear Sciences. Fleischmann and Pons have a lot to answer for, but this organization appears to be notable.-- Michig ( talk) 11:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Michig, what are the exact Springer & wiley mentions? Do they refer to the organization, or are they refs to papers presented at their conferences? DGG ( talk ) 21:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The Springer one is from the Journal of Fusion Energy ( [50]) - I can't access the whole paper unfortunately. I also found this from a researcher at Osaka University. The Wiley one is here - a sample of a publication from [ John Wiley & Sons].-- Michig ( talk) 06:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
I just checked all these papers. All of them refer to papers presented at their conference and NOT the organization. ScienceApologist ( talk) 00:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Just to be clear, the Wiley one includes in a list of resources: "The International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science is an independent, international nonprofit organization registered in England which represents and supports researchers in the field of condensed matter nuclear science. ISCMNS organizes scientific meetings, supports communication within the scientific community, and provides recognition for outstanding achievements in the CMNS field.", and the Takahashi one includes "The International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science is an independent, international nonprofit organization registered in England which represents and supports researchers in the field of condensed matter nuclear science. ISCMNS organizes scientific meetings, supports communication within the scientific community, and provides recognition for outstanding achievements in the CMNS field." Not significant coverage, I agree, and likely based on the same 'official' description of the society. -- Michig ( talk) 05:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Using Takahashi, an ardent cold fusion proponent, as a way to establish the encyclopedic nature of this organization does not seem to be on the up-and-up to me. The Encyclopedia of Energy is essentially a glorified Citizendium that was singled out by the cold fusion community to be used as a propaganda piece for their advocacy. (You'll note that the only nuclear power entries for the encyclopedia to be reserved are those associated with cold fusion.) So, sure, if you let a cold fusion advocate wax eloquent in your encyclopedia about cold fusion, they'll probably get around to mentioning this particular organization. How does this make the subject encyclopedic or reliably sourced from our end? ScienceApologist ( talk) 15:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral the organization may (in some circles) be notorious rather than famous, but 'notorious' is notable, no? OTOH, the article as stands doesn't really seem to me to have much useful information. David V Houston ( talk) 12:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Masquerading as a valid scientific organization. In-universe coverage from cold fusion fringe proponents does not show notability, and the independent coverage can essentially be summed up by appending "a society of cold fusion proponents" as appropriate where the Society is mentioned elsewhere. - 2/0 ( cont.) 17:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The members of the society seem to be perfectly respectable scientists, almost all from well-known scientific institutions, and their publications are peer-reviewed. Most have nothing to do with 'cold fusion'. No masquerade seems evident, and the organization is properly constituted. I agree the article could use some fleshing out. quota ( talk) 11:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
    • That they "seem" to you to be one way or another is irrelevant. All have something to do with cold fusion. I'm not even sure how you are coming to this judgment. ScienceApologist ( talk) 00:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
    • It's clear they all have some interest in the field that the organization covers, and the field includes topics similar to 'cold fusion'. But looking at the publications of some of the members shows that they have much wider interests, and not primarily in 'cold fusion'. Sorry I wasn't more clear. As to their respectability, they are members of respected institutions, including MIT, SRI, GSU, ENEA, etc. So the organization is established, scientific, runs and organizes conferences, helps publish papers, and is undoubtably the focus for research in its field. All of the above make it notable. (Why delete the article anyway? To save a few bytes of storage?) quota ( talk) 12:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
      • The field does not just "include" cold fusion. The field is cold fusion. The cold fusion community renamed their subject Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (LENR) and Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (CMNS) to avoid the stigma of "cold fusion". That the society has members who are active at prestigious institutions is irrelevant to their notability and relevance for Wikipedia. A number of people I know at prestigious institutions are members of a wide range of organizations -- many of which are not encyclopedic. The membership of the organization, unless noted by third-party independent sources as being notable is irrelevant to our discussion here. The rationale behind deleting this article is simply that it is impossible to write a neutral and source-based article since the only sources that are extant which discuss the society are primary sources supporting the goals and aims of the society. No independent notice means that an organization necessarily fails our notability guideline. Please read WP:ORG for more. ScienceApologist ( talk) 15:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Scientific publications that mention these sorts of things mention this. Click the Google news search at the top of the AFD. Credible news organizations do speak of this organization, so its notable. Dream Focus 23:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply
ZPEnergy is not a "credible news organization". ScienceApologist ( talk) 00:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete This is a fringe organization and the only sources I've been able to find for them is ZPEnergy, which seems to be a news portal that is currently seeking corespondents from its discussion groups. No way does that pass the RS smell test. Most other references to the group appear to be made by members of the group. AniMate 01:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete ZP energy is not a credible source. it does not have wide multiple sources. LibStar ( talk) 02:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I reviewed all the sources, and there are none which establish notability. Apparently there is not even a mention in anything approaching a reliable source per the WP standsrds. I am not making any judgment about the reality-bais of sites such as www.zpenergy.com, I'm merely saying that such mentions on a cold fusion website, and mentions like the brief note here cannot give us the remotest possibility of writing an NPOV article. Becritical ( talk) 16:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete- after checking all the sources in the article and having a bit of a poke around on Google, I agree entirely with Becritical's analysis. Reyk YO! 23:33, 16 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) 15:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply

William Collis

William Collis (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail WP:BIO. I am not seeing third-party sources that establish his notability. See the related AfD for the international society of which he is a secretary. ScienceApologist ( talk) 21:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Doesn't appear to be a widely-cited academic, and there is nothing else to suggest notability.-- Michig ( talk) 11:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Has a job is about all this says. Bluehotel ( talk) 14:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete WP:PROF. - 2/0 ( cont.) 17:53, 11 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) 15:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Dominic S John

Dominic S John (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I declined the CSD here because some notability was asserted, and PRODded it instead. The PROD was removed without comment. I can find nothing about this person that isn't created by themselves (blogs, flickr, myfdb pages) both under the article name, under "Dom John", "Dominic Sebastian John", or "Dominic John". (note there's an unrelated article of a pianist under the name Dominic John, which was also unsourced though I'm trying to fix that now). Black Kite 18:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:35, 11 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) 15:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply

3B/RTR Spades

AfDs for this article:
3B/RTR Spades (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a game guide. Also, there are no sources for this article. A Google search for the game returns no information on this game except from Wikipedia mirrors. ctzmsc3| talk 17:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Not a game guide. Not a redirect term either. Cynof Gavuf 07:10, 11 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) 18:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Terrell Golden

Terrell Golden (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Never played professionally, fails WP:ATH. Non-notable college career. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. — Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Article was created as a result of an AFC request when Golden was on the Eagles' roster. Of course, he was later cut before the season started, so I have no objection to the outcome of the AfD. Enigma msg 17:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and no other assertion of notability is given.  Frank  |   talk  18:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep article has cited sources, there appear to be many more on the web, and subject matter appears notable through general notability guideline. As an alternative, the data could be merged into the college team article for that year. While I have a problem with the content of the article (it does not appear to "strongly assert" notability) it's borderline to me and could be re-written. I'm not particularly enthusiastic about this subject so I'm not going to do that, but someone else might.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 03:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - fails WP:Athlete as he has never played professionally. I don't see separate compliance with WP:GNG. Of the sources, 2 links are broken, one is an incidental mention and two consist of college stats. Further, I note that he is not considered significant enough to warrant a mention in the Penn State Nittany Lions football article. Bridgeplayer ( talk) 20:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Comment not being listed in the Penn State football program Wikipedia page is not a reason to delete, as Wikipedia is far from complete. Google News shows a good 500+ articles.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 23:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Of the hits on Google News, few seem to be both independent and about him (the only one I saw that seriously seemed to be was from Sports Illustrated). There seemed to be a fair bit of mention of his signing with the Eagles, but as he was dropped without playing for them, I don't suppose that counts as notable. Several other hits seemed to be of other people entirely. David V Houston ( talk) 17:41, 18 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) 15:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Travelfusion

Travelfusion (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. No evidence of notability - just another travel search engine, not the biggest, not the best, not award winning, etc. References are all based on PR material. Fails WP:COMPANY, WP:RS andy ( talk) 11:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

References are not based on PR material and in fact are Reliable Sources based on the WP:RS standards of "news organisations." Tnooz, EyeForTravel and TravelMole are all considered to be industry leaders in travel technology media and therefore would be acceptable as reliable news organisations. The company is also the only one of its competitors to use location-based trip planning through GoogleMaps, allowing users to plug in specific geographic data/addresses to find the most convenient travel options. Kefinlondon ( talk) 10:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)KefinLondon reply

  • Of course they're not reliable sources! They are clearly rewrites of press releases - and sometimes not even rewrites. E.g. ref #2: "TRAVELfusion, a world leader in travel commerce, announces the launch of…" and ref #5: "TRAVELfusion, a world leader in travel commerce, announces the launch of…" andy ( talk) 12:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • And your argument against Tnooz as a reliable source? Would you be more comfortable if I removed the EyeForTravel references then? Kefinlondon ( talk) 12:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)KefinLondon reply
  • The reliability of these particular publishers is irrelevant. WP:RS clearly states that reliability is affected by the publisher, the author and the piece of work itself. An advert in the NYT, for example, is not reliable while a properly sourced piece written by a journalist would be. Rewritten PR material is not reliable. andy ( talk) 12:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:32, 11 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) 18:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Where's Olivia?

AfDs for this article:
Where's Olivia? (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
List Of Where's Olivia? Episodes (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable direct-to-video sitcom, search returns only false positives. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 09:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:32, 11 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. After evaluating the consensus here, it appears that the subject does not meet the relevant notability guidelines. NW ( Talk) 03:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Stephen Canning

AfDs for this article:
Stephen Canning (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability. This is no black-and-white case, but it is my suggestion that no single achievement (yet) of Stephen's accrues suitable notability, and that in examining the general notability, we find that sustained coverage is present in local sources, but not in national ones. Whilst the GNG makes no direct mention of a "national" source, I believe it is in the spirit of both the GNG and specific guidelines ( WP:POLITICIAN in this case) to limit notability to people near the top of their field. Taking the subject's most easily assessed achievement (Chairman of a Con.Fut. group), I find that there are many such groups and therefore they are not "province-wide" or similar. In fact, the bar set by WP:POLITICIAN is higher than Stephen's level. - Jarry1250  Humorous? Discuss. 08:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. As a local council candidate, falls well below the standard of WP:POLITICIAN. The coverage of this guy is nowhere near sufficient enough to pass the WP:GNG. The news source cited is plainly unreliable; reliable news sources do not give one-sided coverage of candidates plus a gratuitous link to the candidate's blog [51]. It is critical to uphold the reliable sources part of the GNG because without reliable sources we have unreliable articles. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 18:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The position as the youngest permanent advisor to the Home Secretary which remains notable in two aspects - one being the position of an advisor is notable in itself the second being the achievement of youngest advisor is also notable. These days the extra-Parliamentary coalition of conservative groups is becoming more important in preparing the Tory Party for government, much as happened in the 1970s. The YBF is a part of this and as such the people behind it are of note. I also direct you to the Wikipedia Bio guidelines for politcians in which point number two states "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterionof "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." In this case the subject is an unelected candidate of office and has significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. In this case we can clearly say that there is significant coverage to satisfy the Wikipedia General notability Guideline that "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. -- Swbcanning ( talk) 13:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 23:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k ( talk) 23:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Local political activist who fails WP:POLITICIAN. Mentions in the local party newsletter do not get you notability in the Wikipedia sense. Ray Talk 00:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep per Swbcanning. Although it's certainly on the line... Outback the koala ( talk) 07:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete in mainspace; possibly convert to user page -- Swbcanning is presumably the subject of the article. I therefore give little credence to his views. The article certainly has good citations, but that does not prevent the subject being NN. An "unelected candidate" almost invariably fails WP:POLITICIAN. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep Although questionable in my opinion swbcanning's argument is pretty thorough and solid hwoever I'd reiterate my previous point on the main discussion page that some other sort of independent source would be nice. Jasonbruges ( talk) 17:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Total fail on WP:POLITICIAN and too much WP:COI on the rest. Andy Dingley ( talk) 18:44, 14 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) 15:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply

2 Faces

2 Faces (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Rapper that seems to fail WP:MUSICBIO. The only Ghits I could find were YouTube and unsourced wikis. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete no notability shown, lacks coverage in reliable sources. duffbeerforme ( talk) 09:35, 12 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) 15:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Scourge (Band)

Scourge (Band) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non- notable band which has not yet even released an album. The article provides a few sources, but these are an interview and some unreliable website coverage. In most of it, there's practically no mention of this band at all. Fails WP:BAND. PROD contested by anonymous user without comment.  Glenfarclas  ( talk) 05:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:29, 11 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) 15:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Cinema 1-2-3

Cinema 1-2-3 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

notability PacificBoy 04:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:28, 11 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. JForget 00:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

George Patterson (psychologist)

George Patterson (psychologist) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

His biggest claim to notability is being part of the trio who sang the Gilligan's Island theme song. Clarityfiend ( talk) 03:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Nominators right. The sources are all to some website's primary page and those don't have enough in ways of assertion to keep. Cynof Gavuf 07:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep Enough there to establish notability, although it's really on the line. Reliable sources - the acknowledgment from the President of the US and Gov. of Cali. stand out also. Outback the koala ( talk) 07:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Outback the koala ( talk) 01:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC) reply
    • What reliable sources? duffbeerforme ( talk) 11:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC) reply
      • Comment. Good point. There are none. Even the ones for the Sierra Tucson Treatment Center and the Glendale Memorial Hospital don't mention him, as far as I can see. Plus, you'd think he would note that on his resume (fifth reference). Clarityfiend ( talk) 20:14, 15 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 Jesse Fritsch. Redirecting on the advice of the only !voter. Consider this a no consensus close. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Sayvinyl

Sayvinyl (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Neutral bump up from speedy. Please see discussion on the article's talk page. I have no opinion. Chaser ( talk) 02:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Why don't they just do it? If they want it deleted, then they should do it if they want it done so bad. Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 05:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Jesse Fritsch. award isn't good enough in my eyes, music in some ads or playing on a seemingly non notable show doesn't make notable. sandiegoreader looks user edited. legacy.signonsandiego.com coverage is trivial. skratchmagazine is short and is of questionably reliability. I found no significant coverage in independent sources. duffbeerforme ( talk) 11:45, 14 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) 15:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Mian Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq Zia

Mian Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq Zia (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I removed the {{ db-person}} because notability is asserted. However, searches for sources return no results to confirm that this person exists. I used this Google search (with the search term: "صُوفِيّ میاں محمد ضياء الحق ضياء") and this Google search (with the search term: "Mian Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq Zia"). If/when a reliable source is provided to confirm the subject's existence, I will withdraw this nomination. Cunard ( talk) 01:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:22, 11 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. JForget 00:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Master Title Deed

Master Title Deed (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a hoax or an article about a non-notable hoax. See also two references I added to the article's Talk page. Nurg ( talk) 00:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:20, 11 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) 15:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Wayne Loren Wilson

Wayne Loren Wilson (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable author. DimaG ( talk) 00:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I can't even verify he exists from Google books, scholar, or news; all of which produce Zero Ghits. (Go ahead, try it yourself from the links above). I found only 38 hits on Bing, including this article, and most are duds, like his NY Times listing. Bearian ( talk) 20:36, 12 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) 15:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Doghouse Fan Series: As Friends Rust

Doghouse Fan Series: As Friends Rust (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(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☯ 17:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:19, 11 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. A quick google search indicates it's not a hoax though. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Two Steps Waltz

Two Steps Waltz (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable dance. Might be a hoax. DimaG ( talk) 00:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:17, 11 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. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 23:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC) reply

I-OOA

I-OOA (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable software DimaG ( talk) 04:16, 28 March 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) 00:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:13, 11 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_April_11&oldid=1142642837"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE